OSWER Directive 9360.3-09
PB96-963409
EPA540/R-96/04t
January 1998
SUPERFUND REMOVAL PROCEDURES
SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
U.S. Environmental.Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
NOTICE
The procedures set out in this document are intended solely for the guidance of Government
personnel. They are not intended, nor can they be relied upon, to create any rights enforceable by
any party in litigation with the United States. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) officials may
decide to follow the guidance provided in this document, or to act at variance with the guidance,
based on an analysis of site circumstances. The Agency also reserves the right to change this
guidance at any time without public notice.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Notice ii
List of Exhibits vi
Overview l
Off-Site Storage, Treatment, and Disposal Procedures 3
Overview 3
Selection of an Off-Site Option : 3
Selection of an Off-Site Facility and Determination of Acceptability 4
Notification of Out-of-State Shipments 6
Recordkeeping, Manifests, and Reporting 7
Land Disposal Restrictions and Additional Requirements
for PCBs and Dioxins , 9
Overview 9
Land Disposal Restrictions 9
Consideration of LDRs During Removal Actions 11
Additional Disposal Requirements for PCBs and Dioxins 14
Innovative Treatment Technologies 15
Overview 15
Initiatives for Innovative Technologies 16
Guidelines for Selecting Innovative Technologies : 16
Technical Support for OSCs 17
Provision for Alternate Water Supply 19
Overview 19
Action Levels for Initiating a Removal Action 19
Implementing the Removal Action - Cleanup Standards 23
Use of Institutional Contrpls at Removal Action Sites 25
Overview 25
Use of Institutional Controls 25
in
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Removal Actions in Floodplains/Wetlands 27
Overview 27
Federal Policies and Procedures 27
Conducting Removal Actions in Floodplains/Wetlands 28
Radioactive Wastes .31
Overview 31
Responding to Releases of Radioactive Wastes 31
Naturally Occurring Substances 33
Overview 33
Responding to Releases of Naturally Occurring Substances 33
Conducting Temporary Relocations at Removal Action Sites 35
Overview , 35
Permanent Relocations 35
Temporary Relocations 35
The Relocation Process -36
Residential Relocation Assistance 36
Business Relocation Assistance ....' 37
Personal Property 37
Use of Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Health
Consultations at Removal Action Sites 39
Overview 39
Use of ATSDR Health Consultations -39
Removal Actions Under the Federal Response Plan 41
Overview ; 41
Federal Response Plan 41
Emergency Support Function #10: Hazardous Materials 43
OSC Responsibilities Under ESF #10 44
Mission Assignments 45
IV
-------
tABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Continuous Releases of Hazardous Substances 49
Overview 49
Facility Reporting Requirements 49
Risk Evaluation: The Priority Assessment Model 50
Responding to Significant Hazards 51
Appendix A. References , A-1
Appendix B. Key Words Index B-I
-------
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1: RCRA Hazardous Waste LDR Final Rulemakings 12
Exhibit 2: Decision Flow Diagrams for RAL Methodology 22
Exhibit 3: Emergency Support Functions 42
Exhibit 4: Available Guidance on Continuous Release Reporting 50
VI
-------
This document is part of a ten-volume series of guidance documents collectively titled the Superfund
Removal Procedures. These stand-alone volumes update and replace Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response (OSWER) Directive 9360.0-3B, the single-volume Superfund Removal
Procedures manual, issued in February 1988.
Each volume in the series is dedicated to a particular aspect of the removal process and includes a
volume-specific Table of Contents, Reference List, and Key Words Index. The series comprises the
following nine procedural volumes:
The Removal Response Decision: Site Discovery to Response Decision
Action Memorandum Guidance
Response Management: Removal Action Start-Up to Close-Out
Removal Enforcement Guidance for On-Scene Coordinators
Public Participation Guidance for On-Scene Coordinators: Community Relations and the
Administrative Record
Removal Response Reporting
Special Circumstances
Guidance on the Consideration of ARARs During Removal Action*
State Participation.
In addition, the series includes an Overview volume, containing a comprehensive Table of Contents,
List of Exhibits, Key Words Index, List of Acronyms, and Glossary, for use as a quick reference.
This document summarizes the relevant guidance and statutory authorities that On-Scene
Coordinators (OSCs) must follow in a variety of special and complex cases. Appendix A provides a
comprehensive list of supporting guidance documents that may be consulted for additional
information on relevant topics. Bracketed numbers [#] appear throughout the text to indicate specific
references in Appendix A. Consult the referenced documents for a more detailed explanation of
removal program policies and procedures affecting removal actions during the circumstances noted in
this volume. In addition, appropriate sections of statutes and regulations are cited throughout the text,
with a full citation of each statute and regulation in Appendix A. Appendix B contains the Key
Words Index.
The Superfund program deals with a variety of complex site-specific environmental, technical, and
institutional issues. In the removal program, there is little time for OSCs to become familiar with or
vii
-------
research special circumstances because they must often respond quickly to err.c: -encies that'pose a
threat to human health, welfare, or the environment. This document provides an overview of the
most common special circumstances at removal action sites.
Situations known as special circumstances may occur during or as a result of a removal action, such
as actions in floodplains or wetlands or actions involving radioactive wastes or naturally occurring
substances. Other situations may warrant that OSCs implement actions not typically used, such as the
use of institutional controls or innovative treatment technologies. For other removal actions, the most
effective treatment of some hazardous substances may require consideration of off-site storage,
treatment, or disposal. In each of these situations, supplemental procedures may be necessary tp
follow statutory provisions and address the public's concerns about the removal action.
''tyg.
OSCs should follow supplemental procedures when special circumstances
occur at removal action sites.
viii
-------
OVERVIEW
On-Scene Coordinators must comply with the procedures that apply to all Fund-financed removal
actions to the extent practicable, considering the exigencies of the situation. In addition, OSCs
are responsible for following specific procedures and requirements that apply to special or
complex cases. This guidance will assist OSCs in complying with the supplemental requirements
for:
Off-site storage, treatment, and disposal, including notification of out-of-State waste
shipments;
Land disposal restrictions and additional requirements for polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs) and dioxins;
Innovative treatment technologies;
Provision of alternate water supplies;
Use of institutional controls;
* Removal actions in floodplains/wetlands;
* Radioactive wastes;
Naturally occurring substances;
Conducting temporary relocations at removal action sites;
, Use of Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) health consultations
at removal action sites;
Removal actions under the Federal Response Plan; and
» Continuous releases of hazardous substances.
Due to the nature of responding to emergencies, OSCs may encounter other unique situations not
described in this guidance that require following specific procedures and requirements. In these
instances, OSCs should contact the appropriate Regional Coordinator at Headquarters for further
guidance.
Each of these special circumstances and associated supplemental requirements are described
separately in this volume. Compliance with these policies is required, except in cases where the
EPA OSC or other appropriate Regional official determines that the exigencies of the situation
do not allow for full compliance without endangering human health, welfare, or the environment
In such cases, the OSC should contact the appropriate Regional Coordinator for guidance on
determining if site situations warrant an exemption. The OSC should use the Action
-------
Overview
Memorandum to'document any deviations from the policies required for special circumstances.
More detailed information can be found in Superfund Removal Procedures Action Memorandum
Guidance [1],
-------
Off-Site Storage, Treatment,
and Disposal Procedures
Overview
OSCs must follow the procedures described in §300.440 of the National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP, 40 CFR Part 300) when implementing off-site
response actions under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980, as amended, (CERCLA). Section 121(d)(3) of CERCLA requires
hazardous substances removed from CERCLA sites to be transferred only to facilities that are
operating in compliance with RCRA, the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), or other
applicable Federal laws or regulations, and all applicable State requirements. The NCP directs
CERCLA wastes to EPA-approved facilities, thus avoiding potential environmental problems that
could result from improper disposal. OSCs should be aware of the Agency's objective that
response decisions show consideration of, and a.preference for, treatment, recycling, and reuse
as alternatives to land disposal.
Section 300.440 of the NCP establishes the criteria and procedures for determining whether
facilities are acceptable for the off-site receipt of CERCLA waste from CERCLA-authorized or
-funded response actions and outlines the CERCLA wastes and actions affected by the criteria.1
The rule also establishes procedures for notification of unacceptabiliry, appeals of unacceptability
determinations, and re-evaluation of unacceptabiliry determinations. The off-site criteria in
§300.440 of the NCP, which were finalized in 1993 (58 F& 49200, September 22, 1993),
supersede EPA's Off-Site Policy (OSWER Directive No. 9834.11, November 13, 1987).
Selection of an Off-Site Option
OSCs play a critical role in selecting an off-site option and ensuring the effective implementation
of §300.440 of the NCP. For facilities with a RCRA permit or interim status, OSCs must
determine if the permit or status authorizes: (1) receipt of the wastes that would be transported
to the facility, and (2) the process contemplated for the wastes.
In designing a removal action and estimating the total project cost, OSCs should determine the
need to transport wastes off-site and select the most suitable type of storage, treatment, or
disposal. Historically, land disposal has been the method of choice due to lower cost; however,
the Agency recommends that OSCs consider treatment, reuse, or recycling before land disposal
unless:
These technologies are not reasonably available given the exigencies of the situation;
1 As defined at § 300.440(aXl) of the NCP, CERCLA wastes include hazardous substances, pollutants, or
contaminants as defined under CERCLA sections 101( 14) and 101(33). CERCLA hazardous substances are defined
in 40 CFR 300.5.
-------
Off-Site Storage, Treatment, and Disposal Procedures
Interim storage is not feasible; or
These methods pose a significant environmental hazard.
As time permits prior to initiating the removal action, OSCs should conduct a more detailed
comparison of all technically feasible disposal options prior to drafting and obtaining approval
of the Action Memorandum. Factors the OSC should consider in this analysis include, but are
not limited to:
* Types of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants Hazardous substances,
pollutants, or contaminants may be compatible or incompatible, affecting their
preparation for off-site transport as well as available types of treatment or storage (e.g.,
PCB storage requirements).
Hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant quantities The amount of hazardous
substances, pollutants, or contaminants to be disposed of may limit treatment and
disposal options based on the availability of facilities and transportation.
Transportation The distance and method of transport to the treatment/disposal facility
affects cost as well as potential safety of the population and environment along the
transport route.
* Cost As with other response activities, cost should be reasonable; response personnel,
however, should noc simply select the least costly off-site option. Rather, cost must be
balanced against the threat involved and the Agency's preference for alternatives to land
disposal.
Potential for Threat to Public Health Disposal of CERCLA hazardous substances,
pollutants, or contaminants in landfills may transfer health and environmental threats to
other media. Section 300.440 of the NCP is designed to prevent this threat by requiring
the transfer of CERCLA wastes to environmentally sound facilities.
Based on the analysis of off-site options, the OSC should make a preliminary determination about
whether off-site disposal is needed and, if necessary, what the preferred off-site storage,
treatment, and/or disposal option should be.
Selection of an Off-Sita Facility and Determination of Acceptability
After determining the need to transport wastes off-site and making a preliminary determination
on the most appropriate off-site option, the OSC should locate a facility, as well as a unit within
the facility, that can receive the CERCLA wastes within the time frame specified in the Action
Memorandum. Such facilities must have received acceptability status by the Agency before
receiving any CERCLA wastes.
A determination.of acceptability may involve a compliance and release inspection. For all RCRA
Subtide C facilities, a facility-wide investigation (e.g., a RCRA Facility Assessment (RFA) or a
Preliminary Assessment/Site Inspection (PA7SI) by the responsible agency is necessary to
-------
Off-Site Storage, Treatment, and Disposal Procedures
determine if a release has occurred, or if there is a substantial threat of a release prior to Us initial
use for the receipt of off-site CERCLA wastes. The Agency should rely on all available
information, including information on the design and operating characteristics of the waste-
receiving unit The determination that there is a release may be based on sampling data or may
be deduced from other relevant information (e.g., a broken dike may be evidence of a release or
a substantial threat of a release). Using data collected from the on-site inspection, EPA staff will
make the final determination regarding facility acceptability.
According to the NCP, EPA must determine the "acceptability" of a facility for receipt of wastes
from any response action that is Fund-financed or is taken pursuant to any CERCLA authority,
including cleanups at Federal facilities under section 120 of CERCLA, or under section 311 of
the Clean Water Act (CWA), For a facility to be acceptable, it must not have any "relevant
violations" and should not have an environmentally significant release of hazardous substances.
