OSWER Directive 9320.2-22
May 2011
Close Out Procedures for
National Priorities List Sites
Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
OSWER 9320.2-22 Close Out Procedures for National Priorities List Sites
Table of Contents
Section Page
Acronyms iv
1.0 Introduction 1-1
1.1 Background 1-1
1.2 Contents of the Guidance 1-2
1.3 Role of the Remedial Project Manager 1-3
2.0 Remedial Action Completion 2-1
2.1 Introduction 2-1
2.1.1 Relation to Operable Units 2-1
2.1.2 Utilizing Multiple RA Projects at a Site 2-1
2.2 Remedial Action Completion Definition 2-2
2.2.1 RA Completion for Source Remediation Actions 2-4
2.2.2 RA Completion for Source and Groundwater Containment Actions..2-4
2.2.3 RA Completion for Groundwater and Surface Water Restoration
Remedies 2-5
2.2.4 RA Completion for Institutional Control Actions 2-7
2.3 Relationship of RA Completion to Other Actions 2-7
2.3.1 Operational & Functional (O&F) 2-8
2.3.2 Long Term Response Action (LIRA and PRP LR) 2-8
2.3.3 Operation and Maintenance (O&M) 2-9
2.4 Inspection Guidelines for RA Completion 2-9
2.4.1 Fund-lead RA Completion Inspections 2-10
2.4.2 Responsible Party-lead RA Completion Inspections 2-10
2.4.3 Federal Facility-lead RA Completion Inspections 2-10
2.5 Preparing the RA Report 2-11
2.6 RA Report Approval 2-11
2.7 RA Report Distribution 2-14
3.0 Construction Completion 3-1
3.1 Introduction 3-1
3.2 Construction Completion Process 3-1
3.2.1 Pre-Final Inspection 3-1
3.2.2 Preliminary Close Out Report 3-2
3.3 Technology Considerations for Construction Completions 3-4
3.3.1 Groundwater Treatment Remedies 3-5
3.3.2 Soil Vapor Extraction Remedies 3-5
3.3.3 In-situ Remedies for Groundwater or Soil 3-6
3.3.4 Interim Remedies 3-7
3.3.5 RODs with Contingency Remedies 3-8
3.3.6 Groundwater Monitoring 3-8
3.3.7 Institutional Controls 3-8
TOC
-------
OSWER 9320.2-22 Close Out Procedures for National Priorities List Sites
3.4 Lead and Authority Considerations for Construction Completions 3-9
3.4.1 PRP Lead Sites 3-9
3.4.2 Federal Facilities 3-9
3.4.3 State Lead Sites 3-9
3.4.4 NPL Sites Addressed Under Removal Authority 3-10
3.4.5 Multiple Authorities Conducting Cleanup at the Same Site 3-10
3.5 Sites Deleted from the NPL 3-10
3.6 Additional Work at Construction Completion Sites 3-11
4.0 Site Completion 4-1
4.1 Introduction 4-1
4.2 Site Completion Criteria 4-1
4.2.1 All Remedial Decision Documents have been Completed and the
Selected Remedy is Consistent with CERCLA, the NCP, and EPA Policy
and Guidance 4-1
4.2.2 All Response Actions have been Completed and Appropriately
Documented in the Site File 4-2
4.2.3 Institutional Controls are In Place 4-3
4.3 Role of Operation and Maintenance Activities in Achieving Site
Completion 4-3
4.4 Final Close Out Report 4-4
5.0 Site Deletion and Partial Deletion 5-1
5.1 Introduction 5-1
5.2 NPL Deletion Criteria 5-2
5.3 NPL Deletion Through Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA]
Deferral 5-2
5.4 The Deletion Process 5-3
5.4.1 State Concurrence 5-3
5.4.2 Deletion Docket 5-3
5.4.3 Two-step Rulemaking Process 5-5
5.4.3.1 Notice of Intentto Delete (NOID} Preparation 5-6
5.4.3.2 Headquarters Concurrence 5-6
5.4.3.3 Publication of the Notice of Intentto Delete and the Local
Notice 5-7
5.4.3.4 Receiving Comments and Responsiveness Summary
Preparation 5-8
5.4.3.5 Notice of Deletion (NOD] Preparation and Publication 5-8
5.4.4 Direct Final Rulemaking Process 5-8
5.4.4.1 Direct Notice of Intent to Delete and Direct Notice of
Deletion Preparation 5-9
5.4.4.2 Headquarters Concurrence 5-10
5.4.4.3 Publication of the NOID, Direct NOD and the
Local Notice 5-10
5.4.4.4 Withdrawal Notice Preparation and Publication 5-10
TOC
-------
OSWER 9320.2-22 Close Out Procedures for National Priorities List Sites
5.4.4.5 Receiving Comments and Responsiveness Summary
Preparation 5-11
5.4.4.6 Notice of Deletion Preparation and Publication 5-11
Exhibits
Section Page
2-1 Remedial Action Completion Examples 2-3
2-2 Source Remediation Actions Pipeline 2-4
2-3 Source and Groundwater Containment Actions Pipeline 2-5
2-4 Groundwater and Surface Water Restoration Actions Pipeline 2-6
2-5 Recommended Remedial Action Report Contents 2-12
3-1 Examples of Minor Punch List Items 3-2
3-2 Recommended Preliminary Close Out Report Outline 3-3
4-1 Role of Institutional Controls 4-3
4-2 NCP Definition for Operation and Maintenance 4-3
4-3 Recommended Final Close Out Report Outline 4-5
5-1 Example Deletion Docket Documents 5-5
5-2 Two-step Rulemaking Process 5-6
5-3 Federal Register Deletion Package Contents 5-7
5-4 Direct Deletion Process 5-9
TOC
-------
OSWER 9320.2-22
Close Out Procedures for National Priorities List Sites
Acronyms
ARAR
ATSDR
CERCLA
CFR
CIC
DoD
DQO
EPA
BSD
FCOR
FDMS
FF
FR
HQ
HRS
1C
LIRA
MCL
MCLG
MNA
NCP
NOD
NOID
NPL
O&F
O&M
OSC
OSWER
OU
PCOR
POLREP
PRB
PRP
QA/QC
QAPP
RA
RACR
RAO
RCRA
RD
RI/FS
ROD
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement
The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act of 1980
40 Code of Federal Regulations
Community Involvement Coordinator
Department of Defense
Data Quality Objective
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Explanation of Significant Differences
Final Close Out Report
Federal Docket Management System
Federal Facility
Federal Register
Headquarters
Hazard Ranking System
Institutional Control
Long Term Response Action
Maximum Contaminant Level
Maximum Contaminant Level Goal
Monitored Natural Attenuation
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
Notice of Deletion
Notice of Intent to Delete
National Priorities List
Operational & Functional
Operation and Maintenance
On-Scene Coordinator
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Operable Unit
Preliminary Close Out Report
Pollution Report
Permeable Reactive Barrier
Potential Responsible Party
Quality Assurance and Quality Control
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Remedial Action
Remedial Action Completion Report
Remedial Action Objective
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Remedial Design
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
Record of Decision
Acronyms
-------
OSWER 9320.2-22 Close Out Procedures for National Priorities List Sites
RPM Remedial Project Manager
SAA Superfund Alternative Approach
SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986
SITREP Situation Report
SPIM Superfund Program Implementation Manual
SVE Soil Vapor Extraction
USAGE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Acronyms
-------
OSWER 9320.2-22 Close Out Procedures for National Priorities List Sites
1.0 Introduction
This guidance document is designed primarily for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA's) Remedial Project Managers (RPMs). It describes a recommended process for
accomplishing and documenting remedial action completion, construction completion, site
completion, and site deletion. The guidance is intended for those sites that are or were
final on the National Priorities List (NPL}. Portions of this guidance also may assist in the
management of sites with Superfund Alternative Approach (SAA] agreements in place.l
This guidance supersedes the following documents:
* OERR Directive 9320.2-11, Procedures for Partial Deletions at NPL Sites, April 30,
1996.
* OSWER Directive 9320.2-09A-P, Close Out Procedures for National Priorities List
Sites, January 2000.
* OSWER Directive 9320.2-13, Addendum to Policy for 'Close Out Procedures for
National Priorities List Sites,' December 6, 2005.
/./ Background
Section 105(a](8](B] of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (CERCLA] as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization
Action of 1986 (SARA], requires that the statutory criteria provided by the Hazard Ranking
System (HRS) be used to prepare a list of national priorities among the known releases or
threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants throughout the
United States.2 This list, which is Appendix B of the National Contingency Plan, is the NPL.
Pursuant to the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP]
(40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Part 300], sites on the NPL are eligible for
Superfund-financed remedial actions (RAs}.
Superfund often addresses NPL sites through a combination of removal and remedial
authority. Cleanup activities under removal authority include actions developed to achieve
prompt risk reduction through emergency, time-critical, and non time-critical actions. In
general, cleanup actions under removal authority are selected in an Action Memorandum.
1 For additional guidance on SAA sites, see Revised Response Selection and Settlement Approach for Superfund
Alternative Sites (OSWER 9208.0-18; June 17, 2004).
2 40 CFR 300.425(c) provides two other mechanisms for listing a site on the NPL. The second mechanism
allows the State to list one priority regardless of their HRS score. The third mechanism allows certain sites to
be listed regardless of their HRS score, if all of the following conditions are met:
The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) of the U.S. Public Health Service has
issued a health advisory that recommends dissociation from the release.
EPA determines that the release poses a significant threat to public health.
EPA anticipates that it will be more cost-effective to use its remedial authority than to use its removal
authority to respond to the release.
Introduction l-l
-------
OSWER 9320.2-22 Close Out Procedures for National Priorities List Sites
Cleanup activities under remedial authority are called remedial actions. A remedial
investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS] at an NPL site generally evaluates the nature and
extent of contamination, and identifies potential alternatives for the remedy. The Record of
Decision (ROD] generally documents the remedial activities selected to achieve
protectiveness and meet Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs}.
Consistent with CERCLA §121, RAs are required to protect human health and the
environment, and they may include a combination of engineered response actions (such as
treatment, containment, removal of contaminated material, and providing alternate water
supplies}. Institutional controls are often used to complement these engineering controls.
1.2 Contents of the Guidance
A Superfund site may require several response actions to address all the site hazards. The
recommended process for remedial action completion is described in Chapter 2 of this
guidance.
When physical construction is complete at the entire site (through removal and/or
remedial authority], the site typically achieves the construction completion milestone. EPA
Headquarters monitors and reports site progress towards the construction completion
milestone. The recommended process for construction completion is described in
Chapter 3.
Site completion typically occurs when it is determined that no further response is required
at the site, all cleanup levels have been achieved, and the site is deemed protective of
human health and the environment. The recommended process for site completion is
described in Chapter 4.
Once the site completion milestone has been achieved, the site is typically eligible for
deletion from the NPL. The deletion process generally includes EPA verification, in
consultation with the state, that no further federal response is needed, and the opportunity
for public notice and comment in the Federal Register before the site is deleted from the
NPL. The NCP deletion criteria may also be applied to portions of the site. Consistent with
the recommended site deletion process, these portions of a site may be partially deleted
from the NPL. The recommended process for site deletion and partial deletion is described
in Chapter 5.
This guidance provides recommended processes related to showing how the various
milestones of the NPL site close out process are achieved, highlighting specific activities
and the recommended documentation for each activity's completion.
Introduction 1-2
-------
OSWER 9320.2-22 Close Out Procedures for National Priorities List Sites
OSWER Directive No. 9200.4-22A, CERCLA Coordination With Natural Resource Trustees
dated July 31,1997, calls for Trustees listed in the Regional Contingency Plans to be
notified of the completion of construction at an NPL site. The guidance also indicates that
EPA will seek to consult with Trustees prior to deleting a site or portion of a site from the
NPL. Appropriate language is included in this document for addressing these notification
requirements.
