UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MAR 7 I9SH
OSWER Directive Number 9833.0-la
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Guidance on CERCLA Section 106 (a) Unilateral
Administrative Orders for Remedial Designs and Remedial
Actions
FROM: . Don R. Clay, Assistant Administrator
/yoffice of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
James M. Strock, Assistant Administrator _
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring
TO: Regional Administrators,
Regions I-X
I. Introduction
This memorandum sets forth general principles governing the
Agency's unilateral administrative order authority for remedial
designs and remedial actions under section 106 (a) of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability
Act of 1980, as amended by the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986 (CERCLA or Superfund).1 Policies and
procedures to be followed when issuing unilateral orders for
remedial actions are provided.
The memorandum has the following sections:
o Introduction
o The Role of Unilateral Orders in the CERCLA Remedial
Process
'This memorandum 'and the forthcoming memorandum entitled
"Guidance on the Issuance of CERCLA Section 106(a) Administrative
Orders for Removal Actions," together supersede the September 8,
1983 "Guidance Memorandum on Use and Issuance of Administrative
Orders under §106(a) of CERCLA" (OSWER Directive number 9833.0)
and the February 21, 1984 guidance on "Issuance of Administrative
Orders for Immediate Removal Actions" (OSWER Directive number
9833.1A). Changes to the guidances are the result of statutory
amendments and evaluation of Agency experience.
-------
OSWER Directive Number 9833.0-la
o Legal Aspects of Section; 106 'Orders for Remedial
Design/Remedial Action
- Background Information about Section 106
Authorities
^- statutory Requirements of Section 106 *
". \ .Administrative Orders :
1 "' ' '" - Judicial Review of.-.Unilateral- ,
Orders/'
" o Possible Recipients of Unilateral Orders .*',
o - Case Specific Considerations
- Decision Whether to Issue an Order,-,
, - Determining the~ Identity, of .tJieRespondents
o ' Elements of "Unilateral^ Orders ' ': '"', "V
o Modification of Unilateral Orders ^
o Procedures Relating to Issuing Unilateral Orders >"
- Special'Wot ice -'Procedures " .'.V :-"<; -
... _'-- "The "Conference '"' ''.'" - ' , .''"
*. ' o Specialized Forms and Use of Unilateral. Orders"
o - Continued Negotiation'. After .Issuance of'.an-Order
o Noncompl'iance with .Unilateral Orders
o "''Note-on Purpose and Use of this Memorandum - '
Appendix A defines section 106 unilateral and consent
orders, and their judicial counterparts. _ ( .,r-, -;;. -
This memorandum applies to all CERCLA section 106 unilateral
orders, issued to compel Potentially Responsible Parties,(PRPs)
to conduct remedial designs ^and'remedial actions. For a -\ : .
discussion'of settlement principles relevant to remedial,, act ions,
see the "Interim'.CERCLA Settlement Policy,* dated December 5, ..
1984 (OSWER Directive*number '9835.0), also published at' 5Q .PR,-. >:'
5034, February 5, 1985). A guidance on the issuance of CERCLA .
§106(a)1 administrative orders, for removal'actions is under -.- ..
development. '"'." " .?>' ">-"v- '.' *'
.-.|.zThi> guidance does not specifically address CERCLA remedial
action at federal facilities. See the "Federal Facility
Compliance Strategy" (office of External Affairs, November 1988)
for information about CERCLA enforcement actions against Federal
facilities, and the "Federal Facilities'Negotiation Policy,," ., ;»
(OSWER, August, 1989)'* ' .-r.^ - '"' -"-"' V'"; ;"""' " ' '' -'
' \.'i-' '-"':'' -' "" <;--- '.'.'ci " '' :" ' .J
*'_ ' , - ''.,.,'-*- . \
For information on -CERCLA,enforcement practices relating to
municipalities, see the "Interim ;Policy on CERCLA Settlements i :\
Involving-Municijpalities and Municipal" Wastes," (December 6, "
1989)' (OSWER Directive number 9834.13). " J '
-------
.
OSWER Directive Number 9833. 0-la
II. The Role af Unilateral Orders in the CERCLA Remedial
An objective of Superfund enforcement is to place ultimate
responsibility for the costs of cleaning up Superfund sites on
those who contributed to the problem. EPA prefers to obtain
private-party response action through the negotiation of
settlement agreements with parties willing to do the work.
when viable private parties exist and are not willing to reach a
timely settlement to undertake work under a consent order* or
decree, or prior to settlement discussions in appropriate
circumstances, the Agency typically will compel private-party
response through unilateral orders. If the PRPs do not comply
with the order, EPA may fund the response or may refer the case
for judicial action to compel performance and recover penalties.
Unilateral orders should be considered as one of the
primary enforcement tools to obtain RD/RA response by PRPs.
Unilateral orders can provide an incentive for .PRPs to settle,
can help to control settlement negotiation deadlines, and can be
used to force commencement of work at the site when settlement
cannot be reached. Unilateral orders can also help to encourage
the organization and coalescence of disorganized PRPs. Because
many PRPs promptly comply with unilateral orders, they also help
to conserve the limited funds available for government-financed
cleanup.
If PRPs do not comply with unilateral orders, the Agency has
the flexibility to determine whether to perform a Fund-financed
cleanup and seek to recover those costs from the PRPs through a
judicial referral for cost recovery, punitive damages*, and
penalties. The Agency also may prepare a referral for judicial
enforcement action pursuant to section 106, to compel compliance
and to exact penalties. Regardless of the route the Agency
chooses to take upon noncompliance with a unilateral order, PRPs
remain potentially liable for the response action. Federal
courts can compel PRPs to conduct the response action and impose
penalties. If the Agency chooses to clean up the site with the
Fund, at a minimum the PRPs will be potentially liable for cost
recovery of the funds expended. In addition, Federal courts can
4CERCIA I107(c)(3) authorizes punitive damages from one to
three time* the costs incurred by the Fund.
5CERCLA section I06(b)(l) provides that "any person who,
without sufficient cause, willfully violates, or fails or refuses
to comply" with any order, may be fined up to $25,000 for each
day in which the violation occurs or the failure to comply
continues.
-------
. , OSWER Directive Dumber 9833.0-la
compel PRPe to pay penalties, as veil as punitive damages of up
to three .times the costs incurred by the Fund.
Regions should incorporate issuance of unilateral orders ~
into their site management plans consistent with the following
general principles. First, in the context :£ orders for RD
and/or RA, during the RI/FS, the Region should review the PRP
search to-ensure that it.is complete. _ * - '-
- Second, apart from liability, the development of the-factual
basis for the response action required in the order should begin
during the RI/FS process. When reviewing deliverables during the
RI/FS, a Region should always keep in mind that a unilateral
order nay need to-be issued on the basis- of the RI/FS. The
Region should ensure that documents developed during the RI/FS
contain enough information to support all the findings necessary
to support issuance of a unilateral order, i.e., that because of
an actual release or threat of release of one or more hazardous
substances from a facility there may be an imminent' and
substantial endangerment to the public health or welfare or the
environment. It is important to pay particular attention to the
baseline risk assessment. Baseline risk assessments provide an
evaluation of the potential threat to human health and the *
environment in the absence of any remedial action.6 They provide,
a basis for determining whether*or not remedial action is '
6Before a unilateral order is issued, the results of any ;*
health assessment issued by the Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease ^Registry (ATSDR) also should be reviewed for consistency1
with the order. Nonetheless, unavailability of, or the
possibility of differences with, an ATSDR health assessment
should not discourage issuance of a unilateral order. ATSDR1s
assessments and EPA'a risk assessments are based 'on different
methodologies, with different purposes. ATSDR*s health ''
assessments.are preliminary assessments usually performed before'
the site remedial investigation has been completed. The'main
purpose of the ATSDR health assessment ia to determine if there
is a significant risk, to human health requiring steps to reduce
exposure eucb, as providing alternate water supplies or relocating
individual*. ATSDR also uses the results of the health
assessment, to determine if additional studies such as
epidemiologies! studies or health surveillance,programs should be
performed. Aa a result, the ATSDR health assessment and EPA's
risk assessment may reach different conclusions in some
circumstancea. Where an ATSDR health assessment (done before the
decision document ia signed) appears to be different from EPA
risk assessment results, the difference should be addressed in
the administrative record for the selection of the response
action. ''- "'
-------
, ,, -'*M>roswER-'birec<:iv* Number 9833.0-la
necessary and a justification for performing remedial action. .