"Relevant violations" include the following:
Significant deviations from regulations, compliance order provisions, or permit
conditions designed to: ensure that CERCLA waste is destined for and delivered to
authorized facilities; prevent releases of hazardous waste, hazardous constituents, or
hazardous substances to the environment; ensure early detection of such releases; or.
compel corrective action for releases;
Criminal violations that result in indictment;
Applicable subsections of sections 3004 and 3005 of RCRA or other applicable Federal
laws such as TSCA and RCRA Subtitle D; and
Applicable sections of State environmental laws.
CERCLA wastes may not be transferred to any RCRA Subtitle C facilities (land disposal, storage,
or treatment facilities) that are releasing any hazardous substances to the ground water, surface
water, soil, or air. In addition, RCRA Subtitle C facilities must be in compliance with RCRA
section 3004(o) minimum technology requirements, unless the facility has been granted a waiver
under this section.
For facilities that already have been notified that they are acceptable under the NCP or the Off-
Site Policy, the facility remains acceptable unless EPA determines otherwise according to the
criteria set forth in*the NCP. At a facility where EPA has never made a determination of
acceptability under the NCP or the Off-Site Policy, an affirmative determination of acceptability
is necessary before transporting CERCLA wastes to the facility.
The Agency relies on Regional Off-Site Contacts (ROCs) - one per Region - to maintain up-to-
date, accurate information on the acceptability status of facilities in each Region. The ROC can
verify for the OSC that the facility is acceptable under the NCP for receiving the wastes. The
ROC for the Region in which the hazardous waste facility is located must determine whether the
facility is acceptable for hazardous waste disposal or has relevant violations or releases that may
preclude its use for off-site transfer of CERCLA wastes. OSCs are responsible for contacting the
ROC in the Region where the receiving facility is located prior to the wastes being shipped.
-------
Off-Site Storage, Treatment, and Disposal Procedures
OSC > should coordinate closely with' $tate personnel as appropriate for determining the
acceptability of a facility. Authorized States may make the initial compliance findings for those
parts of the program for which they are authorized. If a State finds a violation at a unit of a
facility, EPA determines the violation's "relevance" under the NCP. Where a State does not have
authority to carry out portions of the RCRA program, EPA will make the initial compliance
and/or release findings. In addition, EPA, after conferring with the State, will determine what
State and Federal laws are applicable, and if the facility is operating in compliance with those
laws. Although states will make many of the initial RCRA findings for off-site unacceptability
determinations, EPA Regional offices will retain the ultimate decisionmaking authority for all
off-site determinations, including those at RCRA facilities.
If a facility is determined to be unacceptable, the EPA Regional Office must notify the owner or
operator of the facility as soon as possible. The owner or operator has 60 days in which to
demonstrate compliance or request a reconsideration of the determination before they are
precluded from accepting wastes. On the 60th day after issuance of the unacceptability notice,
the OSC must stop transfer of wastes to the facility if it has not regained its acceptability. If the
primary facility becomes unacceptable, the acceptability status of the backup or secondary
receiving facility must be checked with the ROC. Off-site acceptability status tends to change
frequently; therefore, to avoid problems resulting from contractors whose designated receiving
facilities may become unacceptable under the NCP, the disposal contract between the Agency and
the company chosen to manage the disposal of CERCLA wastes also should specify alternative
facilities that could receive the wastes.
Compliance with NCP off-site disposal requirements is mandatory for removal and remedial
actions, except in cases where the OSC determines the release poses an immediate and significant
threat to human health and the environment EPA believes that the OSC should weigh, to the!
extent practicable: exigencies of the situation; the availability of alternative receiving facilities;
. and the reasons for the primary facility's unacceptability, their relation to public health threats,
and the likelihood of a return to compliance. In some situations (e.g., fire, explosion), it may be
necessary to remove materials off-site before an off-site facility's acceptability may even be
reviewed.
In emergency situations, OSCs shpuld contact the appropriate Regional Coordinator for guidance
in determining whether site conditions meet this exception. In addition, OSCs should consider
temporary solutions (i.e., interim storage) to allow time to locate an acceptable facility and secure
hazardous substances off-site while evaluating permanent disposal options. OSCs must provide
the Regional Administrator (RA), or the RA's designee, with a written explanation of the decision
to use the emergency exception within 60 days of taking the action.
In some situations, a CERCLA hazardous substance may trigger disposal requirements under
other laws (e.g., TSCA for PCBs, the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act (UMTRCA)
for some radioactive substances). In these cases, applicable requirements should be observed.
Notification of Out-of-State Shipments
OSWER Directive 9330.2-07 (September 14, 1989) implements EPA's policy requiring that,
prior to the off-site shipment of CERCLA.wastes to an out-of-State waste management facility
for non-time-critical removal actions, EPA Regional personnel must provide notice to that State's
-------
Off-Site Storage, Treatment, and Disposal Procedures
environmental officials [2j. Emer^enryund time-critical removal actions are not covered by this
policy, and OSCs do not have to provide States with notification under these circumstances. The
objectives of this policy are to enable States to take the necessary steps to ensure the safe transfer
of wastes and to respond to any public inquiries concerning the transportation of wastes.
Although all off-site shipments, regardless of size, are covered in the notification policy, the RA
may decide that notice is unnecessary for shipments of small amounts (i.e., 10 cubic yards or less)
[2]. Notice must be provided for non-time-critical removal actions involving the off-site
shipment of CERCLA wastes from Fund-financed responses and responses conducted by
potentially responsible parties (PRPs).
Notification should be in writing and should include, where available, the following information:
Name and location of the facility to which the wastes are to be shipped;
Type and quantity of wastes to be shipped;
Expected schedule for the waste shipments; and
Method of transportation.
In addition, OSCs should notify the State of major changes in the shipment plan, such as a
decision to ship wastes to another facility within the same State or to a facility in another State.
Recordkeeping, Manifests, and Reporting
OSCs are responsible for developing and compiling a variety of reports and other supporting
documentation concerning off-site response actions. Of particular importance is the Action
Memorandum, which provides a concise, written record of the selection of a removal action.
More detailed information on Action Memoranda can be found in Superfund Removal
Procedures Action Memorandum Guidance [I]. The Action Memorandum should be as specific
as possible regarding the need for off-site disposal, the preferred disposal option, and the selected
facility. In many cases, however, OSCs may not know the amount or type of waste requiring
off-site storage, treatment, or disposal until on-site activities begin. In such cases, the Action
Memorandum should state the OSCs intent to comply with all requirements of NCP §300.440
or indicate that an off-site management option was not selected. For non-time-critical removal
actions involving off-site disposal, OSCs must indicate that the appropriate State officials have
been notified.
Once OSCs have identified CERCLA wastes, estimated the amount.of each type of waste
requiring storage, treatment, or disposal, selected the facility, and determined the extent to which
the wastes can be treated, they should report this information in a Pollution Report (POLREP)
to EPA Headquarters. In addition to documenting the decision in an Action Memorandum or
POLREP, OSCs should include any documentation regarding off-site facility acceptability status
in the site file. More detailed information on POLREPS can be found in Superfund Removal
Procedures Removal Response Reporting: POLREPs and OSC Reports [3].
-------
Off-Site Storage, Treatment, and Disposal Procedures
" Finally, OSCs must ensure that the Uniform Hazardous-Waste Manifest is correctly completed
and in compliance with 40 CFR Part 262, that the manifest accompanies the waste, and that the
completed manifest (obtained from the State) is filed correctly.
-------
Land Disposal Restrictions and Additional
Requirements for PCBs and Dioxins
Overview
The Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) to RCRA (P.L. 98-616, signed on
November 8, 1984) include specific provisions restricting the land disposal of RCRA hazardous
wastes. The purpose of these HSWA provisions is to minimize the potential of future risk to
human health and the environment by requiring the treatment of hazardous wastes prior to their
land disposal. This section summarizes the major components of the land disposal restrictions
(LDRs), outlines the types of restrictions imposed, and provides guidance for determining when
LDRs are applicable to CERCLA removal actions. In addition, several special conditions are
discussed that apply to the disposal of wastes containing polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and
dioxins.
Land Disposal Restrictions
HSWA prohibits the land disposal of RCRA hazardous wastes unless:
The wastes are treated to meet promulgated treatment standards (expressed as
concentrations or technologies);
The wastes have been granted a national capacity variance or case-by-case extension; or
The conditions of one of the LDR compliance options are satisfied.
When a RCRA waste is "restricted" and subject to an LDR, one of two requirements will apply:
1) Treatment Standards: EPA may set one of three types of treatment standards for
restricted wastes:
a) A concentration level to be achieved prior to disposal (the most common type of
treatment standard);
b) A specified technology to be used prior to disposal; or
c) A "no land disposal" designation when the waste is no longer generated, is totally
recycled, is not currently being land-disposed, or no residuals are produced from
treatment
All three types of treatment standards are established based on the best demonstrated available
technology (BOAT) identified for that waste.
-------
Land Disposal Restrictions
2) Minimum Technology Requirements During a National Capacity Variance or Case-
by-Case Extension: When EPA sets a treatment standard, it may grant up to a two-year
national capacity variance or a case-by-case extension if sufficient treatment capacity is
not available for that waste. In this case, the treatment standards do not have to be met
for the waste; however, if the wastes are disposed, stored, or managed in a landfill or
surface impoundment, the receiving unit must meet the RCRA minimum technology
requirements (i.e., double liner, leachate collection system, and ground water
monitoring). EPA may grant national capacity variances when it sets treatment standards
for newly identified wastes, and case-by-case extensions following petitions submitted
by interested parties.
Compliance Options
EPA recognizes that not all wastes can be treated to the LDR treatment standards and that
alternative treatment standards and methods of land disposal may provide significant reduction
in the toxicity, mobility, or volume of wastes and be protective of human health and the
environment The LDRs, therefore, provide the following compliance options for meeting LDR
requirements.
Treatability Variance: This option is available when EPA has set a treatment standard
as a concentration level, but because the waste at a CERCLA site differs significantly
from the waste used to set the standard, the promulgated treatment standard cannot be
met or the BDAT technology is inappropriate for that waste. In this case, EPA may
approve an alternate treatment standard that must be met before that waste may be land-
disposed. (See Superfund LDR Guides #6A and #6B for more information on obtaining
Treatability Variances [4, 5]).
Equivalent Treatment Method Petition: This option is available when EPA has set a
treatment standard that is a specified technology. A different technology may be used
if it can be demonstrated that the alternate technology will achieve a measure of
performance equivalent to that of the specified technology.
No Migration Petition: Under this option, OSCs may land-dispose wastes that do not
meet the LDR restrictions if they can demonstrate that there will be no migration of
hazardous constituents above health-based levels from the disposal unit or injection zone
for as long as the wastes remain hazardous.
Delisting: Under this option, OSCs must demonstrate that a waste is nonhazardous and,
therefore,lot subject to LDRs. OSCs must demonstrate that: (1) the waste does not
meet any of the criteria for which the waste was listed as a hazardous waste, and (2) other
factors (including additional constituents) do not cause the waste to be hazardous.
LDR Rulemakings
As a result of HSWA, EPA published a number of rulemakings establishing treatment standards
for the land disposal of hazardous wastes. EPA originally divided the hazardous wastes into a
schedule of five rulemakings. These rulemakings are referred to as the Solvents & Dioxins,
California List, First Third, Second Third, and Third Third rules. In addition, EPA has finalized
10
-------
Land Disposal Restrictions
treatment standards for newly identified wastes (wastes- identified after.November.8, 1984), as
well as other related minor rules. To date, close to 20 major rulemakings, amendments, and
corrections to LDRs have been finalized. These rules are summarized in Exhibit 1.
