EPA/540/R-95/062

OSWER Directive 9320.2-09

PB 95-963241

August 1995

Close Out Procedures for

National Priorities List Sites

Office of Emergency and Remedial Response

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Washington D.C 20460

904762

001870 001870
This interim-final guidance supersedes the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response

(OSWER) Directive 9320.2-3A, Procedures for Completion and Deletion of National Priorities

List Sites, date 1 April 1989 and its amendments, including OSWER Directive 9320 2-3B, dated

Dec. 29. .989, .md 9320.2-3C, dated Feb. 19,1992. -

This interim-final guidance is undergoing revisions/clarifications with regard to the

• following paragraph (Source: memorandum dated Sept. 5,1995 signed by David Bennett,

"Interim-Final Guidance on Close Out Procedures for National Priorities List Sites"),

A site with a final operable unit ROD requiring passive remediation may achieve

construction completion when the delegated regional official approves the ROD.

implementation of institutional controls and natural attenuation are examples of passive

remedies. No Action RODs requiring monitoring for other than operation and

maintenance purposes also fall within this category. These sites meet the construction

completion criteria when the certification of completion is included in the ROD. Site

completion is achieved when natural attenuation has reached the cleanup concentrations

or all monitoring requirements specifiedin the ROD have been met. The publication of a

Notice of Intent to Delete (NOID) documents site completion.

•

This version of the guidance may also undergo revisions/clarifications on deletion

procedures as stated in the 1989 guidance.

001871 001871
Table of Contents

Page

I. INTRODUCTION................................................. 1-1

A. Background ................................................ 1-1

B. RPM'sRole................................................. 1-3

IL OPERABLE UNIT COMPLETION ................................... n-1

A. Operable Unit Completion Criteria ............................. n-1

B. Operable Unit Completion Initiation ........................... TI-1

1. Inspection Requirements of Fund-Financed RAs ................ n-1

2. inspection Retirements ofPRP-Financed RAs ............ .... 11-3

C. Remedial Action Report .. .. ............................... H-4

D. Final Operable Unit Complct-'on ............................... C-7

in. CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION .............:.................... m-1

A. Construction Completion Criteria ............................. ffl-l

B. Construction Completion Initiation............................ in-2

1. Removal Authority ..................................... m-2

2. Remedial Authority .................................... m-2

a. Sites Requiring Remedial Construction in the

FindOU ...................................... ffl-2

b. Special Cases ...'................................. in-6

1. Lnng-Tgrm Response Actions .............. IH-6

2. BioMmioftiatiftn and Tn-siHl Soil

Vapor Rytrarrinn Rpmpdips ................ ffl-7

3. Mnni««ring and InsHtoHnnal Controls ....... ffl-8

c. Sites Requiring No Remedial Construction m

theFinalOU.................................... m-8

3. Non Fund-Lead Actions ................................ m-10

a. PRPLead ..................................... m-10

b. RrfenrfFflcaKte................................ m-10

c. SWeLead ..................................... m-10

d. Other Statutes (e^RCRA)....................... m-11

001872 001872
C. Construction Completion Checklist .......................... m-12