They will also be used to support imminent and substantial
endangerment findings in section 106 orders. In addition, a
statement of work (SOW) may be included or referenced in the
order.
The third general principle to be followed is that the
issuance of unilateral orders must be considered before a Fund-
financed response can proceed at a site. , Unilateral orders are
typically to be issued at the end of the special notice period if
settlement is not reached at a site, an extension of negotiations
is not warranted, and the case meets statutory criteria and case
specific considerations set forth in this guidance. Also,
unilateral 'orders should be issued routinely before cases are
referred to the Department of Justice (DOJ) under section 106.*
Unilateral orders can be used to establish a case for seeking
treble damages in the event of noncompliance by the PRP and where
the Fund is used to clean up the site.
In cases where the Region decides not to issue a unilateral
order, prior to commencing a Fund-financed response, the Region
must prepare a written justification explaining the decision not
to issue a unilateral order. A copy of the justification oust
be kept in the Region's enforcement files. Examples of instances
where adequate justification nay exist include those cases which
7in such instances, the SOW is an integral part of a
unilateral order because it provides the detailed requirements .
for the development of the RO/RA workplans and reporting
requirements.
8See "Guidance on CERCIA Section 106 Judicial Actions,"
February 24, 1989 (QSW1R Directive number 9835.?}.
9The Region should notify Headquarters in writing at least
two weeks prior to obligation of funds with the reasons for not
proceeding with a unilateral order. The written explanation
should describe in general terms the reasons for not going
forward with the order. The written explanation should come from
the Regional Waste Management Division Director (after
consultation with the Office of Regional Counsel) to the
Director, OWPE» The Regions should also send a copy to the
Associate Enforcement Counsel, OECM-Waste. Additional
information on procedures to follow where a Region decides not to
issue a unilateral order prior to commencing a fund-financed
response may be issued periodically. See "Use of CERCLA Section
106 Unilateral Enforcement for Remedial Design and Remedial
Action: strategy for Fiscal ₯ear 1990," February 14, 1990 (OSWER
Directive number 9870.1A.)
-------
OSWER Directive Number 9833. Q-la
do not meet the statutory criteria,, .or, where" case'- specif ic-' '.':
considerations for not issuing a unilateral order, exist :. " '' -
Statutory criteria are discussed in section, III of this' guidance;
case specific considerations' are discussed in section V. -
The site management plan should anticipate possible
noncompliance with the order, and include a course. of action that
may be followed; In, determining Whether to enforce, the
unilateral "order, Regions should consider the. importance -of
maintaining section 106 judicial enforcement as a- credible threat
to PRPs, as well as the availability of funds for .Agency''
response. -, ' * \' , ~ .- » ' -' ' ,'" '"
'"ill.'' j^fgai' Requirements, _pf_ Section 106 Orders fgr Remed^aJ, ' ''
' Design/ Remedial Aetiop ' '* ' , ' , ,. . . .'->
' , ; ' ' '"' " "'*',.".-''",' '" t '
' * vj A) ' ' Background Information abojJt.-SjHij£ion. 106 Authorities ' ':
r , . % _ - *^
Two types of administrative 'orders under section 106 of
CERCLA may be issued. Consent orders may, be issued to formalize
.removal and, RI/FS settlements. Unilateral orders may be issued'
to .compel a party- to undertake conventional removal actions,
RI/FS activities, or RD/RA work where a settlement was not - '"
reached.* Consent' orders are not' within the scope of this'-."
guidance:12 See Appendix A 'for more detail on when consent
orders under section? 106 may be used,
10This guidance should not be construed as limiting in any ,
way EPA's enforcement discretion to issue 1106 orders.,
' * l1Ag*ncy policy favors use of consent order*, for RI/FSs. '
See the "Administrative Order on Consent for Remedial :
Investigation/ Feasibility study," (OSWER Directive .number
9835.19)., Y; - , - - '-> ; .~VT-"-/ '-'' * -'-!'"'', '*
12CERCLA |122(d)(1)(A) requires that Agency agreements
entered into under §122 with respect to remedial action must be "
in. the form of a consent decree, entered in the appropriate
United states district court. Other vehicles, including orders;
may be used for remedial design. Se« "Initiation of PRP-financed
Remedial Design in Advance of consent Decree Entry," (November " .
18, 1988) (OSWim Directive number 3835.4*2A). .
-------
'" OSWER Directive Number 9833.0-la
s
B) statutory Requirements of Section 106 Administrative
Qrde^g
CERCLA section 106(a) provides as follows:
In addition to any other action taken..., when the President
determines that there may be an imminent and substantial
endangennent to the public health or welfare or the
environment because of an actual or threatened release of a
hazardous substance from a facility, he may require the
Attorney General of the United States to secure such relief
as may'be necessary to abate such danger or threat....The
President may also, after notice to the'affected State,
take other action under this section including, but not
limited to, issuing such orders as may be necessary to
protect public health and welfare and the environment.
Consistent with the statute, administrative orders issued
under section 106 may be issued if a release or threat of a
release of a hazardous substance from a -facility may present an
imminent and substantial endangennent to public health, welfare,
or the environment. The order must include findings on the
hazardous substance(s), the nature of the release or threat of a
release, the location of the release [i.e., the location is a
"facility"], the nature of, and basis for the finding of, a
possible imminent and substantial endangerment.
It is important that the link between the release, the
possible endangerment, and the response action to abate the
possible endangerment mandated by the order, be clearly presented
in the order. The findings of fact section should describe the
problem at the site and state that "the actions specified in the
ROD and required by this order will protect the public health,
and welfare, and the environment.11
Finally, before an order may be issued, the affected State
must be notified.'3 The statutory requirements of a section 106
order are described in more detail below.
1) qvidence of a Releaseor ThreatenedRelease of 3
Hazardous Substance
A "hatardbus substance" is generally defined in CERCIA
section 101(14) as any substance, waste or pollutant designated
"section 106(a) requires notice to the affected State
before issuing an administrative order. See additional
discussion in this section, at 1(4),
-------
.... ,-; . . , OSWER Directive Number 9833.Q-la
pursuant to sections 3Q7(a) and 311(b){2>(A), of the Clean Water
Act, section 112 of the Clean Air Act, or section 102 of CERCLA,
any imminently hazardous chemical substance or mixture with -
respect to which the Administrator has taken action pursuant to
section 7 of the Toxic Substances Control Act, or any hazardous
waste having the characteristics identified under or listed
pursuant to section 3001 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act....1*
See 40 C.F.'R. Part.302 for a list of hazardous substances.15
..*>." ~ ,
'Under CERCLA section 101(22), "release" is defined as any
spilling, leaking, pumping, pouring, emitting, emptying,
discharging, injecting, escaping, leaching, dumping, or disposing
into the environment (including the abandonment or discarding of
barrels, containers, and other closed receptacles containing any
hazardous substance or pollutant or contaminant).1* The
determination- of whether there is an actual or threatened release
depends upon several considerations. An actual release usually
should be observable in some form, whether visually or through
analysis showing the presence of contaminants in samples of soil,
water, or air. The threat of a re lease,-; however, involves
releases that have yet to occur or find their way into the
environment. A surface impoundment that is about to overflow
because of rain is an example of a threatened release.
"CERCLA 8101(14) excludes from the definition of hazardous
substancej "...petroleum, including crude oil or any fraction
thereof which is not otherwise specially listed or designated as
a hazardous substance under subparagraphs (A) through (F) of this
-paragraph, and...natural gas, natural gas liquids, liquified
natural gas, or synthetic gas usable for fuel (or mixtures of
natural gas and such synthetic gas").
15Note that this list is not the exclusive list of.hazardous
substances. Some RCRA [characteristic] wastes may not be listed
in 40 C.F.R. 302, but would still be hazardous substances if they
meet any of four, characteristic criteria under 49 C.F.R. 1261.20.
1*Th« statute excludes some activities from the definition
of a release. 'CERCLA §101(22) excludes from the definition of
release "any release which results in exposure to persons solely
within a workplace, with respect to a claim which such persons
may assert against the employer of such persons...i emissions
from the engine exhaust of a motor vehicle, rolling stock,
aircraft, vessel, or pipeline pumping station engine; release of
source, byproduct, or special nuclear material front a nuclear,
incident..."
a
-------
'Directive Number 9833. 0-la
For RD/RA, the release or threat of a release will have been
documented during the RI/FS,1 This information must be
identified in reasonable detail in. the order.