Consideration of LDRs During Removal Actions
The NCP requires on-site CERCLA removal actions to identify and comply with applicable or
relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs) (e.g., LDRs) to the extent practicable.2 OSCs
must consider two factors in determining whether compliance with LDRs is practicable for an
on-site removal action: 1) the urgency or exigency of the situation, and 2) the scope of the
removal action. The "urgency of the situation" relates to the need for prompt response. If
meeting the requirements for an LDR for a removal action will adversely affect the ability of the
OSC to provide a prompt response, then compliance with the LDR may not be practicable. The
"scope of the removal action" refers to the fact that removal actions sometimes have a limited
purpose (e.g., minimize and mitigate potential harm, not totally eliminate it). If complying with
an LDR is beyond the scope of the action being conducted, then compliance may not be
practicable. Even if compliance with an LDR is practicable during a removal action, NCP
§300.415(j) provides that, under certain circumstances, ARARs may be waived during on-site
CERCLA removal actions. These waivers address interim measures, situations where compliance
will result in greater risk to human health and the environment, technical impracticability,
adoption of an equivalent standard of performance, and inconsistent application of State
standards. EPA's Superfund Removal Procedures Guidance on the Consideration of ARARs
During Removal Actions provides more detail on how to identify and determine the practicability
of ARARs (e.g., LDRs) and the circumstances under which waivers from compliance with
ARARs may be obtained [6].
Applicability of LDRs to CERCLA Removal Actions
For LDRs to be applicable to a CERCLA response, the action must constitute a placement, or
land disposal, of a restricted RCRA hazardous waste.3 Therefore, OSCs must answer three
separate questions to determine if the LDRs are applicable:
1) Is the CERCLA substance a RCRA hazardous waste?
2) If so, is the RCRA waste restricted under the LDRs?
3) If so, does the response action constitute placement?
2 Off-site response actions must comply with the provisions of applicable requirements unless an emergency
situation exists. Consideration of relevant and appropriate requirements is not necessary for off-site removal
actions.
1 "Placement" and "land disposal" are synonymous terms under RCRA and are defined as any placement of
hazardous waste in a landfill, surface impoundment, wast* pile, injection well, land treatment facility, salt dome
formation, salt bed formation, underground mine or cave, and concrete bunker or vault. (RCRA section 3004(k))
11
-------
Land Disposal Restrictions
1 .. , ^ A '« . '
EXHIBIT 1 : RCRA HAZARDOUS WASTE LDR FINAL RULEMAKINGS
Date
November 7, 1986
June 4, 1987
JulyS, 1987
July 26, I988
August 16, 1988
August 17, 1988
February 27, 1989
May 2, 1989
June 14. 1989
June 23, 1989
September 6, 1989
June 1,1990
June 13, 1990
January 31, 1991
f%-
August 18, 1992
May 24, 1993
September 19, 1994
Federal Register Cite
51 £S 40572
52FR21014
52 FR 25760
53 FR 28118
53 FR 30908
53FR3I138
54 FR 8264
54 FR 1 8836
54 ER 25416
54 FR 26594
54 ER 36967
55£R2±520
55 F_R 23935
56 ER 3864
57 ER 37 194
58 ER 29860
59 FR 47982
Description
The Solvents and Dioxins rule; sets standards for surface*
disposed solvent wastes and certain dioxin-comainmg
wastes
Establishes corrections to the Solvents and Dioxins rule
The California List rule: sets standards for certain surface-
disposed wastes containing PCBs, cyanides, strong acids,
HOCs. and eight elemental metals
Establishes standards for underground injection of spent
solvents and dioxin wastes
Establishes underground action star rdsforthe
California List and some F -it Third v. »$
The First Third rule: sets standards under which some of
the first scheduled wastes may continue to be land disposed
Amends the schedule for publishing LDR requirements for
multi-source leachate
Establishes amendments to the First Third rule
Sets standards for underground injection of the First Third
wastes not set in the August 16, 1988, rule
The Second Third rule; sets standards for the land disposal
and underground injection of the Second Third wastes' and
for some First and Third Third wastes
Lists corrections to the First Third standards listed in the
August 17, 1988. final rule
The Third Third rule; -supersedes many of the standards set
by the California List rule; sets standards for certain listed
characteristic wastes and wastes containing radioactive
materials
Lists corrections to the September 6, 1989, rule
Makes technical amendments to many standards listed in
the June 1, 1990, Third Third rule and clarifies several
requirements
Phase I rule; sets standards for newly listed and identified
wastes and revises standards for hazardous debris
An interim final rule replacing vacated treatment standards
for certain iizni table and corrosive wastes
Phase II rule; sets standards for newly listed organic TC .
wastes and for all newly listed coke by-product and
chlorotoluene production wastes; makes revisions to
simplify and provide consistency to the LDR program
12
-------
r
Land Disposal Restrictions
is the GERCLA Substance a RCRA Hazardous Waste? .
A solid waste is a RCRA hazardous waste if it is listed in Subpart D of 40 CFR 261 or if it
exhibits the characteristic of ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity. Listed wastes include
certain wastes from non-specific sources (F wastes), specific sources (K wastes), acutely
hazardous commercial chemical products (P wastes), and toxic commercial chemical products
(U wastes).4 For listed hazardous wastes, if manifests or labels are not available, information for
determining whether a substance is a RCRA hazardous waste can be obtained from facility
records or from an examination of the processes used at the facility. For characteristic wastes,
OSCs may rely on the results of tests described in 40 CFR 261.21 -261.24 for each characteristic
or they may rely on knowledge of the properties of the substance. OSCs should work with
Regional RCRA staff, Regional Counsel, State RCRA staff, and Superfund enforcement
personnel, as appropriate, in making these determinations.
Is the RCRA Waste Restricted Under the LDRs?
If an OSC determines that a CERCLA substance is a RCRA hazardous waste, this waste also
must be restricted for the LDRs to be applicable. OSCs should refer to the rulemakings listed in
Exhibit 1 to determine what treatment standards have been established for RCRA wastes of
concern at a site.
Does the Response ConstitutePlacement?
If a CERCLA removal action includes disposal of wastes into any ofi-site land disposal units as
defined by RCRA (i.e., landfills, surface impoundments, waste piles, injection wells, land
treatment facilities, salt dome formations, underground mines or caves, or concrete bunkers or
vaults), placement will occur. For on-site disposal of wastes, however, the concept-of disposal
units is less well-defined because hazardous waste sites often have widespread and dispersed
contamination. Therefore, to assist in defining when placement does occur for CERCLA actions
involving on-site disposal of wastes, EPA uses the concept of "area of contamination" (AOC),
which may be viewed as equivalent to RCRA disposal units, for the purposes of LDR
applicability. An AOC is delineated by the area! extent or boundary of contiguous
contamination. For on-site dispdsal, placement occurs when wastes are moved from one AOC
(or unit) to another AOC (or unit). Placement does not occur when wastes are left in place, or
moved within a single AOC.
For more information on the applicability of LDRs to CERCLA response actions, see Superfund
LDR Guide #5, Determining When Land Disposal Restrictions are Applicable to CERCLA
Response Actions [1].
4 In addition to the two categories of RCRA hazardous wastes, OSCs also need to be familiar with the derived-
from rule, the mixture rule, and the contained-in rule interpretation to correctly determine whether a CERCLA
substance is a RCRA hazardous waste. (See Superfund LDR Guide #5, Determining When Land Disposal
Restrictions are Applicable to CERCLA Response Actions [7].) ,
13
-------
Land Disposal Restrictions
"Determining When LDRs are Relevant and Appropriate io CERCLA Removal Actions
For on-site CERCLA response actions that constitute placement, and for which the LDRs have
been determined not to be applicable, OSCs must evaluate whether die LDRs are relevant and
appropriate. Relevant and appropriate decisions require best professional judgment of site-
specific factors to determine whether a requirement addresses problems or situations sufficiently
similar to the circumstances of the removal action contemplated
Additional Disposal Requirements for PCBs and Dioxins
The disposal of RCRA hazardous wastes containing PCBs is also regulated by TSCA and thus
must comply with both the RCRA and TSCA regulatory programs. These wastes must meet the
RCRA treatment standards and TSCA disposal standards (40 CFR 761.60), and must be sent to
a facility that is permitted under both RCRA and TSCA. The RCRA treatment standards are for,
wastes that at any time contained PCBs at concentrations greater than 50 ppm. These wastes are
prohibited from land disposal unless: (1) they are treated in accordance with 40 CFR 268.42; (2)
they are subject to a successful "no migration " petition under 40 CFR 268.6; or (3) they are
granted a case-by-case extension or national capacity variance. The TSCA disposal standards
require that PCBs in concentrations of 50 ppm or greater must be disposed of in an incinerator
that complies with 40 CFR 761.70, with certain noted exceptions.5
Dioxin-containing wastes with waste codes F020-F023 and F026-F028 must meet specific
treatment standards established for these wastes. Removal actions involving dioxin-containing
wastes are of national significance and require concurrence by the Assistant Administrator for
the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) and the Headquarters Dioxin
Disposal Advisory Group (DDAG). These types of removal actions must be performed in
compliance with RCRA dioxin-containing waste requirements promulgated on January 14,1985,
and with land disposal restrictions applicable to those wastes. When developing site-specific
response plans, OSCs should contact the Regional Dioxin Coordinator (if one has been assigned)
and the DDAG to locate authorized facilities and to obtain required technical assistance. The
DDAG issues guidance and provides technical assistance for determining appropriate response
options for interim storage and/or off-site disposal.
"e*
3 For further information on the disposal of PCBs and PCB-containing wastes, refer to regulations promulgated
under RCRA at 40 CFR part 268 and TSCA at 40 CFR pan 761.
14
-------
Innovative Treatment Technologies
Overview
OSCs should routinely consider the use of innovative treatment technologies at removal actions
where treatment fulfills the provisions of the NCP. Although performance and cost may be less
certain for innovative technologies than for other forms of remediation, innovative technologies
should not be eliminated solely on these grounds [8]. Innovative technologies may be found to
be cost-effective, despite the fact that their costs are greater than conventional options. When
evaluating new technologies, OSCs should consider the potential benefits of using innovative
processes, including increased protection, superior performance, greater community acceptance,
and the value of gaining information from field experience.
Innovative technologies are treatment technologies for source control other than incineration,
solidification/stabilization, and pumping with conventional treatment for ground water.
Encouraging OSCs to consider innovative technologies is consistent with OSWER's intent to
expand the use of innovative technologies and alternatives to land disposal. OSWER's goals are
to:
Better pursue its statutory and regulatory mandates to promote treatment;
« Speed the availability of performance data regarding newly developed treatment
technologies;
Broaden the inventory of accepted treatment-based solutions; and
Increase the chance that response costs will be lowered in the future through an increase
in the number of possible solutions.
The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) and HSWA provide the
catalyst to consider treatment as an essential element in cleanup decisionmaking. CERCLA
section 121(b) states a preference for alternatives to land disposal at Superfund sites. Under EPA
policy, innovative technologies should be used even where the cost exceeds that of land disposal
[8], CERCLA and the NCP provide the statutory and regulatory mechanism for screening,
documenting, and justifying alternatives to land disposal. These mechanisms provide protection
of human health and the environment according to the baseline established by other
environmental and public health laws. The NCP envisions that treatment will be used for highly
toxic and highly mobile wastes and encourages the consideration of innovative methods.
Additionally, provisions contained in RCRA and TSCA, as well as the Administrative Guidance
for Removal Program Use of Alternatives to Land Disposal (the AT Guidance), guide OSCs in
the use of alternative technologies [9].
OSCs conducting removal actions should attempt, whenever possible, to adopt remedial program
policies, as provided in CERCLA, as a basis for pursuing alternatives to land disposal. However,
15
-------
innovative Treatment Technologies
(he removal program canfiot conform entirely to the requirements for «"-iedial actions because
of site-related time constraints and the statutory limitations on removal actions.
Initiatives for Innovative Technologies
OSWER has developed seven new initiatives to encourage and promote the use of innovative
technologies. Three initiatives address impediments in the remedial program concerning the use,
funding, selection, and evaluation of these technologies. These initiatives encourage expedited
funding for remedial design and construction at sites where innovative technologies are being
considered, and ensure that innovative technologies receive early, thorough evaluation at PRP-
lead sites. Another initiative promotes the use of demonstration projects for new technologies
at Federal facilities. A fifth initiative encourages expanded use of the Federal Technology
Transfer Act as an opportunity for joint technology assessments with industry. This procedure
would allow non-adversarial cooperation between EPA, PRPs, and owner/operators to further the
development of third-party data on new remediation technologies.