In addition, Section 126(a] of CERCLA provides that the governing body of an Indian tribe
shall be afforded substantially the same treatment as a state regarding a number of actions,
including consultation on remedial actions, and roles and responsibilities under the
national contingency plan and submittal of priorities for remedial action. RPMs should
consult with tribes, as appropriate and consistent with EPA tribal policy, throughout the
recommended processes discussed in this guidance.
1.3 Role of the Remedial Project Manager
The EPA RPM typically has lead responsibility for ensuring the successful completion of
cleanup activities at an NPL site and for guiding a site through each successive phase of the
Superfund process. It is recommended that the RPM consider the recommendations
contained in this guidance when evaluating whether each milestone at a site can be
achieved. The RPM should review the recommendations in this guidance to assist in
determining that all statutory and regulatory requirements have been met, and that all
appropriate policies have been considered for each recommended step in the site
completion process.
Introduction 1-3
-------
OSWER 9320.2-22 Close Out Procedures for National Priorities List Sites
2.0 Remedial Action Completion
2. / Introduction
This chapter describes the recommended procedures for achieving remedial action
completion at a NPL site. For purposes of this guidance, the term "remedial action" (RA, or
"RA project"} refers to the actual construction or implementation of a discrete scope of
activities supporting a Superfund site cleanup. Each RA project is generally designed to
achieve progress toward specific remedial action objectives (RAOs} identified in a CERCLA
remedy decision document (e.g., ROD, ROD amendment}.
The guidelines and processes for RA completion described in this chapter are independent
of any requirements for "Certification of Completion of the Remedial Action" that may exist
under the terms of a consent decree. For example, the RA completion milestone does not
necessarily signify that a PRP has fully performed an RA in accordance with the terms of a
consent decree (see 2.4.2}.
2.1.1 Relation to Operable Units
Throughout the site investigation phase, the lead and support agencies should first identify
the type and optimal sequence of site activities, including whether the site may best be
addressed as a series of separate operable units (OU}. The NCP (40 CFR 300.5} defines an
OU as a "discrete action that comprises an incremental step" in cleaning up a site. In
practice, however, an operable unit now more commonly refers to a geographical area, a
contaminated medium, or the chronological phase of a cleanup. The division of a site into
OUs often serves to better inform stakeholders of the manner in which EPA expects to
manage the cleanup of a site.
The RA project is the physical work carried out to address contamination at a particular
OU. Rather than refer to the descriptive area or phase of a site, the terms "RA" or "RA
project" are used synonymously to refer to the particular action implemented, such as
sediment dredging or construction of a landfill cap.
A Superfund site may consist of one or more OUs, each of which may in turn be addressed
by one or more RA projects. The number of OUs and planned projects at a site may
increase or decrease over time as knowledge of site conditions change.
Both OUs and RA projects are used to sub-divide a site into a series of smaller components
that allow for more effective management and implementation of cleanup activities. A
distinct RA project corresponds to the "action" level in CERCLIS. It has a definite start and
completion date as defined in the Superfund Program Implementation Manual (SPIM}.
2.1.2 Utilizing Multiple RA Projects at a Site
The appropriate division of a site into discrete operable units and projects is based on the
best professional judgment of the site manager and is often dependent on the size and
Remedial Action Completion 2-1
-------
OSWER 9320.2-22 Close Out Procedures for National Priorities List Sites
complexity of a site. Each RA should consist of an appropriate scope of activities,
developed through sound engineering and project management analysis, which contribute
to the efficient and effective achievement of an overall site cleanup strategy.
Some unique types of sites (for example, residential soil cleanups, excavation of mine
waste, or sediment dredging] may require multiple RA projects to effectively carry out a
single remedy. The approach to remediating these types of sites typically involves the
removal of very large volumes of waste over an expansive geographic area and/or an
exceptionally long period of time. In these situations, site managers may find that
implementation of the remedy is best managed as a series of individual projects which may
employ different delivery mechanisms.
Site managers should consider a variety of site-specific factors as well as programmatic
constraints when determining how to divide implementation of a remedy into projects. For
example, different parties may be funding or conducting actions at physically distinct
portions of the site, a particular property owner may impede access thereby delaying work
in some areas, or there may be large distances separating distinct waste areas. Site
managers may also consider the impact of various contract mechanisms and durations
when determining how to implement particularly large-scale remedies. The above
considerations are merely examples of issues that could exist at a site; RPMs should fully
consider the circumstances at their site to determine the most appropriate and efficient
manner in which to manage the cleanup.
2.2 Remedial Action Completion Definition
Completion of a remedial action project is typically achieved when the designated Regional
official (Branch Chief or above, as determined by the EPA Region] approves in writing the
RA Report. The RA Report is often referred to as a Remediation Action Completion Report
(RACR] at federal facilities.
The key factors to consider for achieving RA completion and submitting the RA Report vary
depending on the type of remedy that was implemented. For purposes of this guidance,
remedies are generally grouped into four categories:
t source remediation actions,
t source and groundwater containment actions,
t groundwater and surface water restoration actions, and
t institutional control (1C] actions.
The RA completion factors for each of these scenarios will be discussed separately in this
chapter.
Exhibit 2-1 provides examples of RAs and indicates when it may be appropriate to achieve
RA completion. Multiple technologies are increasingly being used to address both source
Remedial Action Completion 2-2
-------
OSWER 9320.2-22
Close Out Procedures for National Priorities List Sites
and groundwater contamination in parallel. In these situations, each remedial technology
may have a unique goal. It is recommended that the RPM consult with HQ to ensure that
the appropriate RA completion criteria are being considered.
Exhibit 2-1
Remedial Action Completion Examples
Example RA
RA Complete Guidelines
Source Remediation Actions
Source remediation (e.g., soil vapor
extraction, in situ treatment of
source material)
Excavation and off-site disposal of
contamination
NAPL remediation (destruction or
recovery] with the goal of reducing
the volume of source material, not
restoring groundwater
Cleanup levels have been achieved for the treated
wastes and site has been restored.
All wastes that need to be addressed as part of the
RA have been excavated, removed from the site to
an approved location, cleanup levels have been
achieved, and site has been restored.
Necessary contaminant mass removed or volume
reduced.
Source and Groundwater Containment Actions
Containment remedies (e.g., source
control, landfill cap, groundwater
containment in conjunction with a
technical impracticability waiver)
Extraction and treatment of
groundwater to prevent plume
migration
Construction of the designed remedy is complete
and data indicate that effective containment has
been achieved (operational and functional, or
O&F).
Construction of the treatment plant and monitoring
system are complete, and data indicate that
effective containment has been achieved (O&F).
1 Groundwater and Surface Water Restoration Actions
Groundwater and surface water
restoration remedies that involve
ex situ treatment
Groundwater restoration remedies
that involve in situ treatment
Groundwater and surface water
restoration remedies that involve
monitored natural attenuation
Construction of the treatment plant and monitoring
system are complete, and the remedy is operating
as intended (O&F).
Construction of the remedy and monitoring system
are complete, injections of the appropriate reagent
are underway, and the remedy is operating as
intended (O&F).
The ROD is signed and any necessary RA is
conducted (e.g., installation of sufficient
monitoring well network to make the O&F
determination).
Institutional Control Actions
Implementation of an 1C remedy
Institutional controls specified in the decision
document are implemented.
Remedial Action Completion
2-3
-------
OSWER 9320.2-22
Close Out Procedures for National Priorities List Sites
2.2.1 RA Completion for Source Remediation Actions
For purposes of this guidance, source material is defined as material that includes or
contains hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants that act as a reservoir for
migration of contamination to groundwater, to surface water, to air, or acts as a source for
direct exposure.3 Source remediation generally refers to actions taken to reduce or
eliminate the toxicity, mobility, or volume of contaminated source material, either through
on-site treatment to appropriate cleanup levels or by physically removing it from the site.
Examples include soil vapor extraction, in situ thermal treatment, and dredging of
contaminated sediments. Exhibit 2-2 graphically depicts source remediation actions.
Exhibit 2-2
Source Remediation Actions Pipeline
RA Report
Remedial Action
Off-site disposal: Wastes removed, cleanup levels achieved, site restored
Source remediation: Cleanup levels achieved, site restored
NAPL recovery: Necessary mass recovered/volume reduced
For excavation and other active source remediation remedies, regions should consider the
following factors prior to approval of the RA Report:
t Whether all construction activities are complete, including site restoration and
demobilization;
t Whether all remedial action objectives and associated cleanup levels specified in
the applicable ROD have been achieved;
t Whether a successful contract final inspection or equivalent has been conducted
(see 2.4); and
t Whether the RA Report contains the information described in Exhibit 2-5.
2.2.2 RA Completion for Source and Groundwater Containment Actions
Containment remedies may include, but are not limited to, permanent source control, a
landfill cap, or physical measures to control the migration of a contaminated groundwater
plume or surface water. Exhibit 2-3 graphically depicts source and groundwater
containment actions. For containment remedies, regions should consider the following
factors prior to approval of the RA Report:
' See also A Guide to Principal Threat and Low Level Threat Wastes (OSWER 9380.3-06FS; November 1991).
Remedial Action Completion
2-4
-------
OSWER 9320.2-22
Close Out Procedures for National Priorities List Sites
Whether all construction activities are complete, including site restoration and
demobilization;
Whether all remedial action objectives in the applicable ROD have been
achieved;
Whether there is data to indicate that containment has been achieved, and the
operational & functional (O&F) determination has been made (see 2.3.1);
Whether a successful contract final inspection or equivalent has been conducted
(see 2.4); and
Whether the RA Report contains the information described in Exhibit 2-5.
Exhibit 2-3
Source and Groundwater Containment Actions Pipeline
RA Start
Inspection of O&F
Constructed Determination
Remedy RA Report
O&F
Period
-O&M-
Construct containment remedy.
Remedial Action*
2.2.3 RA Completion for Groundwater and Surface Water Restoration Remedies
For purposes of this guidance, a restoration remedy is a remedial action with the objective
of returning all or part of a surface water body or groundwater aquifer to the beneficial use
specified in the ROD.4 For groundwater currently or potentially used for drinking water
purposes, these levels may be Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) or non-zero Maximum
Contaminant Level Goals (MCLGs) established under the Safe Drinking Water Act. The
timing of the RA Report is generally unique for these remedies due to the duration of
remediation, which may be substantially longer than for the other categories of remedies
described above. For a restoration remedy, the RA Report is typically written when the
' See also Transfer of Long Term Response Action (LTRA) Projects to States (OSWER 9355.0-81FS-A; July 2003)
Remedial Action Completion
2-5
-------
OSWER 9320.2-22
Close Out Procedures for National Priorities List Sites
remedy has been constructed and is operating as intended, but prior to achieving the
remedial action objectives specified in the ROD. Exhibit 2-4 graphically depicts
groundwater and surface water restoration actions.
Exhibit 2-4
Groundwater and Surface Water Restoration Actions Pipeline
RA Start
Inspection of
Constructed Determination
Remedy ^ Report
Transition to
o&M
. °&F .
Periud
Ex situ: Construct treatment system.
In situ: Construct injection network.
: Construct monitoring network.
Fund-Lead
LIRA
< 10 years
-O&M-
< 1 year
Remedial Action1
PRPLR
Fed Fac O&M
For groundwater and surface water restoration remedies, regions should consider the
following factors prior to approval of the RA Report:
* Whether the construction of the treatment system is complete;
* For in situ restoration remedies, whether delivery of the appropriate reagent
(e.g., oxidant or surfactants) is underway;
* Whether the monitoring well network is installed;
* Whether the remedy is operating as intended (O&F, see 2.3.1);
* Whether a successful contract final inspection or equivalent has been conducted
(see 2.4); and
* Whether the RA Report contains the information described in Exhibit 2-5.
Previous guidance distinguished between Interim and Final RA Reports, where Interim RA
Reports were used to document RA completion for groundwater and surface water
restoration actions (a Final RA Report would then be issued when cleanup levels were
achieved). Current guidance eliminates this distinction, now referring to all reports simply
as "RA Reports". Rather than producing a Final RA Report, monitoring data demonstrating
that cleanup levels have been achieved may be referenced in the Final Close Out Report
(see Chapter 4).