2} Evidence that the Release or Threatened Release ig
. from a Facility
The release or threat of a release must be from a
"facility." A facility is broadly defined in CERCIA section
101(9) as;
(A) any building,, structure, installation, equipment, pipe
or pipeline (including any pipe into a sever or publicly
owned treatment works), well, pit, pond, lagoon,
impoundment, ditch, landfill, storage container, motor
vehicle, rolling stock, or aircraft, or (B) any site or area
where a hazardous substance has been deposited, stored,
disposed of, or placed, or otherwise come to be located, but
does not include any consumer product in consumer use or any
vessel. ' '
When read together with CERCLA section 101(17) and (18),
this definition includes any on-shore or off-shore sites, not to
exclude land transportation facilities, from which releases or
threats of releases may originate. The administrative order must
specify the physical location of the release. This establishes
that the release was from a facility.
3 ) Evidence of a Pogsj^lie IffiffliflP^t and
An endangerment is a threatened or potential harm. An
endangerment is imminent if the conditions that give rise to it
are present, even though the harm night not be realized for
years. An endangerment is substantial if there is reasonable
'^Information relevant to the release or threat of release
documented during the RZ/FS should be referenced in the order,
and included in the administrative record for selection of the
response action.
!8B. y. Goodrich Co. v. Murtha. 697 P. Supp. 89 (D. Conn.
1988) ; United States v. Conservation Chemical Co.. 61f p. Supp.
162 (W.Q. Mo. 19S5)i United States v. Ottati and Goaa. Inc.. 630
F. Supp. 1361 (D. N.H. 1985) ,' United Statea v. Northeastern
Pharmaceutical and Chemical Co. ("NEPACCO")» 579 P. Supp. 823
(W.D. Mo. 1984), aff *d in pjur1;_andL rev*d in part on other
grounds. 810 F.2d 726 (8th Cir. 1986), cert, den.. 484 U.S. 1008
(1987)? United Statea v. Reillv Tar & Chemical Corp.. 546 F.
-------
OSWER Directive Number 9833.o-ia
cause to "believe that someone or something may be exposed to a
risk of harm from "'a release or' threatened release. This - - '
statutory element has been judicially interpreted to require only
a limited showing. The mere threat of ham or potential harm to
public health, public welfare, or the environment is
sufficient.20 The endangerment need not be immediate to be
imminent. '.
Courts have held that there may be an imminent and
substantial endangerment when:
' o Numerous hazardous substances are present at, and being
released into the environment from a site that is
accessible to, humans and wildlife; "
o A relatively small quantity of hazardous substances
that are toxic at low dosage levels are substantially
likely to enter the groundvater and result in human and
environmental exposure?
o Contaminated groundwater flows in the direction of a
subdivision-using well water?
o Numerous hazardous substances have reached private
., . drinking water wells and have contaminated the
' . groundwater and surface waters; .
Supp. 1100 (D. Minn. 1982). '
Chemical, at 19i-96.
Chemical, 'at 175, 193-94; fltt;at|. & Goss. at
1394.- ' ' ' . : '"
22MBPACgQ. 579 F. Supp. at 846. - . " ' ,'!
United statfifl v. Sevmour Recycling Corp., 618 F. Supp. 1
(S.D. Ind. 1984).
24United states v. Hardaoc. 18 Env»t Rep. Ca». (SNA) 1685
(W.D. Okla. 1982) . '
10
-------
/"'''OSWER Directive Number 9833.o-la
o Numerous hazardous substances are migrating from a
facility and have contaminated the soil and
groundwater.
The above list is far from exhaustive.
For RD/RA unilateral orders, the endangerment should have
been documented in the baseline risk assessment. This risk
assessment should also be used to support the determination of a
possible imminent and substantial endangerment. No additional
resources should be required to support the finding of a possible
imminent and substantial endangerment.
The possible imminent and substantial endangerment must be
set forth in the order. It is useful to include findings in the
order which describe the potential or actual risk from the
concentration, levels detected in the release. However, such
information is not required in the order itself to establish a
possible imminent and substantial endangerment.
»*
4) Notice to Affected States
CERCLA section 106(a) authorizes the Agency to issue such
orders as may be necessary to protect public health and welfare
and the environment, after giving notice to the affected State.2f
The affected State is interpreted to be the State where the *
facility is located, and in which the cleanup will be conducted.
Notice is usually given to the Director of the state's pollution
control agency. For the RD/RA, circumstances generally permit
written notification to the-.State prior to issuing the unilateral
Ottati and Goaa. 630 P. Supp. 1361.
26See the guidance "Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund."
As updated, this guidance presently consists of the following two
volumes: the "Human Health Evaluation Manual,1* (October 1989)
(OSWER Directive number 9285.7-ola), and the "Environmental
Evaluation Manual," March 1989 (OSWER Directive number 9285.7-02)
[EPA/540-1-89/001]. See also the "Interim Final Guidance on
Preparing Stiptrfund Decision Documents,** June 1989, {OSWER
Directive number 9355.3-02).
»
27CERCLA |101(2?) defines State to include "the several
States of the United States, the District of Columbia, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the United
States Virgin Islands, the commonwealth of the Northern Marianas,
and any other territory or possession over which the United
states has jurisdiction." It is EPA policy to give Indian tribes
equivalent notification.
11
-------
OSWER Directive Number 9833.0-la
order.': In the .event that verbal notice, is given, a-telephone
conversation log-should be retained.
C) Judicjf^ Review of Unilateral .Orders
CERCLA precludes PRPs from initiating court proceedings to
challenge a unilateral order'upon receipt. Under CERCLA section
113(h), courts may review section 106 orders only when the Agency
seeks.to enforce the order, the Agency seeks penalties for'
violation of the order, or the PRPs seek reimbursement from EPA
of response costs incurred after compliance with the order.28
Therefore, if PRPs refuse to comply with a unilateral order, the
Agency may use the Fund to clean up the site, without first
defending its actions in court, . ;
Once -in a court proceeding where the validity of the order
is properly at-issue, section 113(j)(l) of CERCIA provides that
judicial review of any issues concerning the adequacy of any
response action is limited to the administrative record. The
Agency already will have compiled the administrative record for
the selection of the remedy. This record will include
information on the release, the possible endangerment, and the
response action required. , -
IV. Possible Recipients of Unijtafcegal-Orders . .
CERCLA section 106 does not specify the parties to whom an
order may be issued. Under section 10?(a), parties liable under
CERCLA are: . ' f
(1) the owner and operator of a vessel or a facility; (2) ..
any person who at the time of disposal of any hazardous
substance owned or operated any facility at which such
hazardous substances were disposed of; (3) any person who by
contract, agreement, or otherwise arranged for disposal or
treatment of hazardous, substances...; and (4) any person'who
accepts or accepted any hazardous substances for transport
to disposal or treatment facilities, incineration vessels or
sites selected by such person....
These parties may receive a section 106 order. However,
section 10* dees not limit issuance of orders to these PRPs. In
appropriate cases, unilateral orders may be issued to parties
other than those specified in section 107(a), if actions by such
28Section 113(h) also allows judicial review in th« context
of §107 cost recovery actions, §310 citizen suits, and $106
injunctive action.
12
-------
QSWER Directive Number 9833.o-la
parties are necessary to protect the public health, welfare, or
the environment. For example, a unilateral order may be issued
to the owner of land adjoining the site, to obtain site access.29
A unilateral order also may be issued to prevent a non-pRP from
interfering with a response action.
The order generally should specify that each of the PRPs
named as respondents is jointly and severally liable to carry out
all obligations imposed by the order unless there is a clear
divisibility of harm at a site. The Agency typically will not
allocate work required by the unilateral order among the
respondents. For example, an order can require multiple PRPs to
perform all activities required by the order, as well as require
the submission of one consolidated work plan from all
respondents. The order should specify that the failure of one or
more of the respondents to comply with all or any part of the
order shall not in any way excuse or justify noncompliance by any
other respondent. In the limited context of mixed .work or carve-
out orders (see section IX of this guidance), it may be
appropriate for certain parts of a response action to be included
in a settlement and other parts of a response action to be
included in an order.