The sixth initiative promotes the use of pilot studies on the potential use of promising innovative
technologies for CERCLA and RCRA corrective action and closure. In the past, land ban
considerations have sometimes discouraged owner/operators or the EPA Regions from pursuing
the pilot testing approach. This initiative would encourage the use of soil and debris treatability
variances, where necessary, to allow innovative technology studies to proceed. The authority to
grant these variances has been delegated to the Regions [8]. The variance process, along with
applicable guidance treatment levels, is described in Superfund Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR)
Guide #6A: Obtaining a Soil and Debris Treatability Variance for Remedial Actions [4] and
Guide #6B: Obtaining a Soil and Debris Treatability Variance for Removal Actions [5],
The last initiative encourages the use of innovative technologies in the removal program. OSCs
are to consider using innovative technologies at all actions, including time-critic.al actions, where
feasible [8]. The removal program plays a key role in expediting the field application of
innovative technologies because of the relatively small waste volumes and streamlined
contracting procedures that provide an opportunity to complete and document results relatively
quickly. Small waste volumes may even allow the use of pilot-scale technologies under some
circumstances.
Guidelines for Selecting Innovative Technologies
The AT Guidance provides detailed instructions and guidelines for OSCs and Remedial Project
Managers (KPMs) to analyze and select an alternative to land disposal and to plan the
procurement of the selected alternative. The AT Guidance provides the following definitions
(developed by the Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) program) to categorize
alternative technologies for selection and implementation procedures:
Available (or Existing) Alternative Technologies (e.g., some forms of incineration) are
fully proven in routine commercial and private use. Use of available technologies is
supported by Headquarters, and is the most straightforward option to procure and
implement.
16
-------
Innovative Treatment Technologies
-Innovative'Alternative Technologies are defined*as treatment -technologies other than
incineration, solidification/stabilization, and conventional pump-and-treat for ground
water. Usually there are limited data available on performance and cost for Superfund-
type applications of innovative alternative technologies.
Emerging Alternative Technologies have undergone laboratory testing and some pilot-
scale testing, but have not yet undergone sufficient testing to Document the technical
viability of the process.
When innovative or emerging technologies are being considered, the Regions must consult
appropriate Regional Coordinators at Headquarters. OSCs should determine and justify the
selection of an alternative to land disposal, plan procurement for the suggested alternative, and
document and compile information supporting alternative waste disposal decisions. Additional
contracting considerations will affect the procurement of these technologies. As technologies are
developed, tested, proven, or modified, their status for application to waste types or contaminants
may change.
Two primary objectives OSCs must consider in selecting an appropriate technology are timely
response and protection of human health and the environment In addition, three selection criteria
should be applied to alternatives that have the potential of meeting these two objectives. These
criteria are effectiveness, ability to implement, and cost. These objectives and criteria must be
addressed in the Action Memorandum or subsequent POLREPs for emergency and time-critical
removal actions involving the use of alternative technologies. For non-time-critical removal
actions, these objectives and criteria must be addressed in the Engineering Evaluation/Cost
Analysis (EE/CA) [8].
Technical Support for OSCs
EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD) can provide technical assistance to OSCs in
selecting, field testing, and evaluating innovative technologies. OSCs can access ORD through
five laboratories, the Superfund Technical Assessment and Response Team (START) contract,
and the SITE program. The SITE program is a cooperative effort between ORD and OSWER
that focuses on testing, demonstrating, monitoring, and documenting the performance of
innovative technologies, as well as encouraging the transfer of technical information. The
program will promote the development and commercialization of alternative technologies,
demonstrate the more promising technologies, and establish performance and cost data for the
selection process.
t
OSCs can access several electronic bulletin boards and data bases for more information on
5 alternative and innovative technologies.
The Cleanup Information Bulletin Board (CLU-IN) is operated by the Technology
Innovation Office (TIO). The bulletin board has several categories of technical
information, including SITE program data and removal program communications (301-
s 589-8366).
i
The ORD Office of Technology Transfer and Regulatory Support operates a bulletin
board to promote communication among EPA staff, State and local officials, researchers,
17
-------
innovative Treatment Technologies
and the private sector. It includes the ORD bibliographic data base, an expert systems
conference, a biotech conference, a Regional operations conference, a water conference,
and a methods standardization and quality assurance news conference.
The ORD Office of Environmental Engineering and Technology Demonstration created
the Alternative Treatment Technology Information Center (ATTIC) Database, which
contains information on alternative technologies from the SITE program, State alternative
technology programs, treatability studies, private industry, and the Department of
Defense. Technologies are grouped into five categories: biological,
solidification/stabilization, thermal, chemical, and physical.
EPA's Environmental Response Team (ERT) developed the Computer Assisted Response
Technology Selector (CARTS), an expert system that assists OSCs/RPMs in determining
the best waste treatment technology for a given type of hazardous waste. The system
guides the user through a series of questions designed to elicit the specific chemical
characteristics of the waste to be treated. Based on these data, CARTS provides
information on the types of treatment technologies that are appropriate for the waste to
be treated.
18
-------
Provision for Alternate Water Supply
Overview
The removal program is designed to address threats such as the contamination of drinking water.
Appropriate removal actions in response to contaminated drinking water typically consist of the
provision of bottled water and/or replacement of individual wells with municipal service (e.g.,
installation of water lines) and/or the installation of filter systems. Actions requiring longer-term
responses, such as aquifer restoration, are generally conducted by the remedial program.
In general, procedures for assessing releases that threaten drinking water, such as determining
the need for a Fund-financed removal action and approving and initiating the removal action, are
similar to the procedures for other types of releases. For releases that threaten drinking water,
however, action levels are used to evaluate the extent of the threat, and cleanup standards are used
to select a specific response action [10].
Action Levels for Initiating a Removal Action6
When evaluating whether to initiate a removal action, a site (either National Priorities List (NPL)
or non-NPL) may qualify for a response that involves providing an alternate water supply if
either: (1) the numeric action level is exceeded at the water tap, or (2) site-specific factors
otherwise indicate that a significant health threat exists. OSCs should note that the decision to
initiate a removal action is based on other factors as well, such as the availability of other
response mechanisms to initiate actions in a timely manner. Also, the numeric action level for
initiating a removal action should not be used as the cleanup standard for the contaminated water.
Numeric Action Levels
EPA's procedure for setting numeric removal action levels (RALs) for drinking water is based
on determining short-term acceptable risk (STAR) levels, a procedure developed by the Office
of Water [10]. The STAR is defined as the upper-bound concentration of a contaminant in
drinking water, generally above the maximum contaminant level (MCL) (and never lower than
the MCL), that would not pose a health risk for exposures lasting up to 7 years (approximately
10 percent of an individual's lifetime). As risk-based levels developed specifically for relatively
short-term exposures^to individual contaminants in drinking water, STARs most closely
correspond to the needs of the Superfund removal program for action levels. While the STAR
is a level for short-term exposure, it is derived from numbers (e.g., MCLs and drinking water
equivalent levels [DWELs]) that are protective over a lifetime of exposure.
6 The following discussion may appear to be in conflict with the Removal Priorities Memorandum [20], which
specifies that the provision of water supplies is generally a State or local responsibility. The Removal Priorities
Memorandum is intended to guide the Regions in using their removal funds for the most serious health and
environmental threats that cannot be mitigated by another entity. The guidance on removal action levels at
contaminated drinking water sites provides the Regions flexibility to respond to a lower level of contamination
when it constitutes a serious health threat relative to other response priorities within the Region.
19
-------
Provision for Alternate Water Supply
STAR Methodology
The following toxicity or risk-based levels are considered in developing STARs:
* Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG): A non-regulatory health goal, based
solely on considerations of public health effects of drinking water contamination.
Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL): A regulatory level that sets the maximum
permissible concentration of a contaminant in water delivered to users of public water
systems. The MCL is set as close to the MCLG as feasible.
Drinking Water Equivalent Level (DWEL): The concentration of a contaminant in
drinking water that is not expected to cause any adverse non-cancer health effects in
humans over a lifetime of continuous exposure.
Longer-term Health Advisory (HA) (child): The concentration of a contaminant in
drinking water that is not expected to cause any adverse non-cancer health effects in
children over a continuous exposure period of up to seven years.
10"4 Cancer Risk Level: The concentration of a contaminant in drinking water that
would result in a 1(T* upper-bound lifetime excess cancer risk to an individual exposed
continuously over a lifetime.
The level that ultimately becomes the basis for a STAR depends in part on the type of effects
caused by the substance. Of particular importance in the STAR methodology is a substance's
potential for human carcinogenicity, as reflected in EPA's cancer weight-of-evidence
classification. The classification system defines the following major categories:
Category Description
A Human carcinogen
B Probable human carcinogen
C Possible human carcinogen
D Not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity
E Evidence of non-carcinogenicity
The STAR for|i substance is then based on one of the above described toxicity or risk-based
levels, depending upon a substance's cancer weight-of-evidence classification. Detailed
information on the procedures for determining STARs is available from EPA's Guidance for
Determining Unreasonable Risks to Health [11].
20
-------
Provision for Alternate Water Supply
Development of Numeric RALs Using the STAR Methodology
If a STAR value is available from the Office of Water, it is used without adjustment as the
numeric RAL. If the Office has evaluated a substance but has not developed a STAR, the
numeric RAL is determined using the STAR methodology and input data from the Office. For
substances lacking an Office of Water evaluation, RALs are based on a subset of the STAR
procedures. MCLs, MCLGs, and Longer-term HAs (child) are unavailable in these situations and
are not considered; DWELs and cancer risk levels are calculated based on toxicity information
(oral reference doses (RfDs), oral cancer weight-of-evidence ratings, and pral cancer slope
factors) from other Agency data sources and then used to determine the RAL. EPA's on-line
Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) should be the first source consulted for this toxicity
information (assuming no information is available directly from the Office of Water), followed
by EPA's Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables (HEAST) [12]. Exhibit 2 comprises two
flow charts depicting the RAL determination process - one for the situation when an Office of
Water evaluation is available and the other for when an Office of Water evaluation is not
available.
Information Sources
Headquarters will distribute updated numeric RAL tables, as appropriate, such as when the Office
of Water releases a significant number of new or revised STARs. Information on STARs and
other Office of Water data used is available through the Safe Drinking Water Hotline at 800-426-
4791. If, in the absence of a STAR, an OSC decides to develop a numeric RAL, he or she must
first check with the Office of Water to determine whether any of the other risk-based levels
needed as inputs (e.g., MCL/MCLG, DWEL, Longer-term HA(child), or 10"4 cancer risk level)
are available. The OSC may also request Headquarters assistance in determining the appropriate
numeric RAL. If no information is available from the Office of Water, the OSC may refer to
toxicity information in IRIS or HEAST to calculate the numeric RAL. For additional information
on IRIS, OSCs may contact user support in the Office of Research and Development (ORD),
Cincinnati, OH, at 513-569-7254, and for additional information on HEAST, OSCs should
contact the Superfund Health Risk Technical Support Center in ORD, Cincinnati, OH, at 513-
569-7300.
Site-Specific Factors Indicate a Significant Health Risk
A significant health threat may exist even if no substance is currently present in drinking water
at a concentration exceeding its numeric RAL. The OSC may initiate a removal action if the
health risk at a site hasjjeen analyzed in detail and the analysis indicates that a serious health risk
is present, due to site-specific factors. Examples of such factors include evidence that a
contaminated ground water plume is moving toward drinking water wells, evidence that
contaminant levels will increase (e.g., due to increased pumping from an aquifer anticipated
during summer months), indication that people already have been drinking contaminated water
for a long time, presence of additive or synergistic effects resulting from multiple
21
-------
Provision for Alternate Water Supply
EXHIBIT 2: DECISION FLOW DIAGRAMS FOR RAL METHODOLOGY
I Office of Witer Evaluation Avaikbit j
)MO.b»M4M no
' uuxouaiTt T
kAL-lowof.
DWU,
a* txmftf-fcrni HA
Of
\ START
I Officr of Wtter Efilmnon NOT AvitUbk
or DWU.
RAL- DWU 10.2
if DWCL i> luuvtijabi*.
RAL - 10"*ciocn mk krcl
RAL-DWH.
22
-------
Provision for Alternate Water Suoolv
contaminants, or exposure of sensitive-populations to contamination.7 When such conditions are
present, the site may qualify for a removal action even though the numeric indicator has not been
exceeded. These decisions will be made on a case-by-case basis. OSCs should notify their
Regional Coordinator of any Action Memorandum approved for contaminated drinking water
sites where the removal action decision is based solely on site-specific factors (i.e., no numeric
RAL is exceeded).