iv. srrECO^ ^ZTION ............. .......................... . iv-i

A. . Site Completion Criteria ..................................... IV-1

B. Site Completion Initiation ................................... IV-1

1. Remand Authority ..................................... IV-3

2. Remedial Authority .................................... IV-3

a. Sites Requiring Remedial Construction in the

Final OU ...................................... IV-3

b. Sites Requiring No Remedial Construction in

theFinal OU.................................... IV-4

c. Site Where No Response Action Was Required ......... TV-4

C. Pinal Close Out Report ...................................... IV-4

D. Site Completion Checklist .................. ............... P^-6

V. SITE DELETION .................................................. V-l

A. NPL Deletion Criteria ......................................... V-l

B. The Deletion Process......................................... V-2

1. Process Initiation ....................................... V-2

2. Publication of the Notice of Intent to Delete and a Local

Notice ............................................... V-7

3. Responsiveness Summary and Notice of Deletion ............... V-7

C Site Deletion Checklist ....................................... V-8

ii

001873 001873
list of Exhibits

Page

1 Superfund Process ................................................ 1-4

2 Remedial Action Report Summary ................................... 11-6

3 Construciion Completion Process ................................... in-3

4 RepresentativeMinor"PunchList"Items............................. in-4

5 Preliminary Close Out Report Summary ............................. III-6

6 Site Completion and Site Deletion Processes (Site Completion Focus) ..... IV-2

7 Final COR Summary ............................................. IV-5

8 Site Completion and Site Deletion Processes (Site Deletion Focus)......... V-4

9 Noticeof Intent to Delete Summary .................................. V-6

Ui

/

001874 001874
list of Appendices

Page

A Sample Remedial Action Report .... .'.............................. A-l

B Sample Preliminary Close Out Report ................................. B-l

C Sample-Final Close Out Report .......................................C-l

D SampleNoticeof Intent to Delete .................................... D-l

E SampleLocalNotfceof Intent to Delete ................................ E-l

F Sample Notice of Deletion ... ....................................... F-l

G Superfund Acronyms List .......................................... G-l

H Glossary ........................................................ H-l

ty

/

001875 001875
SECTION I.

CLOSE OUT PROCEDURES FOR NATIONAL

PRIORJTIES LIST SITES

INTRODUCTION

001876 001876
Section I - Introduction

I. INTRODUCTION

This guidance document is designed primarily for use by the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency's (EPA's) Remedial Project Managers (RPMs). It provides

procedural information on accomplishing operable unit completion, construction

completion, site completion, and site deletion. This gindange applies only to those

sites that are or -wm final on the National Priorities List. It supersedes the Office of

Solid Waste and Emergency Response (USWER) Directive 9320.2-3A, "Procedures for

Completion and Deletion of National Priorities List Sites," April 1989, and its

amendments, including OSWER Directive 9320.2-3B, December 29,1989, and

9320.2-3C, February 19,1992.

A. Background

Section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and

Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended by the Superfund Amendments and

Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA), requires EPA to maintain a National Priorities List

(NPL) of uncontrolled hazardous waste sites that have released or pose a threat of

release of hazardous substances into me environment Pursuant to the National Oil

and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) (40 Code of Federal

Regulations [CFR] Part 300), sites on the x<JPL are eligible for Superfund-financed

remedial actions (RA).

Superfund addresses NPL sites through early and long-term actions using removal

and/or remedial authority. Eady actions axe cleanup activities that take less than five

years to complete. They achieve prompt risk reduction and axe performed under either

removal or remedial authority. Cleanup actions that take more than five years to

implement are called long-term actions. Long-tenn actions are conducted under

remedial authority and achieve risk reduction »hiough more extensive remediation

activities.

Cleanup activities under remedial authority are called remedial actions (RA). An RA

typically begins at ai\NPL site after completion of me remedial

investigation/feasibility study (KI/FS). The RI/FS determines the nature and extent of

contamination, and identifies alternatives for the remedy. EPA's Record of Decision

(ROD) documents the remedial activities selected to achieve protectiveness. (For

pi^SARA sites, detailed remedial activities sometimes may be described in otiier EPA

reports such as a consent decree or an administrative order.) RAs are designed to

protect human'health and die environment, and they include treating, containing, and

l-l

/

001877 001877
Section I - Introduction

removing . .laminated material; providing alte. nate water supplies; a'-.d/or imposing

institutional controls that address site use. Treatment that reduces waste toxidty,

mobility, or volume is a preferred cleanup action. However, not all the waste needs to

be treated or removed as long as protecdveness is achieved.