V. Case Specific Considerations
A. Decision Jfoether to issue afl Order
In addition to the statutory requirements of unilateral
orders described above, additional factors need to be considered.
When the. statutory requirements -for issuing unilateral orders are
present, unilateral orders should be issued to parties who meet
the following criteria.
2 Usually, the Agency uses the broad access authority in
§104(e), but has also been successful under §106 as well, see
{UiU.Ggodri^fo gof v, Ifurth.a.. 697 P, Supp. 89 (D. Conn. 1988).
(The court upheld EPA's use of a 106(a) order to obtain site
access, stating that section 106 "is broadly worded to authorize
all relief 'necessary to abate [the] danger or threat.1 There is
no express restriction on the nature of the relief authorized
except as equity and the public interest may require.") 697 F.
Supp. at 94.
30Note, however, that much of this guidance pertains to PRPs
and may be inapplicable to orders issued to non-PRPs.
3tHot all of the criteria apply to parallel unilateral
orders, which, are described generally in section IX.
13
-------
OSWER Directive Number 9833. 0-la
r *
1) Evidence fehat the Parties are Liable38 ' ' . ' -.'
"\ * " - , ,
Unilateral orders should be issued baaed upon adequate
evidence of the PRP!s liability.3 Evidence sufficient to
support the liability of each PRP named as a respondent needs to
be in EPA's possession. PRP searches, including section 104 (e)
information requests, should establish PRP liability prior to the
RO/RA stage. The PRP : search should be supplemented as needed
during" the RI/FS. A unilateral order may be amended to include
additional PRPs after further evidence has been developed. ".
N. *
2 ) PRPs are Financially Viable ' ' . ' ' \ . '' ' . .
The financial viability of PRPs should be considered before
an order is issued. , EPA should have a reasonable belief that
the PRPs collectively have adequate financial resources before
the Agency issues an' order that directs then to conduct the
remedial action. Once a decision to issue an order is made, it.
may include PRPs who have modest means or an unclear financial
posture, especially where such PRPs contributed considerable ;> .
amounts of hazardous substances to the site. Generally, .the : -.
order should not include PRPs that lack any substantial
resources, unless the activities required of those , persons do not
involve expenditures of money (e.g./ providing access).
^Unilateral orders may also be -issued' to parties other than:
those listed in §107 (a). See discussion in section IV.
3JThe order should state the facts relating to PIP - -.
liability. The extent of detail necessary may be determined on a
case-by-case basis by the Region. (It should also be noted that
liability of a particular person is not required for the Agency
to issue an order to that person. An . example of this is an order
to obtain access. See discussion in section IV above.) " v -
ifl important that the early requests for information
concerning FflPs be developed fully to support liability under.
§107 of CERCLAi Se« the "PRP Search Supplemental Guidance for
sites in the) Super fund Remedial Program," June 29, 1989 (OSWER
Directive number 9835.7) .
35See 'the February 24 , 1989 "Guidance on CERCIA Section 106
Judicial Actions," (OSWER Directive number 9835.7) for a listing
of sources that may be consulted when determining the financial
capability of PRPs. -
14
-------
,., ,;.;»- QSW1R Directive Number 9833. 0-la
-*
3) Tilt Response Action Is Specifically Id
Unilateral orders should specifically define the response
action retired, to the maximum extent possible. A specifically
identified response action is required for implementation by the
PRPs, for; the Agency to determine compliance, and for the order
to be legally enforceable. For RD/RA actions, the order should
reference the ROD and specify a schedule of deliverables. Often,
the order should also include a statement of work.
4) PJPS _havgj.achnical Capability and J^aency Overs iaht is
feasible
The technical difficulty of response actions should be
considered before issuing unilateral orders. In certain
circumstances, EPA may conclude that the PRPs are unlikely to
properly perform the RD or RA, even with good oversight. In this
context, .it may be appropriate to fund the design. In addition,
in some instances EPA may fund the remedial action.
B) Pftermlningi the._ Xgen.tj^y qf tne- Respondents
In general, present owners and operators and viable past
owner (s) and operator (s) of the site at the time of disposal
should be named as respondents. At a minimum, the present owners
and operators must provide access. The Agency vill also
generally consider naming parties who arranged for disposal or
treatment of hazardous substances. When there ar* multiple PRPs,
the Agency may consider the aggregate volume (percentage of
total) and aggregate financial viability of all the PRPs to be
named. When evaluating whether to name an individual PRP in an
order, the PRP's contribution to the site (volume and nature of
substances) , and financial viability should be considered. The
Agency should consider naming the largest manageable number of
parties. Relevant evidentiary concerns must also be considered
when deciding which PRPs to name in an order. In addition,
consideration should be given to whether potential
there are multiple PRFs, the fact that they havi
formed some type of PRP organization will not affect their
individual liability.
15
-------
QSWER Directive Number 9833.0-la
respondents will .have a valid "sufficient cause" defense*'7 or a
section 107(b) defense. Parties who would clearly have a valid
defense to an EPA action following the parties' failure to
comply should not be named in the unilateral order.
VI: Elements of Unilateral Orders ' ' '..*"
. The following elements should be included in unilateral" "
orders-. The contents of several Jcey provisions are discussed''
below.5' > ' ...'.-
.o Introduction and Jurisdiction
o Findings of Fact
o Conclusions of Law and Determinations ...
--"o Notice to :the State , . - ' ''.','.,
^ p Order " ''; - lf\.. . / "".',.,*.
' -s 6- . Definitions ''-;: - ',"-?. ."-'.-.
o Notice of Intent to Comply
' o Parties Bound ,- ' '
o Work to Be Performed ...
o Failure to Attain Performance Standards
o EPA Periodic Review
o Endangerment and Emergency Response
o EPA Review of 'Submissions » '
o --Progress Reports
o Quality Assurance, Sampling and Data Analysis
o Compliance with Applicable Laws
o Remedial Project Manager
.** - : j
More information about the sufficient cause defense will
be discussed in the forthcoming Interim Guidance on Enforcement
of CERCLA Section 106(a) Administrative Orders Through Section
107(c)(3) Treble Damages and Section 106(b)(I) Penalty Actions. ,
"CERCLA 107(b) lists several defenses to CERCIA liability
for a PRP who can establish by a preponderance of the evidence
that the release or threat of release of a hazardous substance
was caused solely by (1) an act of God; (2) an act of war; (3) an
act or oniesion of a third party other than that which occurred
in connection with a contractual relationship, if due care was
exercised and certain precautions against foreseeable acts or
omissions taken; or (4) a combination of these defenses.
39A §106 model unilateral order for remedial designs and
remedial actions is under development. See the "Model Unilateral
Administrative Order for Remedial Design and Remedial Action,"
(OSWER Directive number 9833.o-la).
16
-------
,OSWER Directive Number 9833.o~ia
-:" " i:t-V^; ''
o Access to Site Not owned By Respondent(s)
o Site. Access and Data/Document Availability
o Record Preservation
o Delay in Performance
o Assurance of Ability to Complete work
o Reimbursement of Response Costs (Optional)
o United states Not Liable
o Enforcement and Reservations
o Administrative Record
o Effective Date and Computation of Time
o Opportunity to Confer
o Termination and Satisfaction
The "introduction and jurisdiction" section of the order
should set forth EPA's authority under CERCLA section 106 to
issue unilateral orders. It should reiterate the delegation of
this authority to the EPA Regional Administrator, and, if the
order is signed by a subordinate, delegation from the RA to that
subordinate.
The "findings of fact" section should identify and describe
the conditions at the site, in detail to support the finding of
release or threatened release from a "facility." It should
identify the hazardous substances at the site to the extent
known.
This section should also describe the underlying factual
basis for the conclusion that there may be an imminent and
substantial endangerment because of a release or threatened
release of those .substances. To support.this conclusion, the
findings of fact section should contain a brief summary of data -
from the remedial investigation which shows the extent of
contamination at the site and exposure pathways and establishes
the predicate for the response action. The data regarding
contamination at the site and risk assessment should be contained
in the administrative record for the selection of remedy. This
information should be summarized in the ROD. Both of these
documents should be referenced in the order.
The findings of fact section should also state factual
information to support the elements of liability alleged. If a
PRP is to b* included in the order under a "successor," "alter
ego,11 or other-complex liability theory, the findings of fact
section should explain the factual basis to support those
theories.