Remedial Action Completion
2-6
-------
OSWER 9320.2-22 Close Out Procedures for National Priorities List Sites
2.2.4 RA Completion for Institutional Control Actions
EPA considers ICs to include "non-engineered instruments, such as administrative and legal
controls, that help to minimize the potential for human exposure to contamination and/or
protect the integrity of a response action."5 ICs typically are designed to work by limiting
land or resource use or by providing information that helps modify or guide human
behavior at a site. Some common examples of ICs include zoning restrictions, building or
excavation permits, well drilling prohibitions, easements, and covenants.
Institutional controls typically are selected to supplement an engineered remedy. In some
instances, the party responsible for 1C implementation is different from the party
constructing the engineered remedy (e.g., the state and EPA's contractor, respectively}. In
such instances, the RA Report requirements are typically met when the engineered remedy
has been implemented (see sections 2.2.1, 2.2.2, 2.2.3} and are not contingent on
implementation of the ICs. A subsequent RA Report documenting the implementation of
the ICs is typically not necessary.
There may be instances where ICs are an integral component of a single RA project,
documented in the ROD as such and described in more detail in the Statement of Work,
Consent Decree or other agreement. In these situations, it may be appropriate to ensure
implementation of ICs prior to approval of the RA Report.
In limited cases when ICs are the sole remedy selected in a decision document, an RA
Report is used to document completion.6 In these limited cases, regions should consider
the following factors prior to approval of the RA Report:
t Whether the ICs specified in the ROD (or ROD Amendment, BSD} are
implemented;
t Whether a successful final inspection or equivalent has been conducted (see
2.4}; and
t Whether the RA Report contains the information described in Exhibit 2-5.
2.3 Relationship ofRA Completion to Other Actions
This section describes other actions in the remedial pipeline that often relate to RA
completion. Detailed definitions, as well as additional guidance on tracking RAs and other
related activities, may be found in the Superfund Program Implementation Manual (SPIM}.
5 Institutional Controls: A Guide to Planning, Implementing, Maintaining, and Enforcing Institutional Controls at
Contaminated Sites (Interim Final) (EPA 540-R-09-001/OSWER 9355.0-89; November 2010). (PIME
Guidance)
6 Under the NCP, ICs are not to be used as the sole remedy unless active response measures are determined to
be impracticable. See Section 2.3 of the PIME Guidance, cited above.
Remedial Action Completion 2-7
-------
OSWER 9320.2-22 Close Out Procedures for National Priorities List Sites
2.3.1 Operational & Functional (O&F)
O&F activities are generally conducted after physical construction of the remedy is
complete to ensure that it is functioning properly and operating as designed. The phase
following construction of the remedy and before O&F is often referred to as shakedown,
where the constructor makes minor modifications as necessary to ensure the remedy is
operating as designed. O&F determinations are generally made for containment remedies
(all media], as well as groundwater and surface water restoration remedies (including
monitored natural attenuation remedies}. A separate O&F determination should be made
for each remedial action at a site, and is not directly related to the site-wide construction
completion determination (see Chapter 3}.
For Fund-financed remedies, the O&F determination generally governs the schedule for
transfer of a project from EPA to the state for operation and maintenance. O&F
determinations may also be made at Potential Responsible Party (PRP} lead projects to
signify the end of the shakedown period. A similar determination, Operating Properly and
Successfully, is sometimes made at federal facility (FF} projects for purposes of property
transfer under CERCLA section 120(h}3(B}.7
According to the NCP (40 CFR 300.435(f}(2}}, a remedy becomes O&F either one year after
construction is complete, or when the remedy is determined concurrently by EPA and the
state to be functioning properly and is performing as designed, whichever is earlier. EPA
may grant extensions to the one-year period in writing, as appropriate. The specific
criteria for determining O&F will vary for each remedy and site. For Fund-financed
remedies, the Superfund State Contract or site-specific Cooperative Agreement provides an
opportunity to describe the process and expectations for O&F prior to the initiation of the
remedial action.
EPA and the state (and PRP, if appropriate] conduct a joint inspection at the conclusion of
construction to determine that the remedy has been constructed properly. The joint
inspection also typically marks the beginning of the O&F, or shakedown, period. Following
the shakedown period, the O&F determination should be documented by a letter from EPA
to the state (and PRP, if appropriate}. The date of the O&F determination may be
subsequently referenced in the RA Report; however the RA Report should not serve as the
primary documentation for O&F due to the length of time it takes to prepare and approve
the RA Report. This will help ensure timely transfer of O&M responsibilities to states for
Fund-financed projects.
2.3.2 Long Term Response Action (LTRA and PRP LR)
For purposes of this guidance, LTRA refers to the Fund-financed operation of groundwater
and surface water restoration measures, including monitored natural attenuation, for the
first ten years of operation following the O&F determination or until cleanup levels are
7 For additional information, see Guidance for Evaluation of Federal Agency Determinations that Remedial
Actions are Operating Properly and Successfully Under CERCLA Section 120(h)(3) (Interim), August 1996.
Remedial Action Completion 2-8
-------
OSWER 9320.2-22 Close Out Procedures for National Priorities List Sites
achieved, whichever is earlier.8 The Fund typically continues to pay 90 percent of the cost
during this ten-year period (with the remaining 10 percent paid by the state as a required
cost share], then the state becomes responsible for operation and maintenance (O&M] of
100 percent of the remedy.
The operation of PRP-lead restoration remedies following the RA is considered O&M,
however EPA refers to these activities as "PRP LR" (for PRP long-term response] for
tracking and reporting purposes. The ten-year time frame is not used for PRP LR. For
federal facility-lead sites, groundwater and surface water restoration remedies transition
from RA completion directly to O&M. Guidelines for the start and completion of LTRA and
PRP LR activities may be found in the Superfund Program Implementation Manual (SPIM).
2.3.3 Operation and Maintenance (O&M)
O&M consists of the activities required to maintain the effectiveness and integrity of the
remedy; in the case of Fund-financed measures to restore groundwater or surface water,
O&M refers to the continued operation of such measures beyond the LTRA period until
cleanup levels are achieved. Guidelines for the start and completion of O&M activities at
Fund, PRP and federal facility-lead sites may be found in the Superfund Program
Implementation Manual (SPIM}.
2.4 Inspection Guidelines for RA Completion
EPA generally conducts contract pre-final and final inspections prior to closing out an RA
construction contract, regardless of lead or contracting party. These inspections are
conducted to determine whether the construction has been completed in accordance with
the contract design and specifications. The inspections are generally held between the
contracting party and the construction contractor, although others may be invited.
During the contract pre-final inspection, the contracting party's project manager and the
construction contractor should inspect all elements of work to see if the work is
substantively complete and ready for acceptance under the terms of the contract. Some
minor defects may come to light as the inspection proceeds. The construction manager
should develop a "punch list" of all items that need correction or completion before the
work can be accepted. A pre-final inspection report should be prepared, including the
punch list, completion dates for outstanding items, and a date for a final inspection.
If punch list items are minor, the pre-final inspection may automatically serve as the final
inspection. Otherwise, a final inspection should be conducted later to determine that
punch list items are corrected and all work has been completed in accordance with the
contract plans and specifications.
8 For additional information on LTRAs, see Transfer of Long Term Response Action (LTRA) Projects to States
(OSWER 9355.0-81FS-A; July 2003).
Remedial Action Completion 2-9
-------
OSWER 9320.2-22 Close Out Procedures for National Priorities List Sites
An applicable consent decree, Federal Facility Agreement, Statement of Work or other
agreement may recommend additional inspections depending upon site circumstances.
These inspections may be held concurrently with or separately from the contract pre-final
and final inspection described in this guidance.
2.4.1 Fund-lead RA Completion Inspections
The NCP refers to an additional inspection at Fund lead sites requiring LTRA and/or O&M.
This inspection is typically conducted jointly by EPA and the state at the end of all
construction activities for that RA project in order to initiate the shake down, or O&F,
period. If convenient, it can be conducted in conjunction with the contract pre-final or final
inspection (see Section 2.4}. The results of this inspection should be clearly documented in
order to support the initiation of the O&F period.
2.4.2 Responsible Party-lead RA Completion Inspections
The Model RD/RA Consent Decree (Section XIV, Certification of Completion] refers to a pre-
certification inspection upon completion of the RA. This inspection may involve the
Settling Defendants (PRPs], EPA, the state, and appropriate contractors. The purpose of
this inspection is typically to determine if the remedial action has been fully performed,
and the performance standards have been achieved in accordance with the terms of the
consent decree.
After the pre-certification inspection, if the Settling Defendants still believe that the RA has
been fully performed and the performance standards have been achieved, the final consent
decree normally requires them to submit a written report to EPA for approval stating that
"the Remedial Action has been completed in full satisfaction of the requirements of this
Consent Decree." This report, if it contains the proper information, may also serve as the
RA Report for the remedial action.9
2.4.3 Federal Facility-lead RA Completion Inspections
Federal Facility Agreements may include an additional set of inspections to determine that
all aspects of the remedy have been implemented in accordance with applicable
enforcement documents and the ROD. Participants may include representatives from the
federal facility, the EPA, the state, and appropriate contractors. The inspection can be done
concurrently with the contract inspection described in Section 2.4, where appropriate.
9 Final RD/RA Consent Decrees (Section XIV, Certification of Completion) usually require use of a
"Certification of Completion of the Remedial Action" for consent decrees that address the sole or final
operable unit for the site in which the United States has decided to grant a site-wide covenant not to sue. The
model states that this Certification may be used, consistent with regional practice, for non-final OU consent
decrees but this is not typically the case.
Remedial Action Completion 2-10
-------
OSWER 9320.2-22 Close Out Procedures for National Priorities List Sites
2.5 Preparing the RA Report
The RA Report should document the cleanup activities that occurred in order to fully
implement a remedial action project at a site. The collection of individual RA Reports for a
site can be used as the supporting documentation for development of the Final Close Out
Report, as described in Chapter 4.
The RA Report is typically prepared by the party most familiar with the RA construction
efforts (e.g., construction or oversight contractor}. Such familiarity should provide the best
opportunity to describe the specific activities conducted as part of the remedial action, and
should provide the necessary supporting information to document that the remedy has
either met cleanup levels or has achieved O&F.
The RA Report should be completed as soon as possible after contract final inspection of
the completed construction, and the determination that the remedy is O&F, if applicable.
The RA Report may take some time to compile; however, the goal is to have the report
submitted to the region for approval within 90 days of the final inspection. This is a
recommended guideline; the applicable Consent Decree, Statement of Work, or Federal
Facility Agreement may specify the report schedule for a given RA project.
Exhibit 2-5, at the end of this chapter, presents the recommended contents of the RA
Report. As discussed in Section 2.2.2, the contents of the RA Report are dependent upon
the nature of the activities that have occurred for that particular RA project. Some items
previously recommended for RA Reports (including documentation of actual RA costs and
analysis of lessons learned] are no longer recommended. These items may be included as
an optional appendix to the report, or documented independently in the site file.
Additional guidance specific to the preparation of Remedial Action Completion Reports
(RACRs] for Department of Defense facilities on the NPL is available in the January 19,
2006 document Recommended Streamlined Site Close Out and NPL Deletion Process for DoD
Facilities.
2.6 RA Report Approval
Since the RA Report is not typically prepared by EPA, the report is approved by EPA in
order to achieve RA completion. There is no formal EPA Headquarters review or
concurrence role for RA Reports.
Approval occurs when the designated regional official (Branch Chief or above, as
determined by the EPA Region] approves in writing the RA Report. The approval can be
provided with an appropriate signature on the RA Report cover sheet, an internal approval
memorandum from the RPM to the designated regional official, or by letter to the
originator of the RA Report.
Remedial Action Completion 2-11
-------
OSWER 9320.2-22
Close Out Procedures for National Priorities List Sites
Exhibit 2-5
Recommended Remedial Action Report Contents
Section
Contents
Background
Provide a brief description of the site (e.g., name,
location}.