A Superfund site may require several RAs to address all the site hazards. In that case,

the site is divided into distinct segments known as operable units. Completion of an

operable unit (OU) can be achieved through early actiuns, long-term actions, or a

combination of both. The operable unit completion milestone, however, applies only

to cleanup activities under remedial authority.

'^nce physical construction is complete at die entire site (through removal and/or

remedial authority), the site may achieve die construction completion milestone. EPA

introduced the construction completion milestone to better'communicate the

successful completion of site cleanup activities. Construc'.l.in at an NPL site is

considered complete when physical construction is complete for me entire site, or a

decision is made that no physical construction is necessary.

Site completion occurs when no further response is required at die site, all cleanup

goals have been achieved, and die site is deemed protective of human health and die

environment. Once site completion is achieved, die site becomes a candidate for NPL

deletion.

When no further response is appropriate, die site is eligible for deletion from die NPL.

This stage, as dictated by die NCP, is known as site deletion. Essentially, this process

entails documenting die response activities for die site, verifying diat activities have

been conducted and documented, and offering die public an opportunity for notice and

comment before die site is formally deleted from die NPL.

Construction completion marks die end of an important ^hase in die Superfund

completion process. However, die site completion and site deletion milestones remain

independent from die construction completion concept EPA Headquarters monitors

and reports site progress towards NPL deletion mdudmg die anistouction completion

milestone. This g^dan<^ provides detailed infonnation on adueving die various

milestones of the NPL site dose out process, highli^iting specific activities and the

related reports diat indicate each activity's completion. Appendices A diroughF

provide examples of die reports discussed. Appendices G and H are reference materials

to be used widi dlis guidance.

1-2

/

001878 001878
Section I - Introduction

B. RPM's Role

The RPM has overall responsibility for overseeing the successful completion of cleanup

activities at an NPL site and for guiding a site through each successive phase of the

Superfund process, as illustrated in Exhibit 1. This guidance document emphasizes the

role of the RPM during me final stages of site remediation. The RPM is responsible for

applying EPA's criteria to a site to determine its eligibility for achieving each milestone.

He/she ensures that all statutory, regulatory, and policy requirements are met, both

technically and procedurally. Each milestone is documented by a specific report. The

RPM should carefully document all site activities for future reporting needs.

001879 001879
Section I - Introduction

EXHiBITl

Superfrnd Process

•ad

M«*^»1'MltT

L

Site Discovery |

I

Site Screening | ——

and Assessment I -

Hazard Ranki"" System (HRS)/ |

National Priorities List (NPL) |

1 '

Remedial Investigation (HI)/ |

AasibiIityStudy(FS) |

t AtAa

Remedy Selection/ j~H -

ItooonlofDedskmaKX?) |

———T———'

Remedial Design (RD)/ |

Remedial Ac&iCRA) |

^ •

———————-———————h

Site Cox&Bhrucoon CompBBoMi • " ^ '

———T———'

Ooseout/NPL Deletion j .——

iarly

:tion

|r Point,

icewaxy

•

1-4

001880 001880
SECTION II.

CLOSE OUT PROCEDURES FOR NATIONAL

PRIORITIES LIST SITES

001881 001881
OPERABLE UNIT

COMPLETION

001882 001882
Section n - Operable Unit Completion

IL^ OPERABLE UNIT COMPLETION

Remedial work conducted at a site is often divided into distinct segments known as

operable units. Completion of an operable unit (OU) can be achieved through early

actions, long-term actions, or a combination of both. The operable unit completion

milestone, however, applies only to cleanup activities under remedial authority.

A. Operable Unit Completion Criteria

Operable unit completion is achieved when:

• AU construction activities within the OU are complete

• A final inspection has been conducted

• The remedy is operational and functional, and

• The designated Regional or State official signs a letter accepting the

Remedial Action Report (see section HC for RA report requirements).

Under 40 CFR Section 300.435, a remedy becomes operational and functional either

one year after construction is complete or when the remedy is determined

(concurrently by EPA and die State) to be functioning properly and is performing as

design, whichever occurs first.