40The risks should be set. forth in the baseline risk
assessment and ROD. A toxicologist should be consulted in regard
to this portion of the order.
17
-------
c, .,;. -.,-)': - ;. .'' OSWER Directive Number 9833.o-ia
«'.;. .'''"" ' ' " ' ' '' °
The "conclusions of" law and determinations11 section of the
order, together with the "notice to the state11,, should include
conclusions that meet the statutory requirements for"a-unilateral
order. The conclusions of law section should additionally '
establish that «'the parties are appropriately subject to'section
106 authority, as described in sections III and- IV above.
The "notice of intent to comply"*1 section' should'"require
each respondent to provide written"'notice to EPA, no later than
five days after the effective date of the order,-of-the ''
respondent's unconditional intent to comply with the terras of the
order. The order should also specify that failure to respond by
this deadline will be considered'noncompliance, and may trigger
an Agency decision to file a judicial action or start Fund- ,'
financing. . The "notice of intent to comply" section should
require the respondentto provide notice of and the basis for any
sufficient cause defense which may be available to a respondent "
and which the respondent will pursue to contest liability for
complying with the order. To the extent.-that the respondent's
sufficient cause defense Is^ based on an allegation that the'' '.' '.;
response action ordered was inconsistent with CERCLA or the NCP, ,
the Agency believes that the respondent may rely only on the
administrative .record for the response action. This is because
section 113(j) provides that "in any judicial action under this
Act" the validity of response actions shall be adjudicated "on
the administrative.record". The order should specify that all'
information relating to a sufficient cause defense must be
submitted in writing, at the same-time that the respondent's « *.
notice of,intent to comply is provided. ,
" The "work to be performed".section should clearly order
respondent, to implement the ROD (and the RD if completed), and, "
toward that, end, to implement the statement of work (SOW). , '".,
This section of the order shoulddescribe the content of and
schedule for the vork plan, sampling and analysis plan, and site,.
health and safety plan, and should specifically require the "
respondent's performance to implement these plans following EPA's
41A FRP's notice of intent to comply applies to all of the,
requirements of the order, beginning from the effective date and'
continuing, through all of the deliverables and activities
required by the order.
42As modified by an Explanation of significant Differences
document, or ROD amendment, if applicable. . , <
";'"'*-- .; i '' '"'".'
45Where a statement of work is used, it must be attached and
incorporated by reference into the order.
18
-------
QSWER Directive Number 9S33.0-la
approval or nodification. r''Th!i'S!'*"s*ection of the order should also
specify major deliverables. Listing the major deliverable* and
providing a performance schedule in the unilateral order should
help to minimize the submission of late or inadequate products.
Clearly delineating the major deliverables and due dates will
also assist in subsequent enforcement of these provisions of the
order.
The "work to be performed11 section should also require the
respondent to provide prior written notification to the receiving
state of any off-site shipments of hazardous substances.44
Regions should schedule delivery of the work plan as soon as
reasonably possible after the order's effective date. This
promptly initiates the work and serves as an early indication of
a PRP's actual compliance with the order.
The "delay in performance" section should require the
respondent to provide written notification to EPA in the event of
any delay or anticipated delay in complying with the order.
The "United States Not Liable" section explains that the
United States, by issuing the order, does not assume any
liability for any injuries or damages to persons or property
resulting from acts or omissions by respondent(s), or its
employees, agents, successors, assigns, contractors or
consultants in carrying out any action or activity pursuant to
the order. In addition, this section should state that neither
EPA nor the united States is to be construed as a party to any
contract entered into by the respondent in.carrytug out any
action required by the order.
The "enforcement and reservations" section of the order
should reiterate the Agency's ability to clean up the site with
Fund money, or seek judicial enforcement. The unilateral order
should expressly reserve the Agency's takeover rights as
including, but not being limited to, the following circumstances:
(1) the PRPs fall to indicate a willingness to comply with the
unilateral order by the response date? (2) the period for
compliance- with any requirement of the order expires without such
compliance; (3) PRPs perform inadequately or submit
unsatisfactory deliverablea, or (4) the immediacy of the threat
is such that a- Fund-financed response, or a judicial order to
ensure compliance, becomes necessary. This section should also
"see "Notification of Out-of-state Shipments of Superfund
Site Wastes," (September 14, 1989) (OSWER Directive number
9330.2-07). '
19
-------
; A, - OSWER Directive number 9833.0-ia
j ','""'" 3
preserve.EPA1a .right to take any additional.-action,^including
' modification of;the order or-issuance,of additional orders.'
- - - ./. .; -' ' ;-'.* , . ...'-. ' '«;
; '"..The "administrative record" section of the-order' should .'
state -that upon EPA's request, if there are any documents
.genera ted .-by-the respondent which relate to the selection of 'the
response action, the respondent should submit these documents to
EPA for possible inclusion in the administrative record.45
--." .' ' ' ' * '..' i .- - ^ .. "
Generally, the "effective date and computation of time"
provision of a unilateral order for the RD/RA should provide
that the' order is effective on a date that follows the' oppor-
tunity for a conference and that' all .times for performance-of ,;
ordered activities shall be calculated from this, effective date;
This type, of, order 'becomes effective, without,-further action. ''
Where it appears likely that.negotiation of a consent decree
can be concluded in a relatively short period ofrtime, it may be
useful to issue a unilateral order with a delayed effective date.
The conference 'and'response date of unilateral orders with
delayed effective dates typically, should precede the effective -.
date by.no more than 20 to 30 days. See section VIII of this * .";
guidance,for further explanation of unilateral orders with
delayed effective dates. .' ' , - ...',- , v ' - :" ' 'v,....
The "opportunity to confer" section should explicitly give;
FRPs.an opportunity to confer with EPA. The scope of the
conference is limited to issues of implementation- of"the response
actions required by the order/ and the extent to which' the . * '
respondent intends to comply with the order. The order should
provide a deadline for requesting the conference. PRPs may be
given ten calendar days from the date the order is mailed to . ,
request a conference-. "'The order should indicate that the ' ;
conference may be forfeited if not requested by this date. The
order may specify the date of the conference, if respondents
elect to take advantage of this opportunity. The conference is
discussed in greater detail in section VIII of this guidance.
The conference request date should precede the effective date of
the order and allow time for a conference before the date by
which recipients must indicate their willingness to comply with '
the order (response date).- The timing of the conference request
date shall not be permitted to extend the effective data or any,
of the deadlines required by the order..
4SIt is possible that information generated during RD/RA
will meet th* criteria of §300.825 of th* KCt relating to the
addition of document* to th* record after the decision document
is signed.
20
-------
OSWER Directive Number 9833. 0-la
: ', ";,:-" t''-" *$.'?'. ' -_
The "termination" section should provide for a clear
termination point of the order. This section should indicate
that respondent shall provide EPA with written certification
that it has completed all of the terns of the order, including
any additional tasks which EPA has determined necessary.
EPA shall provide respondent with a notice that the order is
terminated, based upon EPA's present information and belief that
respondent has fully complied with the requirements of the order.
EPA's notice shall be expressly conditioned on the accuracy of
the representations contained in respondent's certification.
This section is not equivalent to a release or a covenant not to
sue, nor should it be phrased in a manner which could be
interpreted as a release or covenant not to sue and the order
should specifically so state. Further, the order shall provide
that if EPA determines that additional response activities are
necessary to meet applicable Performance Standards, EPA may
notify respondent that additional response actions are necessary.
VII. tfgdtf j-cajSlon. of Unilateral Orders ' .
* *
The Agency may decide to modify the terms of the unilateral
order for any reason, including information received during the
response action. All such information should be documented in
writing. The unilateral order may only be modified in writing by
the Agency official who signed the order, i.e., the Regional
Administrator or his or her delegate. Agency decisions to
modify the unilateral order should be communicated promptly to
the PRPs. Verbal notification of EPA's intent to modify the
terms of the order may be appropriate if followed by a mailed
copy of the modified unilateral order to the PRPs. The
verbal modification takes effect upon issuance of the modified
unilateral order to the PRPs.
VIII.