Implementing the Removal Action Cleanup Standards
When selecting a removal action for a site with drinking water contamination, OSCs should
attempt to attain compliance with promulgated Federal and State environmental standards,
criteria, guidelines, and advisories, where practicable, under EPA's policy regarding Applicable
or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs). OSCs should consider the following
standards, criteria, and guidance for cleaning up drinking water contamination sites:
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) - Under the SDWA, EPA sets MCLs for
contaminants in drinking water that is provided by public water supply systems serving
25 or more people or having 15 or more service connections. EPA has also established
MCLGs for each contaminant. OSCs should consider MCLs when addressing ground
water contamination. However, cleanup goals more stringent than the MCL may be set,
taking the MCLG into consideration if the MCL is not adequately protective at the site
due to site-specific circumstances. The Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1986
(SDWAA) set mandatory deadlines for the regulation of additional key contaminants and
require monitoring of other unregulated contaminants. SDWAA also established
benchmarks for treatment technologies and bolstered enforcement authorities.
The Clean Water Act - Under the CWA, EPA has developed National Ambient Water
Quality Criteria (NAWQC) to protect surface waters.The NAWQC provide guidelines
for types and levels of chemicals, physical pollutants, and biological pollutants that affect
humans and the natural environment. These guidelines are not specific to drinking water.
The Ground-Water Protection Strategy (G-WPS) - This strategy establishes a policy
framework for EPA programs that delineates three classes of ground water and suggests
the extent to which each should be protected. The differing levels of protection afforded
to each class of ground water is based on the ground water use, value to society, and
vulnerability to contamination. For example, the cleanup requirements and protection
strategy for current and potential sources of drinking water (Class I and II) exceed the
objectives established for waters determined to be of limited beneficial use (Class III).
EPA recommends cleanup of Class I and II waters to current drinking water standards
of background levels that protect human health.
7 Similar site-specific flexibility to depart from recommended STAR levels exists and is based on such
considerations as site-specific exposures, exposures from other sources, past exposure (if known), exposure to
mixtures of drinking water contaminants, population sensitivity, chemical characteristics such as volatility, or other
factors not directly related to the contaminant.
23
-------
Provision for Alternate Water Supply
" 'State Water Quality Standards - Many States have established ambient .water quality
standards for surface water and various classifications of ground water; however, such
standards are not necessarily specific to removal actions. State standards generally take
into account human health and environmental considerations, and may be more stringent
than Federal standards. In addition, State water quality standards may exist for pollutants
not presently covered at the Federal level.
ATSDR Health Advice - CERCLA, as amended, expanded the role of ATSDR in
performing health assessments and health consultations at Superfund sites, as well as
preparing lists of hazardous substances, performing health effects research, and preparing
toxicological profiles. ATSDR issues health advice on a case-by-case basis. The OSC
may request health advice from ATSDR by contacting the Region's designated ATSDR
or Centers for Disease Control representatives. The OSC should ensure that EPA's
proposed actions and ATSDR findings are consistent
The potential ARARs listed above should be considered during removal actions according to the
urgency of the situation and site-specific circumstances.
24
-------
Use of Institutional Controls at
Removal Action Sites
Overview
When reviewing response options at removal action sites, OSCs should select engineering
solutions that significantly and permanently reduce the toxicity, mobility, or volume of wastes.
However, Institutional Controls (ICs) may be used to supplement engineering actions. ICs are
non-engineering mechanisms used to prevent or limit access to contaminated areas, thereby
reducing risks to human health, welfare, or the environment. ICs include restrictions on the use
of property, regulation of well construction and operation, regulation of property transfers, and
zoning and administrative orders, advisories, and deed notices. Two commonly used ICs are
prohibitions on drilling new water wells in contaminated portions of aquifers and deed
restrictions preventing incompatible future activities on capped and closed surface and/or ground
water sites. ICs should not be used in place of active response measures unless the active
measures are determined to be impracticable [13].
Use of Institutional Controls
The extent to which a response employs ICs will vary depending on the nature of the site and the
type of response action selected. Effective ICs can offer needed protection by preventing
exposure to contaminated resources in a timely manner and may be needed only for the brief
period of time prior to the implementation of an engineering response action. However, ICs can
continue to prevent potentially harmful exposures while response actions are underway, and may
be a key component of a long-term response, in which case more care should be devoted to
developing strong and effective controls. In addition, ICs may frequently be appropriate for
completed response actions that involve hazardous substances remaining on-site.
Once a thorough review of various response, options has been completed, OSCs should determine
which control(s) should be selected. As part of the Action Memorandum, OSCs should discuss
the need for, and feasibility of, relying on ICs, if applicable, at the State or local level. The lead
agency must work closely with the appropriate State and local officials in conducting the
evaluation. Criteria to be evaluated for each 1C include:
Effectiveness«>of the 1C;
Risks to human health in case of 1C failure;
Ability to implement (including time and cost); and
State and local acceptance.
25
-------
Use of Institutional Controls at Removal Action Sites
Site-specific factors wUl determine the relative importance of each criterion. The time required
to identify and evaluate the options should be balanced against the need to implement controls
as soon as possible. Also, appropriate follow-up activities must be carried out to maintain the
reliability of the ICs. Efforts should be made to ensure that proper enforcement has taken place
and individuals have actually been denied access to the site or prevented from receiving harmful
exposure.
26
-------
Removal Actions In Floodplains/Wetlands
Overview
Responses to releases of hazardous substances are often affected by floodplain and wetland
issues. Floodplains are relatively flat areas or lowlands adjoining the channel of a river, stream,
or water course that have been or may be covered by floodwater. They consist of normally dry
land areas that may be temporarily, partially, or completely submerged from the overflow of
inland or tidal waters, or the usual and rapid accumulation of runoff or drainage. Wetlands are
land areas that, because of their frequent inundation by surface or ground water, can support
vegetative or aquatic life requiring saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include, but are
not limited to, swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas such as sloughs, wet meadows, mud
flats, and natural ponds [14],
Federal Policies and Procedures
As part of a removal action site evaluation, OSCs must determine whether a release is in, near,
or affecting a floodplain or wetland To the extent practicable, Fund-financed removal actions
should be consistent with Federal policies and procedures for floodplain and wetland protection.
In addition to Agency policies, OSC decisions should take into account the provisions of three
primary Federal policy documents:
Executive Order 11988,,Floodplain Management, which emphasizes the importance of
evaluating alternatives to avoid the effects of incompatible development in floodplains,
minimizing potential harm to floodplains if an action must be undertaken, and providing
early and adequate opportunities for public review of plans and proposals involving
actions in floodplains.
Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands, which requires Federal agencies to take
action to minimize the destruction, loss, or degradation of wetlands, and to preserve and
enhance the natural and beneficial values of wetlands.
Appendix A (Procedures on Floodplain Management and Wetland Protection) of 40 CFR
Part 6, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which sets forth Agency policy
and guidance for carrying out the provisions of the two Executive Orders described
above. Because of the removal program's mandate to conduct removal actions
expeditiously, removal actions are exempt from NEPA's environmental impact statement
(EIS) requirements. However, NEPA does establish arid require alternative but
equivalent floodplains/wetlands evaluations and public comment periods for programs
that are exempt from the EIS requirement
27
-------
Removal Actions in Roodplains/Wetlands
Conducting Removal Actions in Floodplains/Wetiands
If a removal action takes place in a floodplain or wetland, the OSC should attempt to incorporate
a floodplain/wetland assessment into the preliminary assessment for the removal action. OSCs
should evaluate the following factors:
Possible impact of proposed response actions on the floodplain/wetland;
Alternative response actions (including a no-action alternative); and
Measures to minimize potential adverse impacts including, but not limited to:
Using minimum amounts of gradr ?;
Projecting and maintaining the v. :ation to reduce sedimentation;
Regulating soil fill and excavatu. > reduce sedimentation;
Protecting topsoil;
Raising the site above the floodplain/wetland;
Returning the site to natural contours; and
Constructing new structures or facilities in floodplains with accepted
floodproofing and other flood protection measures, and elevating these structures
above the base flood level rather than filling in land (wherever practicable).
Because removal actions often involve situations requiring expeditious action to protect human
health, welfare, or the environment, it may not always be feasible to perform a
floodplains/wetlands assessment. In these cases, the final OSC report should specify the reason
a floodplains/wetlands assessment was not performed.
If a floodplains/wetlands assessment is conducted on a removal action and it is determined that
the proposed removal action will affect a floodplain/wetland, the OSC should document the
results of the assessment in a memorandum to the file. The report should be accompanied by a
brief (under three pages) Statement of Findings that includes:
The reasons why the proposed action must be located in or must affect the
floodplain/wetland;
A description of the significant facts considered in making the decision to locate in or to
affect the floodplain/wetland, including alternative sites and actions;
A statement indicating whether the proposed action conforms to applicable State or local
floodplain/wetland protection standards;
A description of the steps taken to design or modify the proposed action to minimize
potential harm to the floodplain/wetland; and
A statement indicating how the proposed action affects the natural or beneficial values
of the floodplain/wetland.
28
-------
Finally, OSCs must ensure that the implementation of approved response actions
minimizes adverse impacts on floodplains/wetlands. OSCs and other response
personnel should also include any pertinent information regarding the potential
impact of removal actions on affected floodplains/wetlands, and any measures
to be taken to minimize floodplain/wetland damage in community relations
activities and materials.
In making any determinations or in implementing appropriate response measures in
floodplain/wetland areas, OSCs may wish to consult with other government officials having
relevant expertise. These officials may include staff from EPA's Regional 404 Clean Water
program, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and State and local agencies.
29
-------
Removai Actions in Floodplains/Wetlands
This page intentionally left blank
30
-------
Radioactive Wastes
Overview
Following the release of a radioactive substance, OSCs need to determine whether (1) EPA has
the authority to respond to the release, and (2) the release meets the removal criteria set forth in
§300.415 of the NCP. Under CERCLA, EPA has the authority to respond to releases of
radioactive materials, except those specifically excluded. CERCLA section 101(22)(C) prohibits
EPA from responding to the following:
Releases of source, by-product, or special nuclear materials from nuclear incidents that
are subject to requirements with respect to financial protection established by the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission under section 170 of the Atomic Energy Act (AEA), and
Releases of source, by-product, or special nuclear materials from any processing sites
designated under sections 102(a)(l) or 302(a) of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation
Control Act of 1978 (UMTRCA).
Responding to Releases of Radioactive Wastes
If an initial evaluation at a site indicates the presence of radioactive materials, or if EPA is
notified of a release (or threatened release) of radioactive materials, OSCs should contact their
Regional Radiation Program Manager (RRPM) for assistance [15]. The Regional Radiation
Program is a valuable resource for OSCs to obtain technical support on issues dealing with
radiation exposure and contamination. The RRPM can provide advice on personal protective
equipment, site safety protocols, assessment and sampling techniques, recommended surveillance
equipment, waste treatment and disposal options, and other site operations. With their familiarity
with laboratory procedures, RRPMs can help speed the removal process and achieve the best
results for the OSC.
EPA's Office of Radiation and Indoor Air (ORJA) is the primary regulatory and response
organization for radiation contamination. ORIA expertise includes nuclear emergency response
and contingency planning, emergency response capability for low-level and high-level radiation
releases at hazardous waste sites, mobile field monitoring and analysts capability, and radiation
site risk assessment '%
Another important source of technical information for OSCs concerning response activities at
radiation sites is EPA's ERT. ERT can offer guidance on implementing site assessment,
monitoring, and control programs.8 Through the Regional Response Teams (RRT), OSCs can
8 ERT conducts a week-long course in Radiation Safety at Superfund Sites (Course No. 165.11) that covers a
wide range of site-related activities, including methods to control exposure, decontamination procedures, radiation
detection and measurement, etc.
31
-------
Radioactive Wastes
consult with field personnel from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Department of
Energy (DOE).
OSCs should determine whether the release is from a facility with a previous or current Nuclear
Regulatory Commission license. For releases from these types of facilities, EPA's policy is that
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission should take responsibility for responding to the release. (It
should be noted that, in accordance with Executive Order 12580, all Federal agencies have been
delegated the responsibility of responding to non-emergency removal actions at Federal facilities
under their jurisdiction. The Department of Defense (DOD) and DOE also have the authority to
respond and conduct emergency removal actions at their own facilities.) However, OSCs may
seek approval for a Fund-financed removal action if they determine that the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission cannot issue a court order expeditiously, or if the release is not from a previously
or currently Nuclear Regulatory Commission-licensed facility.