Summarize requirements specified in the applicable
ROD for the RA. Include information on the remedial
action objectives, cleanup levels (and basis for
determining the cleanup levels], institutional controls,
monitoring requirements, operation and maintenance
requirements, and other parameters applicable to the
design, construction, operation, and performance of the
RA.
Briefly summarize the remedial design (RD}, including
any significant regulatory or technical considerations or
events that occurred during the preparation of the RD.
Identify and briefly discuss any ROD amendments,
explanation of significant differences, or technical
impracticability waivers.
II.
Construction Activities
Provide a step-by-step summary description of the
activities undertaken to construct and implement the
RA (e.g., mobilization and site preparatory work;
construction of the treatment system; associated site
work, such as fencing and surface water collection and
control; system operation and monitoring; and sampling
activities}.
If a treatment remedy, refer reader to an appendix for a
description of the major components of the treatment
train and operating parameters for the system.
If implemented, summarize details of the institutional
controls (e.g., the type of institutional control, who will
maintain the control, who will enforce the control}.
Summarize any significant problems or deviations that
occurred during construction (an BSD or other
documentation separate from the RA Report may also
be appropriate}.
Remedial Action Completion
2-12
-------
OSWER 9320.2-22
Close Out Procedures for National Priorities List Sites
Section
Contents
III. Chronology of Events
Provide a tabular summary that lists the major events
for the RA, and associated dates of those events, starting
with ROD signature.
Include significant milestones and dates, such as RD
submittal and approval; decision document
modifications; mobilization and construction of the
remedy; significant operational events such as
treatment system / application start-up, monitoring and
sampling events, system modifications, operational
down time, variances or non-compliance situations, and
final shut-down or cessation of operations; final
sampling and confirmation-of-performance results;
required inspections; demobilization; and completion or
startup of post-construction operation & maintenance
activities.
IV. Performance Standards
and Construction
Quality Control
For treatment remedies, identify the quantity of
material treated, the strategy used for collecting and
analyzing samples, and the overall results from the
sampling and analysis effort to confirm that cleanup
levels have been achieved (where applicable}.
For containment remedies, summarize the data to
confirm that containment is occurring (basis for O&F
determination] and that, if applicable, cleanup levels
have been achieved.
For excavation remedies, identify the amount of
material excavated, the strategy for temporary storage
and sampling, (or direct load-out], a description of any
on-site or off-site treatment prior to disposal, and the
final disposal location.
Provide an explanation of the approved construction
quality assurance and construction quality control
requirements or cite the appropriate reference for this
material. Explain any substantial problems or
deviations.
Provide an assessment of the performance data quality,
including the overall quality of the analytical data, with
a brief discussion of quality assurance and quality
control (QA/QC] procedures followed, use of a quality
assurance project plan (QAPP], comparison of analytical
data with data quality objectives (DQOs].
For PRP or federal facility-lead projects, discuss EPA's
oversight activities and results with regard to analytical
data quality and the review of confirmatory data.
Remedial Action Completion
2-13
-------
OSWER 9320.2-22
Close Out Procedures for National Priorities List Sites
Section
Contents
V. Final Inspection and
Certifications
Report the results of the various pre-final and final RA
contract inspections. Note punch list items identified
during the pre-final inspection and discuss how they
were addressed prior to the final inspection.
Briefly describe adherence to health and safety
requirements while implementing the RA. Explain any
substantial problems or deviations.
For RP-lead, describe results of pre-certification
inspection.
If applicable, certify that the remedy is operational and
functional, along with the date this was achieved.
VI. Operation &
Maintenance Activities
Describe anticipated operation and maintenance
activities, such as monitoring, site maintenance, and
closure activities.
Identify potential problems or concerns with such
activities.
If the remedy involves groundwater or surface water
restoration, describe the future activities necessary to
meet cleanup levels.
If ICs have not been implemented, describe activities
that need to be completed to get the controls in place.
VII. Contact Information
Provide contact information (names, addresses, phone
numbers, and contract/reference data] for the major
design and remediation contractors, EPA oversight
contractors, and the respective RPM and project
managers for EPA, the state, and the PRPs, as applicable.
Appendices
Provide supplemental information in appendices to the
RA Report, as appropriate. These could include a map of
the site and operable unit, a schematic of the treatment
system, as-built drawings, site restoration plan,
supplemental performance information, documentation
of the O&F determination, and a list of references.
2.7 RA Report Distribution
Once the RA Report is approved, the original is retained in the Regional site file, and a copy
should be provided to the originator of the report and other appropriate parties (e.g., state,
tribe and/or PRP}. Upon RA Completion, the region should also notify the appropriate
Natural Resources Damages Trustees listed in the Regional Contingency Plans (if there are
trustees at the site}.10 The region should provide a copy of the RA Report to the Trustees
within one week of the completion and approval of the report.
10 For additional information, see CERCLA Coordination With Natural Resource Trustees (OSWER 9200.4-22A;
July 31,1997).
Remedial Action Completion
2-14
-------
OSWER 9320.2-22 Close Out Procedures for National Priorities List Sites
3.0 Construction Completion
3. / Introduction
In the first ten years of the Superfund program, outside audiences often measured
Superfund's progress in cleaning up sites by the number of sites deleted from the NPL.
This measure, however, did not and still does not fully recognize the substantial
construction work and reduction of risk to human health and the environment that has
occurred at NPL sites not yet eligible for deletion.
In response, the NCP Preamble Federal Register notice (55 FR 8699, March 8,1990}
established a "construction completion" category of NPL sites to more clearly communicate
to the public the status of cleanup progress among sites on the NPL. In a subsequent
Federal Register notice (58 FR 12142, March 2,1993} EPA formally introduced
construction completions "... to simplify its system of categorizing sites and to better
communicate the successful completion of cleanup activities."
For purposes of this guidance, a construction completion site is a CERCLA site where
physical construction of all cleanup actions is complete, including actions to address all
immediate threats and to bring all long-term threats under control. Only sites that are final
on the NPL or deleted from the NPL may qualify for construction completion.
Determination of construction completion at a site has no legal or financial significance, as
it does not relate to satisfying contractual or other requirements (e.g., cleanup contract,
consent decree, cooperative or interagency agreement}, nor does construction completion
affect the eligibility of cost reimbursement from the Fund.
3.2 Construct/on Completion Process
Construction completion is a site-wide measure; therefore completion of the last response
action at a site generally determines when a site becomes eligible. This section discusses
the typical construction completion process for sites addressed under CERCLA remedial
authority, which is the most common approach to cleanup of sites on the NPL. At these
sites, the milestone is normally achieved when a pre-final inspection for the last RA has
been conducted and a Preliminary Close Out Report (PCOR} has been signed. Later
sections of this guidance will address unique scenarios for sites addressed under other, or
multiple, authorities.
3.2.1 Pre-Final Inspection
A pre-final inspection should be conducted for the site's final RA following the
recommended procedures outlined in Section 2.4, Inspection Guidelines for RA Completion.
Construction completion criteria are normally satisfied when only minor "punch list" items
are identified in the inspection to finish the work in accordance with design plans and
Construction Completion 3-1
-------
OSWER 9320.2-22 Close Out Procedures for National Priorities List Sites
specifications. For purposes of this guidance, punch list items are activities that are part of
the contract but do not affect the functionality of the remedy. These items are usually
addressed by the construction contractor before the final inspection, but typically do not
impact the construction completion determination. Exhibit 3-1 provides examples of
potential punch list items. Exhibit 3-1 is only a representative list; each site is evaluated
individually to determine eligibility for construction completion.
Exhibit3-l
Examples of Minor Punch List Items
Revegetating landscape (except when integral to the remedy]
Removing construction debris
Installing additional monitoring wells
Installing support equipment, such as security lighting
Repairing minor defects in workmanship or construction
Demobilization activities
Resurfacing roads
3.2.2 Preliminary Close Out Report
While much of the input can be provided by the contractor or through previous RA Reports,
the PCOR is an EPA document that is typically prepared by the Remedial Project Manager
(RPM]. Even before the pre-final inspection is conducted, the RPM can start drafting
portions of the PCOR because much of the documentation is historical and not generally
dependent on the outcome of the pre-final inspection.
The PCOR should focus on all OUs at the site, including a description of the releases at the
site, site conditions, all construction activities (including removals], completion of
construction, Five-year Reviews, and a detailed schedule of steps remaining for site
completion. The PCOR generally should be seven to nine pages and contain the
information shown in Exhibit 3-2.
The RPM will often prepare the PCOR for the site before the RA Report for the final RA
project is completed. This sequence is typical because the RA Report may take up to 90
days for the preparer (PRP, contractor, USAGE, etc.] to submit and get approved, or the site
may have a long period of operation before cleanup levels are achieved (e.g., soil vapor
extraction, bioremediation].
EPA Headquarters (HQ] has Regional Coordinators assigned to act as primary reviewers of
draft PCORs. These individuals will work closely with the RPM in assessing eligibility for
construction completion and reviewing the draft document. The RPM sends the draft PCOR
to the appropriate HQ Regional Coordinator for review and comment prior to regional
signature. After addressing HQ comments and obtaining the signature of the Regional
Superfund Division Director (or designee], a copy of the signed report is forwarded to EPA
HQ for concurrence and tracking. If HQ concurs, the construction completion date
normally corresponds to the date the regional official signed the PCOR.
Construction Completion 3-2
-------
OSWER 9320.2-22
Close Out Procedures for National Priorities List Sites
Exhibit 3-2
Recommended Preliminary Close Out Report Outline
Section
Contents
I. Introduction
Include general statement indicating date of pre-final
inspection and a statement that contractors or agencies
have constructed the remedies in accordance with
remedial design plans and specifications.
II. Summary of Site
Conditions
Provide background summary of site location, site
description, and NPL listing information.
Describe any removal action activities at the site.
Summarize remedies selected and remedial action
objectives from all decision documents.
Include dates each RA was initiated and completed,
method used to implement RA (e.g., consent decree,
contract, cooperative or other agreement], and date and
description of pre-final inspections used to determine
that construction is complete.
If implemented, summarize details of the institutional
controls (e.g., the type of ICs, who will maintain and
enforce the controls].
III. Demonstration of
Construction QA/QC
Document that the construction quality
assurance/quality control plan was implemented, and
that construction completion is consistent with the
ROD(s] and remedial design plans and specifications.
Summarize any significant deviations that occurred
during construction (an BSD or other documentation
separate from the PCOR may also be appropriate].
IV. Schedule of Activities
For Site Completion
Identify activities remaining in order to:
» Assure effectiveness of the remedy (e.g., implement
institutional controls, work plan for operation and
maintenance],
» Assure consistency with the NCP (e.g., joint EPA/state
inspection, operational and functional
determination],
» Satisfy requirements for site completion (e.g., achieve
groundwater cleanup goals].
Note the schedule for the first (or next] Five-Year
Review and state whether the review is statutory or
policy.
Specify the organization responsible for implementation
of each activity.
Set estimated dates for completion of each activity.
Construction Completion
3-3
-------
OSWER 9320.2-22
Close Out Procedures for National Priorities List Sites
Sometimes a PCOR may not be needed because the site meets both construction
completion and site completion criteria (See Chapter 4} simultaneously. In these instances,
the RPM may elect to prepare a Final Close Out Report (FCOR} to satisfy the purposes of
both documents concurrently. For example, a site where the remedy involves only
excavation and consolidation of contaminated soils under a cap may be eligible for both
construction completion and site completion pending confirmatory sampling and a
successful final inspection. At a site with a groundwater restoration remedy, an FCOR
would likely not be appropriate at the time of construction completion due to the extended
operation of the groundwater remedy prior to achieving final cleanup levels.
At some NPL sites, EPA determines that no physical
construction is necessary in the final OU to protect
human health and the environment. There may or
may not have been previous removal or remedial
actions conducted at other OUs of the site. All sites
qualifying for construction completion, including
sites with No Action RODs in the final operable unit,
should be documented via a Preliminary Close Out
Report or Final Close Out Report.