A) Special Notice Proce^ureq
Section 122 (a) of CERCLA gives EPA discretion to utilize the
special notice procedures if EPA determines that a period of
negotiation vould facilitate an agreement with PRPs and would
expedite remedial actions. Special notice procedures give PRPs
an opportunity to negotiate a settlement with the Agency, before
the Agency takes an enforcement action against them or conducts
does not preclude issuance of an order that
incorporates by reference a document that is subsequently
approved by another EPA official consistent with the order. An
example of this is the Regional Project Manager's (RPM) approval
of the workplan.
21
-------
. ,) ** " OSWER Directive Number 9833.0-la
the response action itself. 'Special''notice letters will be- .-.
issued prior to almost all orders for RD/RA. Special notice';'
procedures may affect timing of issuance of- unilateral orders.I8
The special notice moratorium for remedial action lasts from 60
to 120 days, depending upon whether, respondents submit a good ,
faith 'settlement offer by the ,60th day. * If the Agency receives
a good faith offer for the remedial action within the first 60
days of the moratorium,.the Agency may not take any action^for a
total of* 120 days from respondents* receipt of the spec ia-l" not ice
letter." If '-special notice .has been issued. Regional offices -,,
should be prepared to issue unilateral orders at the conclusion
of the special notice moratorium, consistent with the following
principles.- t .'- . ' .. ~ ,
., The" Agency may issue unilateral orders immediately upon
expiration of the. special notice moratorium. Therefore, if a
good faith settlement offer is not received by,the 60th day, the
Agency normally should issue a unilateral order shortly
thereafter, if such an order is appropriate.
».-- .f.'.; ' '" ; > *,
Because of the statutory moratorium, different rules apply
if PRPs submit a good faith settlement offer within 60 days of
the special notice. .'In that.case-, unilateral .orders may not'be
, _ .- . , -.».»
The "Interim Guidance on Notice Letters, Negotiations, and
Information Exchange," 53 Fed. Reg. 5298 (February ,23, 1988)
(OSWER Directive number 9834..10} provides the following examples
of circumstances where it would-generally not'be appropriate to '
issue special .notice letters;..' 1} , .where past dealings with the
PRPs strongly indicate that they are unlikely to negotiate a
settlement; 2) where EPA believes the PRPs have not been ,v
negotiating in good faith; 3} where no PRPs have been identified
at the conclusion of the PRP search; 4) where PRPs lack the
resources to conduct response activities} 5} where there are
ongoing negotiations; or 6) where notice letters wer* already
sent prior to the reauthorization of CERCLA and ongoing . . -
negotiations would not benefit by issuance of a special notice.
For information on special notice letters and municipalities, see
the "Interim Policy on CERCLA settlements involving
Municipalities and Municipal Wastes," (OSWER Directive number
9834.13).- ' . *' ' -.'' '
**If a «p*cial notice letter is not issued, th« statutory
moratorium is not triggered, and the Agency can issue a 8106
unilateral order immediately. ,
"see the "Interim Guidance on Notice Letters, Negotiations,
and Information Exchange," 53 Fed. Reg. 5298 at 530? (1988)
(OSWER Directive number 9834.10).
22
-------
-' .OSWIR Directive Number 9833. o-ia
* / «
issued for a total of 120 days from issuance of the special
notice letter.
Where there has been a good faith offer, but settlement is
not reached as of the 120th day after issuance of the special
notice letter, the Agency should be prepared to issue unilateral
orders. Only if settlement is likely in the very near future may
unilateral orders be delayed. Unilateral orders with delayed
effective dates nay be issued, for example, at the onset of a
negotiations extension. They should become effective on the
expiration date of the extended negotiations.
Unilateral orders with delayed effective dates should be
viewed as encouraging the successful conclusion of negotiations.
However, unilateral orders with delayed effective dates are not
to be considered "draft" orders, and their terns are not
negotiable. These orders indicate the Agency's commitment to the
response action, and the desire to secure its timely
implementation. When used in this manner, unilateral orders with
delayed effective dates serve as a fora of deadline management.
B)
It is the Agency's policy to provide PRPs with an
opportunity to discuss with the Regional office issuing the
order, implementation of the response actions required by the
order, and the extent to which the respondent intends to
comply. EPA will not participate in the conference for the
Unilateral orders may not be issued during th* moratorium.
This includes the issuance during the moratorium of unilateral
orders with delayed effective dates, even if they become
effective after the moratorium. An additional three days for
transmission of the mail may be allowed in addition to the 120
day period.
51See procedure* described in the Interim Guidance entitled
"Streamlining the CERCLA Settlement Decision Process," dated
February 12, 1987 (OSWER Directive number 9835.4).
52Apart from implementation, the two major concerns that the
PRPs may have relate to their liability and to EPA's selection of
the response action. During the course of information exchange
and PRP notice (see "Interim Guidance on Notice Letters,
Negotiations, and Information Exchange," S3 Fed, Reg. 5298 (1988)
(OSWER Directive number 9834.10), PRPs generally will have had an
opportunity to assert that they are not liable. EPA also
provides PRPs opportunities to participate in the selection of
the remedial .action. PRPs are provided with an opportunity to
23
-------
OSWER Directive Number 9833.o-ia
(,'-"* **
purpose of resuming settlement negotiations or .negotiating the,
terns of the order. , The conference is not an evidentiary
hearing. The opportunity to confer does not give PRPs the right
of pre-enforcenent review. The conference is not intended to
be a forum for discussing liability issues or whether the order
should have been issued. Instead, the conference,is designed to
ensure that the order is based on complete and accurate
information, and to facilitate understanding.of implementation.
/>_-'» ! ^
The Agency,will not create an official stenographic record
of the conference, although a written summary may be prepared.
Following the conference, a written summary of significant issues
raised nay be prepared and signed by the Agency employee who
conducted the conference. Significant issues,raised concerning*
implementation should promptly be brought to the attention of'the
official who" signed the order.. - . , "
Respondents may appear., in person or by an attorney or other
representative. PRPs will have the opportunity to ask questions
and present their views through legal counsel or technical '
advisor.54' , ..-.,- ^
Within five days of the conference, the respondent may
submit a written summary of any arguments It presented at the
conference. At this time, in, addition to .this summary, the. ' '
respondent may submit any written argument or evidence of a
sufficient causa defense or any issues relating to factual
determinations set forth in the order* , ., -
The conference normally will be held at the EPA Regional
office. The RPM, the regional counsel attorney., and any other
comment and provide information concerning the remedial action
plan, an opportunity for a public meeting, and a response to each
of their significant comments, criticisms, and new data submitted
(See CEKCLA SI 113(fc), 117.) Since EPA already will have
considered these concerns, the conference shall not be a forum
for reassertion of the PRP's views on these issues.
"The timing of Judicial review of §106(a) orders is
governed by |113(h) of CERCLA. Also, PRPs may obtain judicial
review after they have fully complied with the unilateral order
through a reimbursement petition filed under |106(b) of CERCLA,
wherein PIP* may contest issues of liability or the selection of
remedy. . ,
* **Attendance at the conference should be 1IB!ted to EPA and
the respondent/ and the -respondent's attorney and/or technical
advisor.
: " " 24
-------
OSWER Directive Number 9833.0-la
. - s "
,- n-;"*-;7>s' :.
appropriate Regional officials, should attend. The conference
schedule and agenda will be at the discretion of the EPA employee
leading the conference consistent with this guidance. It is in
the Region's discretion who presides at the conference. The
supervisor of the RPM assigned to the site would be an
appropriate person. The assigned regional counsel attorney
should not conduct the conference although he or she may attend.
In addition, the attorney should not prepare a summary, due to
the possibility that this may put the attorney in the position of
being a witness in subsequent litigation.
IX. Specialized^-forms and Use of ^nj^atera^ Orders
Specialized forms of unilateral orders may serve as a
settlement incentive for cooperative PRPs, and may also serve as
a disincentive for non-settlors. There are different forms of
unilateral orders which may serve as settlement inducers.
Generally, in drafting unilateral orders, the order should direct
the PRPs to conduct the entire remedial action. In limited
instances, however, the Agency may settla with some PRPs and
issue "carve-out" unilateral orders to recalcitrant parties to
compel them to conduct a discrete portion of the work at the
site.' The Agency also may issue "parallel" unilateral orders to'
recalcitrants ordering them to coordinate and cooperate with the
settlors in conducting the response action. Carve-out and
parallel orders are explained in more detail belov.