Section 300.130(f) of the NCP stipulates that, where appropriate, the lead or support Federal
agency (responsible for responding to a discharge of radioactive materials) must act consistent
with the notification and assistance procedures contained in the Federal Radiological Emergency
Response Plan (FRERP, 24 CFR Part 2401). Therefore, prior to undertaking a removal action
involving radioactive materials, OSCs should consult with the RRPM or ORIA to ensure that.
notification and assistance activities are conducted in a manner consistent with the FRERP. This
section of the NCP also notes that most radiological discharges and releases do not result in
FRERP activation and should be handled in accordance with the NCP.
32
-------
Naturally Occurring Substances
Overview
In accordance with section 104(a)(3)' of CERCLA, removal actions generally will not be
authorized for situations involving a release or the threat of release of a naturally occurring
substance in its unaltered form; or one that is altered solely through natural processes or
phenomena. A CERCLA response may be authorized, however, provided the following two
criteria are satisfied:
The release or the threat of a release constitutes a human health or environmental
emergency; and
No other person with the authority and capability to respond to the emergency will do so
in a timely manner.
Responding to Releases of Naturally Occurring Substances
When a request is received for a response in which naturally occurring substances are suspected
of being involved, OSCs should take the following steps:
Determine the source of contamination.
If the source of contamination appears to be a naturally occurring substance, ascertain
that the threat represents a human health or environmental emergency. Support can be
obtained from ATSDR, EPA's Office of Radiation and Indoor Air (ORIA), and State
authorities.
Contact other persons (e.g., State and local authorities and PRPs) to determine their
willingness and/or capability to respond to the threat, if a human health or environmental
emergency does exist or is imminent. A CERCLA response should be considered only
after all other sources of response have been exhausted.
If the site is of national significance,' obtain approval from the Assistant Administrator
of OSWER ^accordance with Delegation 14-1-A.
In addition, OSCs should document all analyses, determinations, and response plans in the Action
Memorandum and subsequent POLREPs. More detailed information on Action Memoranda can
be found in Superfund Removal Procedures Action Memorandum Guidance [1], and more
9 Key considerations for a removal action that may be designated as nationally significant or precedent-setting
are: (a) whether Fund-Financed response to a particular incident will establish a precedent for when or how future
response actions must be taken, or (b) whether a response will commit EPA to a course of action that could have a
significant impact on future resources, due to the widespread occurrence of a particular problem [11], Early
consultation with the appropriate Regional Coordinator is recommended in unclear situations.
33
-------
Naturally Occurring Substances
detailed information on drafting and submitting POLREPS can be found in Superfund Removal
Procedures Removal Response Reporting: POLREPs and OSC Reports [3].
OSWER has issued a separate policy on the appropriateness of removal actions at methane gas
release sites [16]. Naturally occurring methane gas found near or associated with petroleum
deposits is a type of "natural gas" and is, therefore, exempt from CERCLA. However, methane
gas emanating from a landfill is not considered to be a "natural gas," and such releases may be
eligible for response under CERCLA section 104(a)(l) if the methane gas otherwise meets the
definition of pollutant or contaminant under section 104(a)(2) of CERCLA.
Va-
34
-------
Conducting Temporary Relocations at
Removal Action Sites
Overview
When removal actions are conducted in residential or commercial areas, it is sometimes necessary
for residents and/or businesses to relocate to an area that is not affected by site contamination or
removal activities. While only temporary relocations are conducted under the Agency's removal
authority, in some cases the Agency conducts permanent relocation as part of remedial activities.
In most removal action situations, however, the relocation is temporary and only lasts for the
duration of removal activities. This section summarizes the Agency's comprehensive guidance
for conducting relocations at Superfund sites, expected to be finalized in Spring 1997.
Permanent Relocations
The Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act (P.L. 91-646)
ensures uniform and equitable treatment of people displaced from their homes or businesses by
Federal government projects. The Act primarily addresses permanent relocations (e.g., when the
government buys land to build a highway, or when site contamination or remedial actions are
such that the land will be uninhabitable). Under the provisions of the Act the government
purchases property at fair market value and assists the displaced persons in finding new,
comparable property for their homes or businesses. In addition, the Federal government pays
certain moving and related expenses, as well as certain increased housing costs (e.g., increased
costs of replacement housing, increased mortgage interest costs, etc.). The process is similar for
displaced businesses, although the government does not reimburse lost profits.
Temporary Relocations
Although the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act does
not specifically address temporary relocations, the regulations for implementing the Act (the
Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Regulations for Federal and
Federally Assisted Programs, 49 CFR Part 24) ensure that anyone who is temporarily displaced
receives reimbursement for all reasonable out-of-pocket expenses connected with the temporary
relocation. OSCs are responsible for initiating this process when site conditions warrant
temporary relocations.
First, OSCs must determine whether a relocation is necessary to protect public health and welfare
at the site. After making this determination, the OSC should consider consulting the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (USAGE) or the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USER) to provide technical
expertise in matters of relocation and restoration, replacement, or reimbursement for damaged
property.
Funding for relocations is coordinated through an Interagency Agreement (IAG) between the
relevant Region and the support agency conducting the relocations. OSCs should use EPA Form
35
-------
Conducting Temporary Relocations at Removal Action Sites
1610 to establish an LAG with USER or USAGE. EPA Headquarters recommends that each OSC
have in place a general LAG for relocation assistance to be available for use in an emergency.
If a relocation is necessary and the USAGE or USER cannot respond to provide support, an
Emergency and Rapid Response Services (ERRS) contract can be used. ERRS contractors cannot
determine benefits for relocated individuals. OSCs should contact their respective Headquarters
Regional Coordinators for assistance in determining relocation benefits. If acquisition of an
interest in real property is necessary, the OSC should work closely with their Headquarters
Regional Coordinator and the Facilities Management and Services Division (FMSD).
The Relocation Process
Situations may arise where it is impossible to get relocation specialists from either USER or
USAGE involved. In such instances. OSCs should follow the steps summarized below and
described in greater detail in the draft guidance for conducting relocations at removal action sites
[17].
The first step in the relocation process is determining who should be relocated,, and whether these
"displaced persons" are eligible for temporary relocation benefits. (A displaced person can be
an individual, a family, a business, a nonprofit organization, or a farm.) Next, the OSC must
provide reasonable advance written notice of the relocation to persons being displaced by the
removal action. This notice should include:
The date and approximate duration of the temporary relocation;
The location of suitable, decent, safe, and sanitary temporary housing;
Conditions for return to the evacuated location; and
Expenses that will be reimbursed.
Temporary housing may include hotels, motels, mobile homes, and apartments. Replacement
housing alternatives should be cost-effective, safe, sanitary, and reasonably comparable to the
type of housing that was evacuated. For extended periods of time, the choice between a hotel or
an apartment should be a decision based on the anticipated length of time in relocation status.
Residential Relocation Assistance
When OSCs determine that a temporary relocation is necessary at a residential removal action
site, there are several ways in which displaced persons can be reimbursed for relocation expenses.
First, people who have been relocated to hotels or motels may receive a daily allotment to cover
living expenses such as food and laundry. Second, people displaced by a removal action may be
reimbursed for all reasonable out-of-pocket expenses incurred in connection with the temporary
relocation. These eligible expenses may include:
36
-------
Conducting Temporary Relocations at Removal Action Sites
The cost of the temporary housing (e.g., rental houses, apartments, hotels, security
deposits, etc.);
The cost of essential rental furniture, only if it is impractical to move the occupant's
furniture or if the OSC determines that the furniture is contaminated;
Reasonable costs of moving to and from the temporary housing;
The costs of essential utilities at the primary residence (e.g., gas, electricity, oil, water,
sewer, and telephone). Monthly utilities at the temporary housing are not considered
relocation benefits, although connection/disconnection costs will be reimbursed; and
Other expenses, as necessary, decided on a case-by-case basis.
Ineligible expenses include rent and mortgage payments on the primary residence, personal
transportation costs, insurance premiums for either residence, and household cleaning costs at the
temporary residence that would be incurred even if the individual had not been relocated.
Business Relocation Assistance
Business relocations may be much more complicated than residential relocations because of the
types of equipment and supplies that must be moved to continue operations in a temporary
location. Because business moves can be significantly more expensive than residential moves,
OSCs should ensure that a business relocation is absolutely essential to the removal effort [17].
Relocated businesses are also eligible for reimbursement of certain reasonable expenses. OSCs
should work with the USAGE or USER and EPA Headquarters to determine the appropriate
scope of relocation benefits, taking into consideration any essential equipment that must be
moved and any necessary equipment hookups or connections. Businesses cannot be reimbursed
for loss of goodwill with clients, loss of profits, or loss of trained employees.
Finally, Responsible Parties (RPs) under CERCLA are generally not eligible to receive any
relocation benefits. OSCs should consult with the Office of Regional Counsel and EPA's Office
of Enforcement before making any benefits available to RPs.
Personal Property ^
Typically, OSCs do not purchase personal property as part of the temporary relocation process
at removal action sites. In'some situations, however, OSCs may determine that contaminated
personal property cannot be decontaminated and must be destroyed. Based on the OSC's
determination, USER or USAGE will destroy or dispose ofthe contaminated property and provide
for replacement, either through the monetary value of the item or actual replacement. OSCs are
responsible for disposing of contaminated personal property. More detailed information can be
found in the Guidance on Compensation for Property Loss in Removal Actions [18]..
37
-------
Conducting Temporary Relocations at Removal Action Sites
This page intentionally left blank
38
-------
Use of ATSDR Health Consultations at
Removal Action Sites
Overview
A health consultation performed by ATSDR is one of several resources available to OSCs when
Use of ATSDR Health Consultations
e
f°
'evels *
action sites -
EPA Regions should consult with Headquarters prior to using an ATSDR health
consultation as the basis for selecting a residential soil cleanup level
ATSDR
^for
issues for the Superfund program.
Head«uarters
actions based on any other
°r
nm «? K.3"? COncluS!°^ of ATSDR health consultations are strictly site-speciflc and do
no estabhsh national EPA policy. ATSDR health consultations should nm be applied
to situations beyond the specific site for which they were developed
39
-------
This page intentionally left blank
40
-------
Removal Actions Under the
Federal Response Plan
Overview
The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act provides the authority for
the Federal government to respond, at the request of state governments, to disasters and
emergencies in order to provide assistance to affected states to save lives and protect public
health, safety, and property. The Federal Response Plan (FRP) is designed to address the
consequences of any disaster or emergency situation in which there is a need for Federal response
assistance under the authorities of the Stafford Act. The FRP establishes the lead coordination
roles, the division and specification of responsibilities among Federal agencies, and the national
and on-site response organizations, personnel, and resources that are available for response
actions in the event of a catastrophe. In such events, EPA is not only responsible for carrying out
its role under the NCP, but must also coordinate efforts with the overall Federal response to the
catastrophe. Additionally, because EPA is viewed as the "environmental experts," EPA may be
tasked with non-NCP activities such as assessing damage to water and waste-water treatment
facilities, or collecting household hazardous waste.
Under an FRP activation, incidents involving hazardous materials may be widespread and could
include oil spills, releases of natural gas, and releases of chemicals and other hazardous
substances. In addition to casualties, property loss, and collapse of Regional economic and social
infrastructures, a catastrophic disaster could damage or destroy transportation, communications,
and utilities systems. Subsequent OSC response under the FRP must be coordinated within the
framework of the overall Federal disaster response.
Federal Response Plan
The Federal Response Plan addresses the consequences of natural and human-caused disasters
such as earthquakes, hurricanes, typhoons, tornadoes, volcanoes, or technological emergencies
including radiological or hazardous material releases. The Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) is responsible for maintaining and activating the FRP following an emergency
or major disaster declaration by the President On-scene, a Federal Coordinating Officer (FCO),
appointed by the Director of FEMA on behalf of the President, takes charge of the overall
response. The FCO works with the State Coordinating Officer (SCO), appointed by the
Governor of the affected state, as well as with representatives from Federal government
departments and agencies.