The construction completion
milestone is typically achieved
when the Regional Superfund
Division Director (or designee)
signs the PCOR, a hard copy of the
signed document is sent to EPA
HQ, and EPA HQ concurs.
Upon completion of a PCOR or FCOR, the appropriate Trustees listed in the Regional
Contingency Plans should be notified of the construction completion determination (if
there are trustees at the site}.11 The region should provide a copy of the report to the
Trustees within one week of the completion of the report. A copy should also be provided
to the state, tribe and PRP, if applicable.
3.3 Technology Considerations for Construction Completions
This section includes considerations for specific types of remedies, including groundwater
treatment remedies, in-situ groundwater and soil remedies, soil vapor extraction,
monitoring, and institutional controls. This section also discusses some special
considerations for interim remedies and contingency remedies. The information below
only addresses a subset of the many technologies employed at NPL sites. In instances
where other remedial technologies are used, site-specific circumstances should be
evaluated to determine eligibility for construction completion.
The sections below provide information and recommendations for achieving construction
completion for a given remedy, assuming the given remedy is the last action at a site prior
to achieving construction completion. However, the official construction completion
determination applies to the entire NPL site. The site-wide determination generally will
not be made until each individual remedy at a given site meets the definition of
construction completion.
11 For additional information, see CERCLA Coordination With Natural Resource Trustees (OSWER 9200.4-22A;
July 31,1997)
Construction Completion
3-4
-------
OSWER 9320.2-22 Close Out Procedures for National Priorities List Sites
3.3.1 Groundwater Treatment Remedies
Groundwater treatment remedies often involve extraction of groundwater followed by
conveyance to an above-ground treatment system. Such remedies may be undertaken to
restore groundwater quality to levels that allow for beneficial use (e.g., restoration to safe
drinking water levels] or to prevent further migration of a contaminated plume. These
actions typically involve a continuous operation phase long after the system has been
constructed in order to achieve the cleanup levels specified in the ROD.
These sites may achieve construction completion when physical construction of the
remedy (e.g., construction of the treatment plant, pumps, and extraction wells] is complete,
the pre-final inspection has been conducted, the treatment system is operational, and any
expected future adjustments are likely to be minimal in nature (e.g., well replacement]. If
additional, substantial work is expected (e.g., expansion of the extraction network or
additional treatment components], then the site may not qualify for construction
completion.
In instances where monitored natural attenuation (MNA] is being used to achieve
groundwater remediation goals, the initial network of monitoring wells necessary to
effectively evaluate MNA progress should be in place prior to construction completion.
For sites with a groundwater treatment remedy, the "Schedule of Activities for Site
Completion" section of the PCOR should include the anticipated date of the Operational and
Functional (O&F] determination and an estimated timeframe to achieve cleanup goals.
3.3.2 Soil Vapor Extraction Remedies
Soil vapor extraction (SVE] units are generally designed to physically remove volatile
compounds from soil layers located above the water table. The process typically employs
vapor extraction wells alone or in combination with air injection wells. Vacuum blowers
are designed to induce air through the soil layers, which strip volatile compounds from the
soil and carry them to the surface via extraction wells. Volatiles can be controlled by
adsorption to activated carbon, incineration, or condensation by refrigeration. SVE
systems vary in size, but typically consist of several extraction wells, blowers, and
collection/treatment units.
For purposes of this guidance, SVE resembles groundwater treatment remedies in that
little day-to-day activity, other than routine operation of the treatment facility, takes place
once the treatment facility is built. These actions may require a continuous operation
phase long after the system has been constructed in order to achieve the cleanup levels
specified in the ROD. Accordingly, the construction completion policy for SVE remedies
and groundwater treatment remedies are generally the same.
Construction Completion 3-5
-------
OSWER 9320.2-22 Close Out Procedures for National Priorities List Sites
Since SVE is in situ, construction activity is primarily limited to the installation of extraction
wells, blowers, and collection/treatment units. Construction completion at SVE sites may
be achieved when the extraction network and treatment unit have been constructed, a
successful pre-final inspection has been conducted, the treatment system is operational,
and any expected future adjustments are likely to be minimal in nature (e.g., well
replacement}.
The "Schedule of Activities for Site Completion" section of the PCOR should include the
anticipated date of the Operational and Functional (O&F} determination and an estimated
timeframe to achieve cleanup goals.
3.3.3 In-situ Remedies for Groundwater or Soil
In-situ treatment remedies for groundwater or soil could include chemical oxidation or
other types of chemical treatment, biological treatment, thermal treatment, air sparging,
permeable reactive barriers, and other similar technologies. In-situ treatment remedies
typically involve adding treatment agents to the subsurface. Treatment agents could
include chemical agents (e.g., oxidants, or surfactants}; agents to facilitate microbiological
activity; heating agents (e.g., steam, or electric current}; physical reactants (such as zero
valent iron, oxygen or air}; or other agents.
In 2005, EPA published a policy addendum (Addendum to Policy for "Close Out Procedures
for National Priorities List Sites" OSWER 9320.2-13, December 6, 2005} to clarify the
criteria to evaluate eligibility for construction completion for in situ groundwater
remedies. Prior to construction completion, any treatability or pilot tests should be
complete and implementation of the full-scale remedy should be underway. Full-scale in
situ remedies are often implemented in phases across areas of the site (e.g., an initial round
of injections in the source area is followed by data evaluation, then subsequent injections in
a downgradient dissolved plume}. In such instances, the criteria for construction
completion generally apply to the initial phase of the full-scale remedy.
Generally, in situ treatment remedies may be considered construction complete when each
of the following three activities has been completed and documented in a PCOR:
(1} Physical construction of at least the first phase of the full-scale remedy should be
complete, including injection wells, metering systems or other components needed
to place or control movement of treatment agents in the subsurface.
If a pump and treat system is part of the remedy, physical construction of all
components of the system should also be completed. If a permeable reactive barrier
(PRB} is used, physical construction of all components of the barrier system,
including reactive and non-reactive segments of the barrier, should be completed.
Construction Completion 3-6
-------
OSWER 9320.2-22 Close Out Procedures for National Priorities List Sites
If no physical construction is needed for the full-scale remedy (e.g., existing injection
wells from the pilot will be used], construction may be considered complete when
final design of the full-scale remedy is completed. In this case, the final design
report should specify the treatment agents to be used, the method for placing
treatment agents in the subsurface, and the location and design of injection wells to
be used for the full-scale remedy.
(2) At least one round of treatment/agent addition has been initiated for the full-scale
remedy.
If different agents are to be added in stages, at least one round of the first
stage should have been initiated.
For electrical resistive heating and thermal conductive heating, this typically
would mean turning on the power for electrodes or heater elements.
For steam enhanced extraction, this generally would mean commencement
of steam generation.
For in-situ chemical oxidation and surfactant/co-solvent flushing, this
usually would mean initial agent addition.
For phytoremediation, this typically means completing the initial planting
(harvesting, if planned, does not typically need to occur prior to construction
completion}.
For a permeable reactive barrier (PRB], the treatment agent (reactive barrier
material] should have been placed during remedy construction.
If Geoprobetm points (or similar] are to be used for injection of treatment
agents, injection points needed for at least the first round of treatment
should have been installed.
(3] The pre-final inspection indicates the remedy will perform as designed and any
expected future adjustments are likely to be minimal in nature (e.g., replacement of
existing injection wells].
3.3.4 Interim Remedies
Interim remedies are most commonly used to institute temporary measures to stabilize an
area of a site and prevent further migration of contaminants while a final remedial solution
is being developed.12 An interim remedy may also be used to evaluate the performance of
a remedial technology prior to establishing final cleanup levels. Interim remedies generally
are limited in scope and address media or areas of a site that will be subsequently
addressed by a final ROD.
If an interim remedy has been used to initiate cleanup at a site, it should be followed by a
final ROD and implementation of the final remedy before the site qualifies as a construction
completion.
12 See also A Guide to Preparing Superfund Proposed Plans, Records of Decision, and Other Remedy Selection
Decision Documents (EPA 540-R-98-031 / OSWER 9200.1-23.P; July 1999).
Construction Completion 3-7
-------
OSWER 9320.2-22 Close Out Procedures for National Priorities List Sites
3.3.5 RODs with Contingency Remedies
RODs sometimes incorporate contingency remedies when there is uncertainty about the
ability of the selected option to meet cleanup goals. Often this is particularly true where an
innovative treatment technology is selected for use at a site. In terms of the construction
completion criteria, the issue of contingency remedies may arise in situations where
remediation may still be ongoing after the site is considered construction complete (e.g.,
groundwater restoration, SVE). For example, where natural attenuation is selected as the
groundwater remedy, EPA may have included a more traditional pump and treat as the
contingency remedy.
Sites that have contingency remedies identified in a ROD may be considered construction
complete if the region has information to determine that use of the contingency remedy is
not anticipated at the site, and the PCOR includes a statement to this effect. This
determination in no way affects any Potential Responsible Party (PRP] settlement or other
obligations. Making this determination does not preclude having to later invoke the
contingency should it be required.
3.3.6 Groundwater Monitoring
Monitoring efforts generally are designed to provide information about remedy
performance and progress toward achieving cleanup levels. Monitoring may be
appropriate at any stage of remediation, including operation and maintenance (O&M)
which continues after construction completion. Although monitoring occasionally may
identify the need for future work, the need for monitoring does not preclude considering a
site as a construction completion if the site qualifies otherwise.
In instances where monitored natural attenuation (MNA} is being used to achieve
groundwater remediation goals, the initial network of monitoring wells necessary to
effectively evaluate MNA progress should be in place prior to construction completion. Due
to the dynamic nature of groundwater remedies, the installation of additional monitoring
wells may continue after construction completion.
3.3.7 Institutional Controls
For purposes of this guidance, institutional controls are non-engineered instruments, such
as administrative and legal controls, that help minimize the potential for human exposure
to contamination and/or protect the integrity of a response action.13 ICs typically are
designed to work by limiting land or resource use or by providing information that helps
modify or guide human behavior at a site. Some common examples of ICs include zoning
restrictions, building or excavation permits, well drilling prohibitions, easements, and
covenants.
13 Institutional Controls: A Guide to Planning, Implementing, Maintaining, and Enforcing Institutional Controls
at Contaminated Sites (Interim Final) (EPA 540-R-09-001 / OSWER 9355.0-89; November 2010). (PIME
Guidance)
Construction Completion 3-8
-------
OSWER 9320.2-22 Close Out Procedures for National Priorities List Sites
Since institutional controls do not require physical construction, a site can achieve the
construction completion milestone before ICs are in place. The need for institutional
controls should be documented in a decision document and the details regarding future
implementation should be included in the "Schedule of Activities for Site Completion"
section of the PCOR. However, ICs need to be implemented in order to achieve site
completion (see Chapter 4}.
3.4 Lead and Authority Considerations for Construction Completions
Some NPL site cleanups are addressed by parties other than EPA. Construction completion
guidelines and procedures for these sites are discussed below.
3.4.1 PRP Lead Sites
A determination of construction completion at a site generally does not have any legal
significance and therefore, should not affect any enforcement agreement or other
obligations associated with the PRPs. Construction completion criteria for PRP sites are
meant to be identical to those for Fund lead sites. The RPM, however, should carefully
determine whether the activities performed by the PRP are in accordance with applicable
enforcement documents.
3.4.2 Federal Facilities
Construction completion procedures for federal facility sites are identical to those for
Fund- and PRP-financed remedial actions. The EPA RPM is generally responsible for
developing the PCOR at federal facility sites. Due to the size and complexity of these sites,
the PCOR is typically longer but generally should not exceed 20 pages.
3.4.3 State Lead Sites
Sites where the state is the lead agency for conducting and/or overseeing response actions
typically call for state certification of construction completion. In these situations, EPA
relies heavily on the state to determine the appropriate response actions at a site. (See
Section 4.2.1. for guidelines to ensure all response actions have been appropriately
documented in a decision document]
In most instances, the state prepares the PCOR and EPA concurs with this decision by
signing the PCOR. The PCOR should indicate regional concurrence with the state's
determination that no further physical construction is anticipated.