During settlement negotiations, the Agency nay set aside a
portion of the cleanup for non-settlors, and may verbally
indicate its present intent to issue unilateral orders for that :
portion of the work to all PRPs who do not sign the settlement
agreement. This is referred to as a "carve-out" settlement.
work that may appropriately be carved out includes portions of
operable units that constitute independent tasks. To prevent any
possibility of delaying the remainder, of the response action,
only independent, discrete tasks should be the subject of a
carve-out order. Otherwise, the entire process may hinge upon
the non-settlors timely compliance with the carve-out order.
Separate tasks that may be carved out may include removals of
contaminated soil in separate areas, or removal of specified
tanks or
SIA "carve-out settlement is a form of mixed work. For
information on the types of mixed funding arrangements such as
mixed work, which nay be used as incentives to settlement, see
"Superfund Program; Mixed Funding Settlements," (OSWER Directive
number 9834.9) 53 Fed. Reg. 8279 (March 14, 1988).
25
-------
OSWER Directive Number 9833.0-la
Due to the uncertainties; of when and how the work allocated
to-non-settlors will be completed and of how many PRPs will,
..choose: to *«ttle, before, a-carve-out order to .non-settlors is"
proposed during settlement negotiations, the Regions should
consider the possibility of having to pursue the.non-settlors>or
fund the.workT5* In appropriate cases, the'settlement-agreement
-should provide 'for a delayed schedule for the settlors' to perform
the carved-out work. By use of a delayed schedule,, the Agency
nay later seek the work from the settlors, if the non-settlors do
riot comply with the carve-out order. f Second, the Region should
consider the possibility of undersubscription' or oversubscription
to the settlement, if there is oversubscription to-the "
settlement, there, might be too few PRPs to which* the carve-out
.order-could be issued. . --"- - " ' ,-'""* \ ', '. '
. Unilateral orders may also serve as a settlement'incentive'
when the Agency has reached a complete settlement-at the site
with fewer than all PRPs. When a complete 'settlement .agreement
is reached for conduct of the remedial action with fewer'than all
PRPs, the Agency may. agree to issue "parallel" unilateral orders
to the liable non-settlors. -Parallel unilateral'orders direct-'
the non-settlors to coordinate and cooperate with the settlors'-
cleanup activities,"as described in the consent decree. The
requirements of a'parallel "unilateral order'match the response-
action requirements set forth in the consent decree settlement.
Where the response action is properly conducted by the settlors,
nonsettling recipients of parallel unilateral orders may be ".
liable for daily civil penalties if they failed to contribute to
the settlors' efforts by, for example, payment of money .or "in-
kind" contribution. Parallel unilateral orders benefit the
settlors because non-settlors may contribute to the PRP cleanup
revenues upon receipt of the unilateral order. Alternatively, if
recipients of unilateral orders fail to 'financially,,or " ' ,
"' * "" -? , '' - ' ' " . -'' .,.'-- "'"'".'.'''*." ' ....
"Factors to consider when deciding whether to propose a
mixed worJc settlement include the strength of the liability case
against settlors and any non-settlors. This includes litigative
risks in proceeding to trial against settlors, and the nature of
the cas« remaining against non-settlors after the settlement.
Mixed work settlements should be avoided where there is a
significant potential for delays in cleanup due to inadequate
coordination or potential conflicts. See the Nixed Funding
Settlements guidance cited above.' ^ ..'..'. ,:- y
57Regions must consider the implications of the possibility
of
-------
QSWER Directive Number 9833.Q-ia
otherwise, assist the .settlors, unilateral orders may assist
settlors to bring contribution actions against the non-settlors.
X. continued! Nf
-------
-', , . '.'- ' ' - '' ' ' OSWIR Directive Number 9833.,0-la
including state-cost, share* funds for, 'the RA? the,, urgency* ' "
presented by the site? the amount of available enforcement
'resources^ and the degree to 'which the case fits' the criteria 'for
judicial enforcement. Regions also should consider the need for
EPA to maintain a credible section 106 enforcement ^presence in
the -Superfund program, see the "Guidance on CERCLA Section 106'
judicial Actions, " for' a; discussion . of "the appropriate criteria
for a .judicial referral.' ' '-".- .. >>.'_'''
. . The primary focus in* referring a case -to DOJ is generally
the Agency ' s prospect for successful litigation and the- need to
ensure remedial 'action at .'a site. .Once; the Government 'dec ides to
bring a section 106 action against- the PRPs, it will pursue the
largest manageable number of potentially liable parties, based on
considerations such as, the volume and nature of their *
contribution,-, their relationship to the site (such as owners and
operators)?, their -financial 'Viability,1 land their recalcitrance* in
the settlement' process. In selecting defendants, the Agency
should consider whether, based on information obtained after
issuance of the unilateral order, any of the respondents 'have a .
"sufficient cause" defense or a section 107(t») defense,
'' "
XII. Note
uposia and s
-------
OS WER Directive Number 9833. 0-ia
«*, ^ > *
APPENDIX A
ADMINISTRATIVE AND JUDICIAL SETTLEMENT AND UNILATERAL
ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITIES
I. j^dminia^rative Settle_m£ijt^ajn4_ U_nj. lateral
A. S_ec_tj.o_ns; 122 and. 106 Coi\3en$ Adrajrnjtgfap'ative Ord.egs
Prior to SARA, the Agency based its consent administrative
orders for both removals and the RI/FS on section 106 of CERCLA,
The RI/FS settlement agreement is now typically based upon CERCLA
sections 104 and 122. In these cases, a finding of imminent and
substantial endangerment is no longer required for RI/FS
agreements. RA settlements under section 122 are .embodied in
consent decrees,60 Unilateral orders for conventional removals
continue to be issued pursuant to section 106.
Penalties available for non-compliance with consent
administrative orders include stipulated.*penalties, section 109,
monetary penalties, and section 106(b) daily civil penalties and
possibly treble damages where the Fund takes over.
B, § gcj; jop 1 0 6 Un i 1 at e ra\ Admin. i at r a t jve QpjejTf
Section 106 unilateral administrative orders may be used to
compel PRPs to conduct removals, RI/FSs , remedial designs or
remedial actions. If unilateral orders have the desired effect
PRPs will comply with the terms of the orders, or they may decide
to settle with the Agency. If they agree to settle on favorable
terms, the unilateral order may be followed by a consent
administrative order for removals and RI/FSs, or a consent decree
for RD/RA.
If PRPs do not comply with the unilateral order "without
sufficient cause," daily civil penalties may be imposed by a
court under section 106(b)(l). Under section 107 (c) (3), punitive
damages also are available for noncompliance without sufficient
cause with a section 106 administrative order in an amount up to
three tin** that incurred by the Fund to perform the response
work required by the order.
section II(A), below.
61Note that if a 1106 unilateral order is used to compel
PRPs to conduct an RI/FS, a finding of a possible imminent and
substantial endangerment must be made before the preparation of
the baseline risk assessment. However, unilateral orders are
generally not recommended for ordering conduct of an RZ/FS.
A-l
-------
..- , r".-" -; ""OSWER Directive Number 9833.0-la
'.I--.-'-'"
*" T
Court* have jurisdiction to review section 106(a)
administrative orders only.in the- following instances: (l) an
action is brought under section'107 to recover response costs or
damages or for contribution? (2) a judicial action is brought to
obtain injunctive relief under section 106; (3) penalties are
sought for noncompliance with the administrative order; (4) PRPs
petition for reimbursement under section 106(b)(2) after
compliance with the order? (5) or a citizen suit,is brought
pursuant to section 310. -See CERCLA section 113(h). < *. " " '
-_* . _ j ' - - ' . >'."'..''
II.' Judicia^ Settlement and 'Unilateral Enforeemer^, *.. - .v< .: - -
». - , ' ; , ' " . - . - , , i '
A'. ' Consent Decrees "' - "' . ...-.»
* . ' * w.' - ' f " "
' The remedial action component of the R0/RA, "if settlement is
reached under section 122,. is required to b* implemented in a
consent decree under section 122(d)(1)(A). A removal, RI/FS
under section 122(d)(3), or remedial design settlement agreement
may be embodied in either a consent administrative, order or a
consent decree.''Consent administrative orders are typically-used
for removals and RI/FS agreements because they do not involve the
judicial process and often may be obtained more quickly than
consent decrees. ..Consent decrees, on the other'hand, are
judicial documents that must be submitted to a court by,the
Department of Justice^( DOJ). and approved by the court., . . ^
Penalties available for noncompliance include stipulated
penalties, section. 109 statutory penalties, section,106(b) daily
civil penalties/ and treble damages where the PRP's noncompliance
with an administrative order leads to Fund-financed action.