Twelve interdependent Emergency Support Functions (ESFs) have been established in the FRP
to meet the needs of a coordinated response. The FRP assigns primary and support agencies to
carry out the mandate of each ESF. Primary agencies have overall responsibility to manage and
coordinate a specific ESF, based on their having the greatest relevant authorities, capabilities,
resources, and expertise. The 12 ESFs and their respective primary agencies are listed in Exhibit
41
-------
Removal Actions Under the Federal Response Plan
3. Support agencies are designated to one or more ESFs to assist primary agencies with available
capabilities, resources, and expertise.
S:
EXHIBITS. EMERGENCY SUPPORT FUNCTIONS
ESF
'#1
#2
#3
#4
#5
#6
#7
#8
#9
#10
#11
#12
FOCUS
Transportation
Communications
Public Works and Engineering
Firefighting
Information and Planning
Mass Care
Resource Support
Health and Medical Services
Urban Search and Rescue
Hazardous Materials
Food
Energy
OFFICE
Department of Transportation
National Communications System
Department of Defense
Department of Agriculture: Forest
Service
Federal Emergency Management
_Agency
American Red Cross
General Services Administration
Department of Health and Human
Services
Federal Emergency Management
Agency
Environmental Protection Agency
Department of Agriculture
Department of Energy
EPA serves as the primary agency for ESF #10: Hazardous Materials. EPA is also responsible
for fulfilling support roles for ESFs #3, #4, #5, #8, #9, and #11.
A Catastrophic Disaster Response Group (CDRG), composed of representatives from each of the
27 Federal departments and agencies that have been assigned specific responsibilities under the
FRP, functions as a centralized coordinating group to support on-scene Federal response and
recovery efforts. The CDRG operates from the FEMA headquarters at the national level to
42
-------
Removal Actions Under the Federal Response Plan
provide guidance and policy direction on response coordination and operational issues arising
from FCO and ESF response activities.
Emergency Support Function #10: Hazardous Materials
A natural or other catastrophic disaster could result in numerous situations in which hazardous
materials are released into the environment. Fixed facilities could be damaged so severely that
existing spill control apparatus and containment measures could no longer be effective.
Hazardous materials that are transported may be involved in rail accidents, highway collisions,
or waterway mishaps. Abandoned hazardous waste sites could be damaged, causing further
degradation of holding ponds, tanks, and drums. The damage to, or rupture of, pipelines
transporting materials that are hazardous, if improperly released, also presents serious problems.
ESF #10 (Hazardous Materials) provides for a coordinated response to actual or potential releases
of hazardous materials resulting from a catastrophic disaster by placing the response mechanisms
of the NCP within a coordinated structure that ensures the most efficient and effective use of
Federal resources. ESF #10 includes the appropriate response actions to prevent, minimize, or
mitigate a threat to public health, welfare, or the environment
EPA's OSWER plays a key role in the implementation of any Federal mobilization of resources
to respond to hazardous substances emergencies. The Director of OSWER's Chemical
Emergency Preparedness and Prevention Office (CEPPO) serves as the ESF #10 Chair and
represents the ESF in all interactions with the CDRG. OSWER's Office of Emergency and
Remedial Response (OERR) coordinates all interactions with EPA regional offices.
The National Response Team (NRT) and the Regional Response Teams (RRTs) are the primary
vehicle for coordination of Federal agency activities under the NCP. Coordination of response
actions carried out under ESF #10 does not conflict with the NCP duties and responsibilities of
the NRT/RRTs. At the headquarters-level, activities under ESF #10 provide a bridge between
the NRT and the CDRG. The National Chair of ESF #10 is also the NRT Chr-.ir, at the Regional
level, the EPA RRT Co-Chair is also the ESF #10 Regional Chair. At the Regional-level,
activities under ESF #10 provide a bridge between the on-site OSC (with RRT support) and the
overall disaster response activities carried out at the Disaster Field Office (DFO) and managed
by the FCO. Each RRT participates in preparedness activities under ESF #10 (e.g., pre-incident
coordination, FRP and Region ESF#10 revisions, simulations, and training) and is expected to
be closely involved in response activities if ESF #10 is activated.
'*«*
As discussed earlier, EPA may be tasked to perform environmentally-related, but non-NCP tasks
such as assessing damage to water and waste-water treatment facilities, identifying disposal
options for debris, or coordinating the collection and disposal of household hazardous waste
(HHW). EPA has developed guidance for establishing a HHW collection program.
43
-------
Removal Actions Under the Federal Response Plan
OSC Responsibilities under ESF #10
Upon activation of ESF #10, one or more OSCs will coordinate and direct oil and hazardous
substances removal actions. Depending upon the location of the incident(s), the OSC(s) may be
provided by either the EPA (for discharges and releases into or threatening the inland zone),
USCG, DOD, or DOE.
Response to oil discharges and hazardous substance releases under ESF #10 are conducted in
accordance with the NCP. When ESF #10 is activated, OSCs carry out their responsibilities
under the NCP to coordinate and manage Federal efforts to detect, identify, contain, clean up,
dispose of, or minimize releases of oil or hazardous substances and to prevent, mitigate, or
minimize the threat of potential releases.
Although OSC response actions must be in accordance with the NCP, there will be special
response considerations in the event of a catastrophe and enactment of the FRP:
First, there will be a need for a single coordination mechanism for Federal hazardous
materials responses because it is likely that there will be several releases occurring
simultaneously making heavy demands on response resources. Further, many of the.
agencies represented on the NRT/RRT will also be involved in responding to the disaster
under other ESFs, and hence there may be conflicting demands on agency resources.
When, due to multiple response actions, more than one Federal OSC is involved in
implementing response, ESF #10 is the mechanism through which close coordination is
maintained among all agencies and OSCs. The OSCs' efforts are coordinated under the
direction of the ESF #10 Regional Chair, (who is also the EPA RRT Co-Chair). The ESF
#10 Regional Chair is responsible for identifying and prioritizing requests for hazardous
materials response assistance,' based on available state and local response resources.
Second, in the event of a catastrophe, information on response activities must be provided
to the DFO and the FCO on a continuous basis. In some cases, this information could
be coming in from more than one state or Region. The proper flow of this information
is necessary to avoid confusion. OSCs should provide site-specific information to the
ESF #10 Regional Chair. The Regional Chair will then be responsible for notifying the
FCO. The Region also should report regularly to EPA Headquarters.
* Third, even if the natural or other catastrophic disaster does not cause situations where
there are actual releases, OSCs should assess and monitor facilities that are located in or
near the affected area. Such monitoring and assessment activities may have to be carried
out under CERCLA/OPA funding. However, OSCs also should be aware that these
activities may be eligible for Stafford Act funding (see the following section on Mission
Assignments). Information submitted in compliance with Title III of SARA, the Clean
Air Act Amendments of 1990, the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, and the Hazardous
Materials Transportation Uniform Safety Act of 1990 will be useful in identifying such
facilities.
44
.L
-------
Removal Actions Under the Federal Response Plan
In certain circumstances, some administrative procedures in the NCP can be streamlined during
the immediate response phase. The decision to streamline certain administrative procedures will
be made on a case-by-case basis, in consultation with the ESF #10 chair. Further information on
the details and special operations of ESF #10 is contained in the FRP.
While implementing FRJP/ESF #10 response activities, OSCs will have to overcome other
obstacles that are unique to a catastrophic disaster. OSCs should consider the following planning
assumptions:
OSCs may need to be self-sufficient in the early days of the response (for example,
during Hurricane Andrew, shelter, food, and transportation were difficult to obtain
because the basic infrastructure providing these services was severely damaged).
OSCs will need additional response/cleanup personnel and equipment to supplement
existing capabilities and to provide backup or relief resources.
States and localities will be overwhelmed by the extent of the response effort.
Standard communications equipment and practices will be disrupted or destroyed
Response personnel, cleanup crews, and response equipment will have difficulty reaching
the site of a hazardous materials release because of the damage sustained by the
transportation infrastructure.
Laboratories responsible for analyzing hazardous materials samples may be damaged or
destroyed.
Air transportation may be needed for damage reconnaissance and to transport personnel
and equipment to the site of a release.
Emergency exemptions may be needed for disposal of materials contaminated during
emergencies.
National ESF #10 will operate from the EPA Headquarters Emergency Operations Center (EOC);
Regional ESF #10 typically operates from the FEMA DFO and the EPA Regional Response
Center.
Mission Assignments
A Mission Assignment (MA) is a work order issued by FEMA to another Federal agency (OFA)
directing that Agency to complete a specific task in anticipation of, or response to, a Presidential
declaration of a major disaster or emergency and subsequent activation of the FRP. What follows
below is a brief summary of MAs and the MA process. Both FEMA and EPA have developed
draft guidance on MAs and the MA process; however, such guidance is under revision and
should be consulted regularly for updates.
45
-------
Removal Actions Under the Federal Response Plan
Through the MA, FEMA iriay direct any OFA to support state and local assistance efforts. MAs
are the mechanism for these directives and are given to an OFA to provide:
Direct Federal assistance to affected state and local jurisdictions;
* Technical Assistance to state and local jurisdictions; or
Logistical or technical support to FEMA or Federal organizations. i
An MA may be issued to a OFA with or without compensation, although generally FEMA's
intent is to reimburse for all eligible costs incurred under MAs. If the OFA is to be reimbursed
for the work performed, the MA documentation will contain a dollar amount that is not to be
exceeded without prior approval of the issuing official. MAs are issued in writing, or confirmed
in writing as soon as possible when made orally, and identify the broad statement of work to be
performed by the OFA. MA issuance documentation consists of:
An MA Activation Letter for each activated OFA. The MA Activation Letter includes
language that activates the entire agency to receive and execute an MA. Under each MA,
taskings are issued to an OFA to perform a specific activity. Each tasking includes an '
explicit description of assistance to be provided, completion date, and funding
limitations.
One or more Request for Federal Assistance Form(s). The Request for Federal
Assistance Form (RFA) is a standard form used to request assistance and document every
MA and tasking. Each RFA must be signed by a Federal official; in certain cases, the
RFA must also be signed by the affected state.
The MA process includes:
Identifying the need for Federal Assistance. Such needs may be identified by: affected
state and local governments; OF As; Interagency units such as ground assessment teams
or state and county liaison teams; political officials; private voluntary organizations; joint
task force(s); or the Federal approving official.
Requesting Federal Assistance. Requests are entered on the RFA form; verbal requests
are recorded on the form as soon as possible.
Obtaining Approvals for MA. Signatory approval (Federal and state) required for MAs
depends upon the type of Federal assistance requested. A Federal official always signs;
states sign under certain conditions and especially if a state is expected to cost share the
MA. The signed MA includes a disaster identification number; financial management
information regarding reimbursement such as billing, advance of funds, property
accountability, etc.; and reporting requirements.
Implementing the MA. Work under an MA can begin upon receipt of a verbal request;
however, the documentation must follow promptly. After receipt of a verbal or written
MA, the OFA begins immediately to coordinate with the requestor and provide the
46
-------
Removal Actions Under the Federal Response Plan
' "* I* A
required assistance. A FEMA Mission Assignment Coordinator (MAC) monitors and
tracks the MA.
Deactivating the MA. Deactivation is upon mutual agreement with FEMA. The OFA
is responsible for preparing bills, attaching the supporting documentation, and submitting
the paperwork to FEMA for reimbursement.
««*
47
-------
Removal Actions Under the Federal Response Plan
This page intentionally left blank
48
-------
Continuous Releases of Hazardous Substances
Overview
The purpose of section 103(f)(2) of CERCLA is to reduce unnecessary hazardous substance
release notifications. Section 103(0(2) provides relief from the immediate reporting
requirements of CERCLA section 103(a) for releases of hazardous substances From facilities or
vessels that are "continuous" and "stable in quantity and rate."10 Relief from reporting under
CERCLA section 103 also applies to notification required under section 304 of the Emergency
Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act (EPCRA). CERCLA section 103(0(2), however,
does not eliminate the requirement to report. Government response officials need to receive
notification of hazardous substance releases that are not Federally permitted and that equal or
exceed an RQ on a continuous basis. Such releases are not necessarily risk free, and government
response officials need information about them so that the releases can be evaluated and, if
necessary, a response action can be taken. The final rule on reporting continuous releases of
hazardous substances (55 jFg, 30166, July 24, 1990) outlines the reporting requirements and
procedures under the final regulation.
Each EPA Region is responsible for evaluating the reports submitted by facilities within its
jurisdiction to determine if there are any significant hazard risks that could require removal
actions. When determinations of significant risk are made, OSCs should further evaluate the
continuous releases and decide whether removal actions are appropriate. After evaluating the
release situation, all of the CERCLA enforcement tools are available to the OSC for hazard
mitigation or abatement. Exhibit 4 provides a list of available guidance on continuous release
reporting.