If the state does not prepare an actual PCOR, then the state should send a certification letter
to the region that includes a detailed summary of all actions taken at the site. The letter
should also clearly state that no further construction is anticipated.
All sites qualifying for construction completion will be documented by a PCOR (or FCOR, as
appropriate, see Section 3.2.2}. If the state does not prepare the PCOR, then the EPA RPM
prepares the document after regional concurrence with the state's certification letter.
Construction Completion 3-9
-------
OSWER 9320.2-22 Close Out Procedures for National Priorities List Sites
3.4.4 NPL Sites Addressed Under Removal Authority
Actions under removal authority are generally intended to achieve prompt risk reduction
through emergency, time critical, and non-time critical actions. In some rare instances, NPL
sites may be addressed entirely under removal authority. In such instances, the site may
achieve construction completion at the same time as site completion.
The RPM (or On-Scene Coordinator (OSC], as appropriate] should document in the final
Pollution Report (POLREP] that the contractor has completed all removal actions and
demobilized from the site.14 The RPM or OSC should then prepare an FCOR to document
the construction completion (and simultaneous site completion] for sites that were
addressed entirely under removal authority. (See Section 4.2.1 for guidelines to ensure all
response actions have been appropriately documented in a decision document]
For sites addressed through a combination of remedial and removal authority, the process
outlined in Section 3.2 (including a pre-final inspection, punch list items and the PCOR] is
applicable. The PCOR should summarize all construction activities, whether conducted
under removal or remedial authority.
3.4.5 Multiple Authorities Conducting Cleanup at the Same Site
Cleanup work under different authorities may be planned or under construction
simultaneously at a site. For example, operating facilities may have RCRA corrective action
ongoing at one part of the site, while CERCLA response work is occurring elsewhere. In
situations where all physical construction identified under CERCLA authority for the NPL
site is complete, but other non-CERCLA work remains, the site may qualify for construction
completion if documentation guidelines are met. Any physical construction that has been
identified through the CERCLA process should be finished before the site is declared
construction complete.
3.5 Sites Deleted from the NPL
Initially, only final NPL sites qualified for construction completion. As a result, sites already
deleted from the NPL would never qualify for construction completion if physical
construction remained at the time of deletion. This included sites deleted from the NPL as
a result of deferral of the remedy and associated physical construction to RCRA Subtitle C.
14 For information regarding POLREPs refer to Guidance for Preparing POLREPs/SITREPS (OSWER No. 9360.3-
03; December 2007).
Construction Completion 3-10
-------
OSWER 9320.2-22 Close Out Procedures for National Priorities List Sites
In 2000, the Agency published a Notice of Policy Change in the Federal Register (65 FR
57810, September 26, 2000} which states that all sites that are on the NPL or have been
deleted from the NPL may be eligible for construction completion "when all physical
construction under all authorities is complete and all other applicable construction
completion policy criteria have been satisfied." As a result, the construction completion
milestone may follow deletion from the NPL at a small number of sites that have been
deleted where, for example, cleanup was deferred to and carried out under RCRA Subtitle C.
3.6 Additional Work at Construction Completion Sites
Routine adjustments and modifications to a constructed remedy can be expected,
particularly during O&M. Anticipating the need for these routine activities to occur does
not preclude listing a site as a construction completion if the site qualifies otherwise.
Examples of routine adjustments or modifications may include the following:
t drilling of additional extraction wells as subsurface conditions evolve,
t replacement of injection wells for in-situ remedies,
t modifications to unit processes at groundwater treatment plants,
t dismantling and removing on-site remediation facilities,
t repair, replacement or relocation of equipment,
t cap maintenance (e.g., mowing, landscaping, erosion control],
t making repairs or adjustments to a treatment plant,
t clearing debris from a drainage system or settling pond,
t modifying the sampling and analysis scheme for the monitoring portion of a
remedy.
The region should carefully evaluate the status of all response actions at the site and
consider the need for additional construction activities. If the region believes that
substantial construction might still be required in the future for the site (e.g., to address a
potential new exposure pathway or expand an extraction network to a downgradient area],
then the construction completion determination is likely premature. Similarly, if the region
anticipates the need for an additional ROD, or a fundamental change that requires an
amended ROD, then the construction completion determination may also be premature.
However, unforeseen circumstances may trigger the need for more substantial work after
the site has been declared a construction complete. Examples may include adding a new
treatment component to address a previously undetected contaminant, removing newly
discovered pockets of contamination, or rebuilding a remedy following a natural disaster.
In such situations where the need for the additional work is unforeseen, EPA HQ will
decide, in consultation with the region, if the site should retain its construction completion
status.
Construction Completion 3-11
-------
OSWER 9320.2-22 Close Out Procedures for National Priorities List Sites
4.0 Site Completion
4. / Introduction
For purposes of this guidance, site completion signifies the end of all response actions at a
NPL site. The site completion designation generally means that the response actions at the
site were completed and it is anticipated that no further Superfund response is necessary
to protect human health and the environment.
It is recommended that the RPM apply EPA's site completion criteria discussed in this
chapter to a site to help verify that it is eligible for site completion status. Site completion
is typically documented by a FCOR. This chapter explains the recommended site
completion criteria and the recommended documentation to demonstrate that the criteria
have been met and that the site completion milestone has been achieved.
4.2 Site Completion Criteria
Typically, it is recommended that regions evaluate all the criteria discussed in this section
when evaluating whether the site is eligible for site completion. Consistent with CERCLA,
section 300.430 of the NCP states that the national goal of the Superfund Program is to
select (and implement] remedies that are protective of human health and the environment,
that maintain protection over time, and that minimize untreated waste. The recommended
criteria are:
t All remedial decision documents have been completed and the selected remedy is
consistent with CERCLA, the NCP, and EPA policy and guidance;
t All response actions have been completed and appropriately documented in the site
file; and
t All institutional controls are in place.
4.2.1 All Remedial Decision Documents have been Completed and the Selected
Remedy is Consistent with CERCLA, the NCP, and EPA Policy and Guidance
When evaluating site completion, it is recommended that all remedial activities taken at a
site be documented in a remedial decision document. In addition, if cleanup actions were
taken under another authority (for example, removal or state authority], it is
recommended that these actions be evaluated in a CERCLA remedy decision document
before site completion. In situations where site investigation activities conclude that site
risks do not warrant a response action, this decision is generally documented in a no action
or no further action ROD. At the time of site completion, all anticipated decision documents
should be completed.
Site Completion 4-1
-------
OSWER 9320.2-22 Close Out Procedures for National Priorities List Sites
When reviewing the remedial decision documents and associated response actions, it is
important to assess whether they adequately address all contamination and exposure
pathways identified during the RI/FS or any subsequent site characterization. The
remedial action objectives and cleanup levels selected in these documents are typically
reviewed in light of CERCLA, the NCP, and current EPA policy and guidance. These reviews
should provide assurance that the remedial action objectives (RAOs] and associated
cleanup levels selected for the response actions identify clear expectations and objectives
and are consistent with ARARs, as appropriate.
4.2.2 All Response Actions have been Completed and Appropriately Documented
in the Site File
CERCLA and Section 300.5 of the NCP both define response as removal or remedial action,
including enforcement related activities. As defined by the NCP, response actions may
include a combination of engineering and/or institutional controls selected to address risks
posed at the site. If waste is left in place, O&M activities may continue after all response
actions have been completed. See 4.2.4 for additional definitions and information related
to operation and maintenance activities.
In order to determine that all response actions have been completed, it is encouraged that
the regions have defensible and reportable data to verify that the cleanup levels associated
with the response action have been achieved. This data, along with other remedial and
removal action activities, are typically included in a report signifying completion of these
activities. The data and report should be part of the post-decision document file or general
site file kept at the region.
For removal actions, the completion of these activities is typically documented in Pollution
Reports (POLREPs}. The content of these reports can be found in the Guidance for
Preparing POLREPs/SITREPS (EPA 540/F-94/018).
For remedial actions, the completions of these actions are typically documented in RA
Reports. Chapter 3 provides details on the recommended content of these reports for
different types of remedial action.
It is recommended that the content of these reports be summarized in the Final Close Out
Report. In addition to the compilation of the reports described in this section, the FCOR
typically summarizes all activities associated with restoration of groundwater or surface
water, including a summary of monitoring data and an analysis that demonstrates that
cleanup levels have been achieved.
Recommended contents for this report are summarized in Exhibit 4-3.
Site Completion 4-2
-------
OSWER 9320.2-22 Close Out Procedures for National Priorities List Sites
4.2.3 Institutional Controls are In Place
EPA considers ICs to include "non-engineered instruments, such as administrative and legal
controls, that help to minimize the potential for human exposure to contamination and/or
protect the integrity of a response action".15
Exhibit 4-1
Role of Institutional Controls
The NCP (40 CFR 300.430(a)(l)(iii) states that institutional controls should supplement
engineering controls to prevent or limit exposure, but institutional controls normally
"shall not substitute for active response measures."
Institutional controls (ICs) may be necessary to ensure protectiveness and/or to protect a
remedy. If any cleanup options being evaluated leave waste in place, ICs should be
considered to ensure that unacceptable risk from residual contamination does not occur.
In order to achieve site completion, the appropriate institutional controls need to be
implemented, and the requirement for the institutional controls needs to be in a decision
document.
4.3 Role of Operation and Maintenance Activities in Achieving Site
Completion
The NCP discussion of Operation and Maintenance (O&M) is provided in Exhibit 4-2. O&M
is not defined as a response action by the NCP, and may continue after site completion and
deletion.
Exhibit 4-2
NCP Definition for Operation and Maintenance
The NCP (40 CFR 300.435(f)) states that:
Operation and maintenance (O&M) measures are initiated after the remedy has achieved
the remedial action objectives and remediation goals in the ROD, and is determined to be
operational and functional, except for groundwater or surface water restoration under
§300.435(f)(4). A state must provide its assurance to assume responsibility for O&M,
including, where appropriate, requirements for maintaining institutional controls, under
§300.510(c).
15 Institutional Controls: A Guide to Planning, Implementing, Maintaining, and Enforcing Institutional Controls
at Contaminated Sites (Interim Final) (EPA 540-R-09-001/OSWER 9355.0-89; November 2010). (PIME
Guidance)
Site Completion 4-3
-------
OSWER 9320.2-22 Close Out Procedures for National Priorities List Sites
O&M activities that continue after the site has achieved the remedial action objectives and
cleanup goals generally relate to maintaining engineering and/or institutional controls at
the sites where waste is left on site.
Any site with O&M activities being conducted in a continued effort to attain remedial action
objectives or cleanup levels typically does not qualify for site completion until these
objectives and levels are met. These activities typically include actions related to
groundwater or surface water restoration.
4.4 Final Close Out Report
The FCOR typically documents compliance with statutory requirements and provides a
consolidated record of all removal and remedial activities for the entire site. Since it is the
final record, it is recommended that the FCOR be a complete and stand-alone document.
The report typically does not signify that the terms of cooperative agreements, consent
decrees, or administrative orders have been satisfied, nor does it signify resolution of
contractual or other administrative issues for Superfund activities.
It is recommended that the FCOR describe how the cleanup was accomplished and provide
the overall technical justification for site completion. Although the content and format of
the report may vary depending on site circumstances, it is recommended that the report
include information presented in Exhibit 4-3. This recommended information is typically
readily available from the previous documents such as the POLREPs, RI/FS, RODs, RDs, RA
reports and O&M reports.
Typically, the RPM prepares the FCOR, but may task the state to prepare it at state-lead
sites. In addition, PRPs or federal facilities may be requested to provide data to support the
justification for site completion. The report is typically 10 to 15 pages, but may be longer
for larger sites. To keep the report brief, it is recommended that detailed technical
information and data be referenced or appended to the report. The state should have an
opportunity to review and comment on the report prior to final signature. In addition, the
region must send the draft to EPA Headquarters (HOJ for review and comment.