'('"-.* ' - .
* - _ ', t V
8. Section 106 Judicial Actions . . ' -,:"
If PRPs refuse to comply with a section 106 unilateral order
directing them to conduct a removal or a remedial activity, the
case may be referred to DOJ for judicial enforcement." , *
Referrals to DOJ are necessary whether penalties and/or "-"
compliance with the terms of the order are sought.
. t i' * . f '.--
'- In a Mctibn 106 judicial action, the Government may seek to
collect daily civil penalties from any person who, without
sufficient cause, willfully violates, or fails or refuses to
comply with a section 106 unilateral order. t In addition, in a
section 10? cost recovery action, the Government may seek treble
damages from PRPs for their failure to comply with an
administrative order. However, there is one procedural
"some orders are enforceable by administrative penalty.
See section 109{a) (1) (D), (B).; (b) (4) (5), and section 122(1>.
A-2
-------
, OSWER Directive Number 9833,o-la
difference between securing PRP cc-;duct of the response action -
and obtaining monetary penalties rrom the PRPs. Administrative
orders are a necessary precondition for obtaining the desired
relief when monetary penalties are sought. PRPs must have failed
to comply with administrative orders before monetary penalties
may be obtained. Daily civil penalties or treble damages may
then be secured through a judicial action. f
On the other hand, unilateral orders are not the only
alternative if PRP conduct of the response action is desired. If
settlement negotiations break down over the removal or remedial
action, and the Agency wishes to compel PRP cleanup, the case may
also be referred directly to DOJ. AS previously mentioned, PRP
cleanup can be compelled through a section 106 judicial action.
Unilateral orders are therefore an option if the Agency wishes to
compel PRP conduct of the response action.
A-3
-------
i.
o
s-
>
*M
^
CJ
y
^
O
^.* ^^ vpr ^
S fe - £
« & v S
.Mh C|HH (iL^
5
2 fe
y o o
I fee
5i o «fl
F c c
^ .- o
: c
[ 1_J w W
3 £
o « c
W *P*
Reproduced by NTIS
National Technical Information Service
U.S. Department of Commerce
Springfield, VA 22161
This report was printed specifically for your
order from our collection of more than 2 million
technical reports.
For economy and efficiency, NTIS does not maintain stock of its vast
collection of technical reports. Rather, most documents are printed for
each order. Your copy is the best possible reproduction available from
our master archive. If you have any questions concerning this document
or any order you placed with NTIS, please call our Customer Services
Department at (703) 387-4660.
Always think of NTIS when you want:
Access to the technical, scientific, and engineering results generated
by the ongoing multibillion dollar R&D program of the U.S. Government.
« R&D results from Japan, West Germany, Great Britain, and some 20
other countries, most of it reported in English.
NTIS also operates two centers that can provide you with valuable
information:
The Federal Computer Products Center - offers software and
datafiles produced by Federal agencies.
* The Center for the Utilization of Federal Technology - gives you
access to the best of Federal technologies and laboratory resources.
For more information about NTIS, send for our FREE NTIS Products
and Services Catalog which describes how you can access this U.S. and
foreign Government technology. Call (703) 487-4650 or send this
sheet to NTIS, U.S. Department of Commerce, Springfield, VA 22161.
Ask for catalog, PR-827.
Name :
Address
Telephone.
Your Source to U.S. and Foreign Government
Research and Technology
-------
r/EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
Publication 9833.0-1aFS
May 1991
Summary of "Guidance on
CERCLA Section 106(a)
UAOs for RD/RA"
Office of Waste Programs Enforcement
CERCLA Enforcement DivistorVGEB/OS-510
Quick Reference Fact Sheet
Unilateral Administrative Orders (UAOs) require Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs) to undertake
a cleanup which they would not agree to undertakeunder a consent order. If PRPsdo not comply with a UAO,
EPA may fund the response and seek to recover response costs and punitive damages up to three times the
costs incurred by the Fund through a judicial referral. Judicial enforcement of a UAO can also compel
performance and recover penalties.
When issuing a UAO, Regions must ensure that the PRP search is complete and that documents
developed during the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) support all the findings necessary
to support the issuance of a UAO.
This summary is intended for use only as a supplement, not a replacement, to the official "Guidance on
Section 106(a) Unilateral Orders for Remedial Design and Remedial Action," OSWER Directive #9833.0-la,
March 7,1990.
Statutory Requirements of Section 106
Orders
Section 106(a) of CERCLA gives EPA the authority
to issue a UAO if" an actual or threatened release
presents "an imminent and substantial
endangerment to public health, welfare, or the
environment." The order must clearly describe the
connection between the nature and location of the
release or threat of release, the possible
endangerment, and the response action. The
affected state must be notified before an order is
issued.
Courts may review section 106 orders only when
the Agency seeks to enforce the order, when the
Agency seeks penalties for violation of the order,
or when the PRPs seek reimbursement from EPA
of response costs incurred after complying with
the order. Judicial review of the adequacy of any
response action is limited to the administrative
record for the selection of the response action.
Possible Recipients of Uniiatera! Orders
Recipienteof orders are not limited to liable parties
under section 107 of CERCLA. In limited
circumstances, other parties, such as adjacent
landowners, can receive 106 orders.
Case-Specific Considerations
Criteria for the decision to issue an order include:
evidence sufficient to support liability of
each PRP (except as indicated above);
reasonable belief that PRPs are financially
viable;
» well defined response action; and
» evidenccthatPRPscantechnicailyperform
response action with EPA oversight.
-------
In identifying the respondents, EPA should
consider each FRfs contribution to the site and
the PRPs' financial viability. The Agency should
name the largest manageable number of parties
but should not name any parties who would have
a valid defense against an EPA action.
Procedures for Issuing Unilateral
Orders
Special notice procedures for Remedial Design/
Remedial Action(RD/RA) invoke a 60 day
moratorium foilowingissuanceof the notice letter.
If the respondent submits a good faith offer within
the first 60 days, the Agency may not issue a UAO
for 120 days after the issuance of the notice letter.
If no settlement is reached by the 120th day, the
Agency is authorized to issue a UAO.
The Agency gives PRPs an opportunity to confer
with EPA, limiting the scope of the conference to
the implementation of the response action and'the
extent to which the respondent intends to comply.
Specialized Forms and Use of Unilateral
Orders
Different forms of UAOs may provide settlement
incentives.
In "carve-out" orders, the Agency sets aside a
portion of the cleanup for non-settlers, and may
orally indicate its intent to issue UAOs for that
portion of the work to all PRPs who do not sign a
settlement agreement. The Regions should consider
judicial enforcement or a Fund- financed response
before proposing a carve-out order to non-settlers.
In "parallel orders," when the Agency has reached
a complete settlement at a site with some, but not
all, of the PRPs, the Agency may issue-"parallel"
orders to the non-settlers. A parallel order directs
the non- settlers to coordinate and cooperate with
the settlers' cleanup activities, as described in the
consent decree. Under a parallel order, non-settlers
may be liable for penalties if they fail to contribute
equally to the response action.
Continued Negotiation After Issuance
of an Order
Even after a-UAO is issued, PRPs may indicate a
desire to settle under a consent decree. The Regions
should not enter into further negotiations unless it
is likely that the PRPs will sign a consent decree
promptly.
The Agency mayprefer that PRPs conduct response
actions under a UAO, rather than a consent decree.
Response actions can be implemented more
promptly under a UAO, and prolonged
negotiations that might occur under a consent
decree are avoided.
Noncompliance with Unilateral Orders
If the PRPs do not comply with the UAO, the
Agency may either seek judicial enforcement or
perform a Fund-financed response action. The
decision to choose fund ingor litiga tion is based on
the availability of funds for the RA, the urgency
represented by the site, the amount of available
enforcement resources, and the degree to which
the case fits the criteria for judicial enforcement.
For more information or questions about this
document, please contact Paul Connor, Office of
Waste Programs Enforcement, Guidance and
Oversight Branch, at FTS 475-6770.
------- |