Facility Reporting Requirements
Under the continuous release reporting regulation, facilities must report continuous releases of
hazardous substances by telephone and in writing. Facilities must make an initial telephone call
to three separate government authorities: the National Response Center (NRC), the state
Emergency Response Commission (SERQ, and the Local Emergency Planning Committee
(LEPC). Within 30 days of these calls, facilities must submit a written report to the appropriate
EPA Region, SERC, and LEPC. This written follow-up report must contain information about
the release, including^ the identity of the substance, the frequency of the release, the
characteristics of the source of the release, the size and location of potentially exposed
populations, and the normal range of the quantity released over a 24-hour period.' Unless the
Region indicates otherwise, the facility owner or operator can assume that the information
submitted was sufficient. However, within 30 days of the first anniversary of the follow-up
report, the facility owner or operator must submit a second written report to confirm the
10 The continuous release regulation defines "continuous" to mean a release of a hazardous substance equal to or
above the reportable quantity (RQ) that occurs without interruption or abatement, or that is routine, anticipated,
intermittent, and incidental to normal operations or treatment processes. A release that is "stable in quantity and
rate" is a release that is predictable and regular in the amount and rate of emission.
49
-------
Continuous Releases of Hazardous Substances
continuous release. The information required in this second report is identical to that required
in the initial written notification, but should be based on release data and information gathered
over the immediately preceding year (i.e., during the period since the submission of the initial
written report). Thereafter, the continuous release must be assessed annually, but no further
notification about the release is required unless the release exceeds the upper bound of the normal
range or changes in some other way.
EXHIBIT 4. AVAILABLE GUIDANCE ON CONTINUOUS RELEASE
REPORTING
Assessing Reports of Continuous Releases of Hazardous Substances: A
Guide for EPA Regions, EPA/540/G-91/002, October 1990.
Continuous Release Emergency Response Notification System and Priority
Assessment Model: Model Documentation, EPA/540/0-91/004, October
1990.
Continuous Release - Emergency Response Notification System and Priority
Assessment Model: User's Manual for EPA Regions, EPA/540/G-91/001,
October 1990.
Continuous Release - Emergency Response Notification System: User's
Manual for Industry, EPA/540/G-91/005, March 1991.
Reporting Requirements for Continuous Releases of Hazardous Substances:
A Guide for Facilities and Vessels on Compliance, EPA/540/G-91/003,
October 1990.
Risk Evaluation: The Priority Assessment Model
''sa-
Each EPA Region is responsible for evaluating the reports submitted by facilities within its
jurisdiction to determine if there are any risks of significant harm that could require removal
actions. CR-ERNS, an information management system, assists the Regions in these evaluations.
The Priority Assessment Model (PAM) is part of CR-ERNS and is able to evaluate the risks
attributable to continuous releases of hazardous substances. It is important to note that, although
these continuous releases are predictable and perhaps the result of normal operations and
treatment systems,, they are not permitted releases and may pose a significant hazard to human
health or the environment
50
-------
Continuous Releases of Hazardous Substances
PAM is a screening tool that provides preliminary information about the li\;ly health risks from
a release. The model relies on facility-specific information provided in the written release
reports, as well as Region-specific soil, ground water, and atmospheric data. The model assumes
that the facility is releasing the hazardous substance at a quantity equal to the upper bound of the
normal range of the release and at the frequency indicated in the written report. The model
derives risk estimates for three exposure pathways: air, ground water, and surface water. PAM
is intended to reduce the burden associated with reviewing continuous release notifications by
identifying, in a rapid and systematic manner, releases that may need further investigation or
response [21].
PAM estimates the risks from the continuous release and presents the results in terms of red,
yellow, or green flags, representing high, medium, or low risk levels, respectively. These results
are only preliminary and rely, to some extent, on cautious assumptions that help to ensure that
dangerous releases are not overlooked. Although a red flag generally will not represent an
emergency, it also should not be ignored. For example, in the case of a potential carcinogen, a
red flag could represent a life-time excess cancer risk greater than one in ten thousand
Responding to Significant Hazards
Because PAM's results are only preliminary risk assessments, OSCs must evaluate all flags to
determine if significant hazards exist that require response actions. When evaluating potentially
significant hazards, the OSC should verify the accuracy of the information in the continuous
release report. The continuous release reporting regulation stipulates that once the two written
reports are submitted to the EPA Region, further reporting is not required unless there is a change
in the release or the release exceeds the upper bound of the normal range of the release. As a
result, a facility may overstate the upper bound of the release, to minimize the likelihood that
additional release reports would be required: In actuality, this reported upper bound may occur
very infrequently, and the PAM assumption that the upper bound represents the quantity released
each and every time may significantly overstate the risk posed by the release. Therefore, when
verifying the accuracy of the reported information, the OSC should focus on the normal range
of the release.
It may be useful for the OSC to perform a site inspection to better understand the release
configuration. The OSC may also alert the appropriate air or water permit personnel in the
Region, or the pollution prevention personnel, to see if they are aware of the reported continuous
release,
V
Just as in the case of episodic releases, after evaluating a continupus release report, all of the
CERCLA enforcement tools are available to the OSC for mitigation or abatement The guidance
documents currently available to support the continuous release reporting regulation, CR-ERNS,
and PAM are listed in Exhibit 4. For additional information, contact the appropriate Regional
Coordinator at Headquarters or the Superfund Hotline at (800) 424-9346.
51
-------
fj"
Continuous Releases of Hazardous Substances
This page left intentionally blank
52
-------
APPENDIX A. REFERENCES4
Guidance
[1] OSWER Dir. 9360.3-01, "Superfund Removal Procedures Action Memorandum Guidance"
(December 1990).
[2] OSWER Dir. 9330.2-07, "Notification of Out-of-State Shipments of Superfund Wastes"
(September 14, 1989).
[3] OSWER Dir. 9360.3-03, "Superfund Removal Procedures Removal Response Reporting:
POLREPs and OSC Reports" (June 1994).
[4] OSWER Superfund Publication #9347.3-06FS, "Superfund LDR Guidance #6A - Obtaining
a Soil and Debris Treatability Variance for Remedial Actions" (July 1989).
[5] OSWER Superfund Publication #9347,3-07FS, "Superfund LDR Guide #6B - Obtaining a
Soil and Debris Treatability Variance for Removal Actions (July 1989).
[6] OSWER Dir. 9360.3-02, "Superfund Removal Procedures Guidance on the Consideration of
ARARs During Removal Actions" (August 1991).
[7] OSWER Superfund Publication #9347.3-05FS, "Superfund LDR Guide #5 - Determining
When Land Disposal Restrictions are Applicable to CERCLA Response Actions" (July 1989).
[8] OSWER Dir. 9380.0-17, "Furthering the Use of Innovative Treatment Technologies in
OSWER Programs" (June 1991).
[9] OSWER Dir. 9380.2-01, Administrative Guidance for Removal Program Use of Alternatives
to Land Disposal" (May 1993).
[10] OSWER Dir. 9360.1-02, "Final Guidance on Numeric Removal Action Levels for
Contaminated Drinking Water Sites" (October 25, 1993).
[11] OW Publication, "Guidance for Determining Unreasonable Risks to Health" (1992).
[12] ORD Publication, "Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables (HEAST)" (March 1992).
[13] "Policy on Use of Institutional Controls at Hazardous Waste Sites" Memorandum from J.
Winston Porter, Assistant Administrator, OSWER, to OSWER Office Directors and Regional
Waste Management Decision Directors (October 28, 1988).
4 Bracketed numbers appear throughout the text and correspond to the references listed in this appendix. These
references may be consulted for additional information on the specific topics to which they relate.
A-l
-------
Guidance (continued)
[14] OSWER Dir. 9280.0-02B, "Policy on Floodplains and Wetlands Assessments for CERCLA
Actions" (August 6, 1988).
[15] OSWER Dir. 9360.0-19, "Guidance on Non-NPL Removal Actions Involving Nationally
Significant or Precedent Setting-Issues" (March 3, 1989).
[16] OSWER Dir. 9360.0-8, "Removal Actions at Methane Release Sites (Release of 'Naturally
Occurring'Substances)" (January 23, 1986).
[17] "Guidance for Relocations at Removal Action Sites," draft document (November 22, 1991).
[18] OSWER Dir. 9225.4-01, "Guidance on Compensation for Property Loss in Removal
Actions (February 1996, DRAFT).
[19] OSWER Dir. 9285.4-06, "ATSDR Health Consultations Under CERCLA" (November 21,
1991).
[20] "The Federal Response Plan Manual" for Public Law 93-288, as amended (April 1992).
[21] "Continuous Release - Emergency Response Notification System and Priority Assessment
Model: Model Documentation," EPA/540/G-91/004 (October 1990). .
[22] "Assessing Reports of Continuous Releases of Hazardous Substances: A Guide for EPA
Regions," EPA/540/G-91/002 (October 1990).
[23] "Reporting Requirements for Continuous Releases of Hazardous Substances: A Guide for
Facilities and Vessels on Compliance," EPA/540/G-91/003 (October 1990).
[24] "Continuous Release - Emergency Response Notification System and Priority Assessment
Model: User's Manual for EPA Regions," EPA/540/G-91/001 (October 1990).
[25] "Continuous Release - Emergency Response Notification System: User's Manual for Industry,"
EPA/540/G-91/005 (March 1990).
Statutes and Regulations
Amendment to the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan; Procedures
for Planning and Implementing Off-Site Response Actions Final Rule, 40 CFR 300.440.
The Atomic Energy Act of 1954,42 USC 2011 et seq.
A-2
-------
Statutes and Regulations (continued)
The Clean Air Act, as amended, 42 USC 7401 -7671 q.
The Clean Water Act of 1977, as amended, 33 USC 1251 -1376.
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended,
42 USC 9601-9675.
The Federal Radiological Emergency Response Plan, 24 CFR 2401.
The Hazardous Materials Transportation Uniform Safety Act of 1990,49 USC 1801 et seq.
The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 USC 4321.
The National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan, 40 CFR Part 300.
Procedures on Floodplain Management and Wetland Protection, Appendix A, 40 CFR Pan 6,
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, as amended, 42 USC 6901-6987.
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Treatment Standards, 40 CFR Part 268, Subpart D.
The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act of 1988, 42 USC 3231 et
seq.
The Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, as amended, 42 USC 300F-300J-25.
Storage and Disposal Requirements for PCBs, 40 CFR Part 761, Subpart D.
The Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976, 15 USC 6903-6948.
The Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978,42 USC 7901 et seq.
The Uniform Relocation and Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Regulations for Federal
and Federally Assisted Programs, 49 CFR Part 24.
«*?
A-3
-------
This page left intentionally blank
A-4
-------
APPENDIX B. KEY WORDS INDEX
* . i* " .
Action Memorandum 2,4,7, 8, 17, 23, 25, 33
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) 24, 33, 39
Applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements (ARARs) 11, 23, 24
Continuous releases 49-51
Dioxins 9,11-14
DOD and DOE facilities 32,44
Engineering Evaluation and Cost Analysis (EE/CA) 17
Evacuation and temporary relocation 35-38
Facility acceptability status 4-8
Floodplains 27-29
Institutional Controls (ICs) 25-26
Land disposal restrictions (LDRs) 9-14, 16
Mission Assigments 45-47
National Priorities List (NPL) .19
National Response Team (NRT) 43-44
Naturally occurring substances 33-34
Off-site storage, treatment, and disposal 3-8, 14
Out-of-State shipments 1,7
Pollution reports (POLREPs) 8,17, 33-34
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) 4, 6, 9, 12-14
Radioactive wastes 7, 31 -32
Regional RCRA Off-Site Coordinator (ROC) 5-6
B-l
-------
Removal actions 1,3-4, 7,.9, 11, 13-17, 19,21,23-25,27-29, 32-39,41-44
' Emergency ....*... \; ...k 7,17,29,31-33,43
Non-Time-Critical 7,17
Time-Critical ." 16-17,39
Removal action levels (RALs) 19, 21 -23
Removal site evaluation 4-5, 27
Preliminary Assessment (PA) 5, 27
Site Inspection (SI) 4-5
Wetlands 27-29
B-2
------- |