Once all stakeholder comments are appropriately addressed, the document is signed by the
Regional Administrator or other appropriate official.
Upon completion of an FCOR, the appropriate Trustees listed in the Regional Contingency
Plans will be notified of the completion of the remedial actions (if there are trustees at the
site}.16 The region should provide a copy of the report to the Trustees within one week of
the completion of the report. A copy should also be provided to the state, tribe and PRP, if
applicable.
16 For additional information, see CERCLA Coordination With Natural Resource Trustees (OSWER 9200.4-22A;
July 31,1997)
Site Completion 4-4
-------
OSWER 9320.2-22
Close Out Procedures for National Priorities List Sites
Exhibit 4-3
Recommended Final Close Out Report Outline
Section
Contents
Introduction
Include general statement indicating all response actions have
been successfully completed.
II. Summary of
Site Conditions
Provide background summary of site location, site description,
and NPL listing information.
Describe any removal action activities at the site.
Summarize remedies selected and specify remedial objectives
from all decision documents.
Include dates each RA was initiated and completed, method used
to implement RA (e.g., consent decree, contract, cooperative or
other agreement], and date of RA Reports.
Summarize details of the institutional controls (e.g., where ICs are
a part of the remedy, include a map or figure, the objective of the
ICs, the type of ICs, implementation, who will maintain and
enforce the controls}.
Discuss any final inspection activities that were performed.
III. Monitoring
Results
For source actions, discuss confirmatory sampling results which
indicate compliance with cleanup levels.
For source and groundwater containment actions, discuss
sampling results which indicate the remedy is functioning as
designed.
For monitoring required for no action remedies, discuss sampling
results which indicate the no action decision is appropriate.
IV. Attainment of
Groundwater
Restoration
Cleanup Levels
(if applicable]
Provide a summary of monitoring data and an analysis to
demonstrate cleanup levels specified in the RODs or Action
Memoranda are achieved.
Append actual monitoring data and analysis from monitoring
report(s] in appropriate level of detail.
V. Summary of
Operation and
Maintenance
Required
Description of ongoing monitoring activities for all media and
engineering controls where waste is left on site.
Description of all enforcement and maintenance activities for
institutional controls.
VI. Demonstration
of Cleanup
Activity QA/QC
Document construction quality assurance/quality control plan
that was implemented.
Document that the operation and maintenance quality
assurance/quality control plan was implemented.
Document the sampling and analysis protocol that was followed.
Site Completion
4-5
-------
OSWER 9320.2-22
Close Out Procedures for National Priorities List Sites
Section
VII. Five-year
Review
VIII. Site Completion
Criteria
IX. Bibliography
Contents
Statement explaining whether a five-year review is appropriate,
and if so, the type of review (statutory or policy] and the schedule
for the review.
If five-year reviews were performed and are now discontinued,
explain why.
If a five-year review had been performed at the site, provide a
summary of the last five-year review completed (protectiveness
determination, any identified issues and recommendations}.
If issues were raised in the last five-year review, briefly describe
activities taken to address issues and implement
recommendations, as appropriate.
Statement that the implemented remedy achieves the degree of
cleanup or protection specified in the ROD(s] for all pathways of
exposure.
Statement that all selected remedial and removal actions
remedial action objectives and associated cleanup goals are
consistent with agency policy and guidance.
Statement that no further Superfund response is needed to
protect human health and the environment.
Complete citation of relevant reports
Site Completion
4-6
-------
OSWER 9320.2-22 Close Out Procedures for National Priorities List Sites
5.0 Site Deletion and Partial Deletion
5. / Introduction
This chapter focuses on the NCP deletion criteria, the recommended process and
documentation, and publication requirements needed to achieve the site deletion or partial
deletion milestone. The information presented in the following sections generally
references site deletions but applies to both site deletions and partial deletions of media,
OUs, or specific parcels. Any differences will be noted in the text.
Deletion of a site or portion of a site from the NPL does not preclude eligibility for
subsequent Fund-financed or responsible party actions. If future conditions warrant, the
NCP (40 CFR 300.425(e}(3}} provides that Fund-financed remedial actions may be taken at
sites or portions of sites deleted from the NPL. When there is a significant release from a
site or portion of a site deleted from the NPL, the site or portion of a site may be restored to
the NPL without rescoring the site under the HRS. Additional enforcement actions also
may be taken, depending on liability releases in the consent decree or administrative order.
Deletion of a site or portion of a site does not affect cost recovery efforts under CERCLA
Section 107.
Deletion
The NPL deletion process typically begins at most sites once it is determined that the site
completion milestone has been achieved and documented (Chapter 4}. For purposes of this
guidance, site deletion requirements include 1} the documentation of activities and
decision making at the site is complete, 2] the activities conducted and documented are
verified, and 3} the public has an opportunity for notice and comment before the site is
formally deleted from the NPL.
Partial Deletion
The Partial Deletion Rule, which allows the EPA to delete portions of NPL sites, provided
that deletion criteria are met, was published in the Federal Register on November 1,1995
(65 FR 55466}. Previously, EPA's policy had been to delete sites only after cleanup of the
entire site has been completed. However, waiting to delete an entire site does not
communicate the successful cleanup of portions of the site. Total site cleanup may take
many years, while portions of the site may have been cleaned up and may be available for
productive use. Such a portion may be a defined geographic area of the site, or may be a
specific medium at the site, e.g., surface soil, depending on the nature or extent of the
release(s}.
Site Deletion and Partial Deletion 5-1
-------
OSWER 9320.2-22
Close Out Procedures for National Priorities List Sites
5.2 NPL Deletion Criteria
These criteria are applied to the site or the portion of the site proposed for deletion.
The NCP (40 CFR 300.425(e)) states that a site may be deleted from, or recategorized on,
the NPL when no response or no further response is appropriate. The EPA must consult
with the state in making this determination. To delete a site from the NPL, EPA must
determine, in consultation with the state, that one of the following criteria have been met:
Responsible or other parties have
implemented all appropriate
response actions required;
All appropriate Fund-financed
response under CERCLA has
been implemented, and no
further response action by
responsible parties is
appropriate; or
The remedial investigation has
shown that the release poses no
significant threat to public
health or the environment, and,
therefore, taking of remedial
measures is not appropriate.
Site deletion from the NPL has been
separated from the Five Year Review
process (56 FR 66601, December 24,1991).
This means that a site can be deleted from
the NPL without having the first Five Year
Review completed. Once a site is deleted
and waste is left in place above levels that
allows for unrestricted use and unlimited
exposure, a Five Year Review will be
conducted at the site no less than every five
years. EPA has separate guidance
addressing Five Year Review requirements
(OSWER No. 9355.703B P, June 2001).
Chapter 4 outlines the expectations for the determination that all response actions have
been implemented.
5.3 NPL Deletion Through Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
Deferral
EPA's Deletion Policy for Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Facilities dated
March 20,1995 (60 FR 14661), was later amended on November 24,1997 (62 FR 62523)
to also make the policy applicable to federal facility sites. The policy states that:
"EPA believes it is appropriate to delete sites from the NPL based upon deferral to
RCRA under certain circumstances. Deletion of sites from the NPL to defer them to
RCRA Subtitle C corrective action authorities would free CERCLA's oversight
resources for use in situations where another authority is not available, as well as
avoid possible duplication of effort and the need for an owner/operator to follow
more than one set of regulatory procedures."
A site can be deleted from the NPL through a RCRA deferral action if the site complies with
the following criteria:
Site Deletion and Partial Deletion
5-2
-------
OSWER 9320.2-22 Close Out Procedures for National Priorities List Sites
t The CERCLA site is currently being addressed by RCRA corrective action
authorities under an existing enforceable order or permit containing corrective
action provisions;
t Response under RCRA is progressing adequately; and
t Deletion would not disrupt an ongoing CERCLA response action.
This Deletion Policy pertains to deletions based on deferral to state/federal RCRA
programs only, not other entities. For sites deferred to RCRA, the site may not necessarily
meet the construction completion or site completion milestone prior to deletion. Sites
deferred to other entities, such as Underground Storage Tanks or state cleanup programs,
should still meet all deletion criteria discussed in Section 5.1.
5.4 The Deletion Process
Deleting a site from the NPL requires a modification to the Code of Federal Regulations. To
perform this task, the Administrative Procedure Act requires formal administrative rule-
making procedures which include creating a docket, publishing notices in the Federal
Register, and holding a formal public comment period.
For full deletion, the site deletion process typically begins once the site achieves the site
completion milestone.
For partial deletion, any person, including individuals, business entities, states, local
governments, and other federal agencies, may submit a petition requesting a partial
deletion. A petition may consist of a simple written request from any interested party.
Upon evaluation by the region, this written request may begin the partial deletion process.
5.4.1 State Concurrence
Early in the site deletion or partial deletion process, the region consults with the state and
requests the state's concurrence on EPA's intent to delete the site. A site cannot be deleted
from the NPL without the state's concurrence. If the state agrees with the deletion, the
state will provide a concurrence letter, and the letter is placed in the deletion docket.
5.4.2 Deletion Docket
The region prepares a deletion docket containing all pertinent information supporting the
deletion recommendation. The deletion docket is not a continuation of the Administrative
Record for the site. Documents in the Administrative Record can be referenced and do not
have to be duplicated in the deletion docket (provided the Administrative Record is still
available to the public}. In addition to containing the documentation supporting the
deletion, the docket also contains copies of the Federal Register deletion notices,
Responsiveness summary and public comments, as appropriate. The deletion docket
should be available to the public at the EPA regional office public docket, a local repository,
and online in the site Federal Docket Management System (FDMS}.
Site Deletion and Partial Deletion 5-3
-------
OSWER 9320.2-22 Close Out Procedures for National Priorities List Sites
The FDMS holds deletion docket documents electronically in the online docket for the site.
NPL site dockets contain documents that support all rulemaking actions for the site (site
listing, partial deletions and deletions}. Site dockets are available for public viewing at
www.regulations.gov. RPMs are encouraged to work with their regional deletion
coordinators to ensure the deletion docket is properly uploaded into FDMS.
The documents contained in the deletion docket will vary depending on the type of
response (i.e., remedial action, removal action, and no action] and the lead agency (e.g.,
federal, state, or responsible party}.
At a minimum, the following documents are typically included in the deletion docket for a
full site deletion:
t Final Close Out Report
t State Concurrence Letter
t Administrative Record Index
At a minimum, the following documents are typically included in the deletion docket for a
partial deletion:
t No Action ROD or RA Report for the parcels being proposed for deletion
t A map clearly delineating the boundaries of the parcels proposed for deletion
t State Concurrence Letter
t Bibliography of the Administrative Record citing those documents pertinent to
the parcels
The documents listed in Exhibit 5-1 are examples of what may also be included in the
deletion docket as applicable. This is not an exhaustive list. The contents of the deletion
docket, outside of those minimum requirements listed above, are at the discretion of the
region preparing the deletion.
It is recommended that regional program offices work with their regional Superfund
deletions coordinators and records management staff to ensure that complete copies of the
documents in the deletion docket are developed and placed in the appropriate regional,
local, and FDMS site repositories. The public will have an opportunity to review the docket
during the 30 day public comment period that follows publication of the Notice of Intent to
Delete (NOID}. Public meetings are optional.
Deletion notices are published in the Federal Register by either using the two-step
rulemaking process (see Section 5.3.3} or the direct final rulemaking process (see Section
5.3.4}. Although deletion requirements are the same for both processes, the administrative
steps are slightly different.
Site Deletion and Partial Deletion 5-4
-------
OSWER 9320.2-22 Close Out Procedures for National Priorities List Sites
Exhibits-!
Example Deletion Docket Documents
Consent Decree
Action Memoranda
Community Relations Plans
Superfund State Contract
Cooperative Agreements
Agreements with Potentially Responsible Parties
Design Plans and Specifications
Construction Inspection Reports
On Scene Coordinator or Pollution Reports
Five-Year Reviews
Operation and Maintenance Plans
Preliminary Close Out Report
Transcripts from Public Meetings
Institutional Control Documentation
Monitoring Reports
5.4.3 Two-step Rulemaking Process
Exhibit 5-2 shows the administrative steps in the two-step rulemaking process. The
deletion process steps generally include the following:
t Notice of Intent to Delete (MOID] preparation
t Obtaining HQ concurrence
t Publishing the NOID and Local Notice
t Receiving comments and preparing a Responsiveness Summary (if needed]
t Preparing and Publishing the Notice of Deletion (NOD]
Site Deletion and Partial Deletion 5-5
-------
OSWER 9320.2-22
Close Out Procedures for National Priorities List Sites
5.4.3.1 Notice of Intent to Delete
(MOID) Preparation
After consultation with the state, the
region prepares the NOID.
The NOID contains EPA regional staff and
other contacts, deletion criteria and
procedures, and site specific information.
It typically provides for a 30 day public
comment period. Site specific
information needed to prepare the NOID
is generally obtained from the FCOR for
full site deletions or the RA Report or no
Action ROD for partial deletions.
Templates for the site deletion and
partial deletion NOIDs are available at
the following website:
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/cleanup
/postconstruction/deletion.htm. The
draft NOID is sent to EPA Headquarters
for review and comment.
5.4.3.2 Headquarters Concurrence
The Regional Administrator is delegated
authority to sign the NOID. Before the
Regional Administrator can sign the
document, the delegation requires formal
Headquarters concurrence. After the
region addresses Headquarters
comments, the Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response (OSWER} Assistant
Administrator must concur with the
deletion before the deletion process
proceeds. This concurrence is delegated
to the OSWER Superfund Office Director.
The OSWER Superfund Office Director
completes the "Headquarters
Concurrence Checklist" to support the
deletion concurrence.
Exhibit 5-2
Two-step Rulemaking Process
Region obtains State
Concurrence on proposed
deletion
Region prepares Notice of Intent I
to Delete
f Region sends draft Notice of
Intent to Delete to state and
^Headquarters for review comment.
Region ensures Deletion docket is
complete and available in FDMS
and local repositories
Headquarters formal concurrence
- memo from OSRTI OD to
Regional Administrator
Regional Administrator signs
NOID
Region prepares deletion package
and sends to HQ FR office for
publication.
NOID is published in the FR.
Region publishes notice in local
newspaper. Begin 30 day
comment period
nd 30 day commen
period. Were comments
received?
Yes
Region prepares Notice of
Deletion
Region sends draft Notice of
Deletion to Headquarters for
review
Region prepares deletion
package and sends to HQ FR
office for publication
Notice published and deletion is
effective.
Yes /Is deletion stiirx No
appropriate?
Site Deletion and Partial Deletion
5-6
-------
OSWER 9320.2-22 Close Out Procedures for National Priorities List Sites
For full site deletions, the checklist includes the following:
t All NPL deletion criteria have been met.
t All institutional controls have been recorded in appropriate decision documents
and have been implemented as recommended in the Institutional Control
Implementation and Assurance Plan guidance.
t All program measures (Environmental Indicators, Five-Year Reviews, Sitewide
Ready for Anticipated Use] support the decision to delete.
t State Concurrence letter is in the deletion docket.
t The Final Close Out Report has been completed.
t Deletion Docket is in local, regional and electronic (FDMS] repositories.
t NOID is consistent with templates and supports deletion.
For partial deletions, the checklist includes the following:
t All NPL deletion criteria have been met.
t All institutional controls have been recorded in appropriate decision documents
and have been implemented as recommended in the Institutional Control
Implementation and Assurance Plan guidance.
t State Concurrence letter is in the deletion docket.
t A map clearly delineating the parcels proposed for deletion is included.
t The no Action ROD or RA Report has been completed.
t Deletion Docket is in local, regional and electronic repositories.
t NOID is consistent with templates and supports deletion.
The directive entitled CERCLA Delegation of Authority 14-17, National Priorities List
Determinations, Headquarters Concurrence on Notice of Intent to Delete, dated September
12, 2008, outlines the Headquarters concurrence process in more detail.
5.4.3.3 Publication of the Notice of Intent to Delete and the Local Notice
Upon receiving Headquarters concurrence, the Regional Administrator signs the NOID, and
a deletion package is prepared in the region and sent to the Headquarters Federal Register
Office for publication. The package contents are in Exhibit 5-3.
Exhibit 5-3
Federal Register Deletion Package Contents
Original FR Notice
Four hard copies
Federal Register Typesetting Request - found in Webforms
Disk or CD containing electronic version of FR notice in Microsoft Word
Site Deletion and Partial Deletion 5-7
-------
OSWER 9320.2-22 Close Out Procedures for National Priorities List Sites
The regional Community Involvement Coordinator (CIC} typically prepares and distributes
a local notice regarding the NOID that is published at the same time that the NOID is
published in the Federal Register. It is recommended that this notice be published in a local
newspaper of general circulation. It should announce the Agency's intent to delete the site
or portion of the site from the NPL and the public comment period. The local notice should
also provide contacts, methods for submission of comments, and locations of the deletion
dockets. In addition to the local notice, the RPM or the CIC should notify the appropriate
Trustees listed in the Regional Contingency Plans that EPA is planning to delete the site or
portion of the site.17
5.4.3.4 Receiving Comments and Responsiveness Summary Preparation
If public comments are received during the comment period that oppose the deletion
action (typically referred to as adverse comments], the region typically prepares a
responsiveness summary. If comments are received during the comment period that are
not considered adverse, it is at the region's discretion to determine what type of response
may be appropriate. It is recommended that the responsiveness summary present
comments received during the public comment period paired with detailed responses to
the comments. A draft of the responsiveness summary is sent to EPA Headquarters for
review and comment. Once Headquarters comments are addressed, the region includes a
copy of the responsiveness summary, approved by the Regional Administrator, in the
deletion dockets. A template for the responsiveness summary is available at the following
website: http://www.epa.gov/superfund/cleanup/postconstruction/deletion.htm.
5.4.3.5 Notice of Deletion (NOD) Preparation and Publication
If, after responding to public comments, the deletion action is still appropriate, the region
prepares a Notice of Deletion (NOD}. Templates for the site deletion and partial deletion
NODs are found at the following website
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/cleanup/postconstruction/deletion.htm. The NOD
includes an effective date (the date of publication], the name of a regional contact,
supplemental site information and the responsiveness summary, as appropriate. A draft of
the Notice of Deletion is sent to EPA Headquarters for review and comment. Once
Headquarters comments are addressed, the Notice of Deletion is signed by the Regional
Administrator and published in the Federal Register (see Exhibit 5-3 for deletion package
materials}.
5.4.4 Direct Final Rulemaking Process
The direct final rulemaking process, also called the direct deletion process, is appropriate
for sites where deletion is expected to be non-controversial, and EPA does not anticipate
adverse comments during the comment period. If adverse comments are anticipated, it is
recommended that the two-step final rulemaking process (Section 5.3.3} be utilized to
ensure ample opportunity to address any adverse comments that are received.
17 For additional information, see CERCLA Coordination With Natural Resource Trustees (OSWER 9200.4-22A;
July 31,1997)
Site Deletion and Partial Deletion
-------
OSWER 9320.2-22
Close Out Procedures for National Priorities List Sites
Exhibit 5-4 shows the administrative
steps in the direct deletion process.
The direct deletion process steps
generally include the following:
* Preparing the Notice of
Intent to Delete (MOID) and
the direct Notice of Deletion
(NOD]
* Obtaining Headquarters
concurrence, and
* Publishing the NOID, direct
NOD and Local Notice
* If adverse comments are
received:
o Preparing and Publishing
the Federal Register
Withdrawal Notice
o Receiving comments and
preparing the
Responsiveness Summary
o Preparing and Publishing
the Notice of Deletion
5.4.4.1 Direct Notice of Intent to
Delete and Direct Notice
of Deletion Preparation
After consultation with the state, the
region prepares the NOID and the direct
NOD.
The NOID primarily contains EPA
regional staff and other contacts. It
provides for a minimum 30 day public
comment period. The NOID is
published in the "Proposed Rules"
section of the Federal Register. The
NOID directs the reader to the NOD,
published in the "Rules and
Regulations" section of the same
Federal Register, for deletion criteria
and procedures, and site specific
information.
Exhibit 5-4
Direct Deletion Process
Deletion is effective on date
indicated in direct NOD.
Region obtains Stale
Concurrence on proposed
deletion
Kegion prepares Notice ot Intent
to Delete and direct Notice of
Deletion
' Kegion sends dratt notices to
State and Headquarters for review
comment
Region ensures Deletion docket is'
complete and available in FDMS
, and local repositories
Headquarters lormal concurrence
- memo from OSRTI OD to
Regional Administrator
Regional Administralor signs
NOID and direct NOD
Kegion prepares two deletion
packages and sends to HQ FR
office for publication.
NOID and direct NOD are
published in the FR. Region
publishes notice in local
newspaper. Begin 30 day
comment period.
No
End 30 day comment
period. Were adverse
..comments received?.
Yes
Region prepares Withdrawal
Notice
Kegion prepares Withdrawal
package and sends to FR for
publication.
Yes
Region prepares Notice of
Deletion
Region sends draft Notice of
Deletion to Headquarters for
review
: Kegion prepares deletion
package and sends to HQ FR
office for publication
Notice published and deletion is
effective.
Site Deletion and Partial Deletion
5-9
-------
OSWER 9320.2-22 Close Out Procedures for National Priorities List Sites
The NOD contains all deletion criteria, explains the direct deletion process, and contains
site specific information supporting the deletion. It indicates the effective date of deletion.
The effective date is generally 30 days after the end of the minimum 30 day public
comment period (i.e., typically 60 days after publication in the Federal Register]. This
allows sufficient time to withdraw the direct final notice of deletion in the event that
unexpected adverse comments are received during the comment period.
Templates for the site deletion and partial deletion NOIDs and direct NODs are available at
the following website:
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/cleanup/postconstruction/deletion.htm.
The draft NOID and NOD are sent to EPA Headquarters for review and comment.
5.4.4.2 Headquarters Concurrence
After the region addresses Headquarters comments, the Superfund Office Director
completes the "Headquarters Concurrence Checklist". The OSWER Assistant Administrator
must concur before the Regional Administrator signs the NOID and the NOD. The
concurrence process is discussed in section 5.3.3.2.
5.4.4.3 Publication of the NOID, Direct NOD and the Local Notice
Once the Regional Administrator signs the Notice of Intent to Delete and the Notice of
Deletion, a deletion package is prepared for each notice and sent to the Headquarters
Federal Register Office for publication. The package contents are in Exhibit 5-3.
The CIC should also publish the local notice of the proposed deletion action in the
newspaper of local circulation consistent with the two-step deletion process also described
in section 5.3.3.3.
If no adverse comments are received during the comment period, the direct final deletion
notice will become effective on the deletion date indicated in the direct NOD.
5.4.4.4 Withdrawal Notice Preparation and Publication
If adverse comments are received during the comment period, the region should issue a
timely notice in the Federal Register withdrawing the direct final notice of deletion and
informing the public that the deletion will not take effect. This withdrawal notice should be
published in the Federal Register before the effective date of the direct NOD. The template
for the Withdrawal Notice is available at the following website:
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/cleanup/postconstruction/deletion.htm.
The Withdrawal Notice is signed by the Regional Administrator. The region prepares a
Withdrawal Notice package and sends it to the Headquarters Federal Register Office for
publication. The package contents are in Exhibit 5-3.
Site Deletion and Partial Deletion 5-10
-------
OSWER 9320.2-22 Close Out Procedures for National Priorities List Sites
5.4.4.5 Receiving Comments and Responsiveness Summary Preparation
A Responsiveness Summary is prepared consistent with the two-step deletion process (see
5.3.3.4}.
5.4.4.6 Notice of Deletion Preparation and Publication
If the deletion action is still appropriate, a Notice of Deletion is prepared and published
consistent with the two-step deletion process (see 5.3.3.5}.
Site Deletion and Partial Deletion 5-11
------- |