B. Operable Unit Completion Initiation

As aUdeanup activities withm me OU near completion, the Remedial Project l^anager

(RFM)-must understand his/her role and responsibility to ensure proper dose out

procedures. The following sections illustrate activities specific to Fund-financed and

potentially responsible party (FRP)-financed remedLil actions (RAs).

2. Inspection Kufuirements ofTvnd-Fimmced RAs

Contractual Inspections PreFimdIFinal

Pre-final and final inspections are standard construction practices for closing out a

contract and aiemtended to determine v'hemer me construction was complete in

accordance with the contract's de&lgn anil specifications.

n-i

001883 001883
Section n - Operable Unit Completion

The pre-final inspection is generally held between the contracting party and the

construct! " A contractor. EPA's primary contacting/oversight parties are the State,

Alternative Remedial Contract Strategy/Response Action Contract (ARCS/RAC)

Contractors, and US Army Corp of Engineers (USACE).

During the pre-final inspection, the contracting party's construction manager and the

construction contractor look at each elemen.' of work to see if it is complete and ready

for acceptance under die terms of the contract. Quite frequently, a few elements of work

will still be in progress at this time. Some minor defects will come to light as the

inspection proceeds. The construction manager develops a "punch list" of all items that

need correction or completion before the work can be accepted. A pre-final inspection

report is prepared then, including the "punch list," completion dates for outstanding

•''ans, and a date for a final inspection (if one is to be held). A copy of this report is sent

totheRPM.

A final inspection may be required before final acceptance. All parties should attend

the final inspection. The construction manager, however, determines the degree to

which work is complete. Work is considered complete when all "punch list" tasks have

been performed, me remedy is operational and functional, and all the terms of the

contract have been met. If a few minor work elements remain outstanding, tee work

may still be accepted.

•

IXirmgt^0 final inspection the RPM needs to determine if the work has been completed

following me contracting party's work plan. For mat purpose, he/she should review

the work plan thoroughly before the inspection takes place. In addition, {he RPM may

request technical advisors to assist in the inspection.

Completion of construction activities at a OU dce& not mean mat the work assignment

is complete. There are additional contractual requirements that do not affect the

operable unit completion milestone. Fbr information on those requirements refer to the

June 1995 06WER Directive 9355.(MMB: "Remedial Design/Remedial Action

Handbook."

Statutory Inspections .

The NCPrequiiw an additional set of inspections at fund lead sites. This requirement

applies nw^y to sites requirmg operation and mamtenance. During these inspects

EPA and me State determmeconcurrendy die beginnmg of die O&F period. Exoeptfor

long tennrespoxise actions (LTRAs), die State becomes responsible JEor die remedy's

operation and mamtenance(0&M) once it has been declared operational and

functional. LTRAs are response actions undertaken for restoring ground or surface

water quality. Joint EPA/State inspections are required to satisfy the operable unit

n-2

001884 001884
Section n - Operable Unit Completion

completion milestone criteria. They are not required nor do they resale to the

construction completion milestone.

Operation and maintenance activities are performed to protect me integrity of the remedy at me site. At

fund-lead sites, the state performs O&M when the remedy is operational and functional. An exception

to this are LTRAs where EPA operates the system for up to 10 years after it has been declared

operational and functional.

The inspection is conducted jointly by EPA and the State at the end of all construction

activities. It can be conducted in conjunction with the contractual pre-final or final

inspection. Then ^PA and the State (if granted) concur that the remedy has been

constructed in accordance with the ROF and the remedial design. A memorandum

documents the EPA/State concurrent determination and indicates the beginning of the

shake down period. The shake down period enables minor modifications in the

remedy to ensure me remedy is operating as designed.

At the end of the shake down period the remedy becomes operational and functional.

For O&M transfer purposes, the remedy becomes operational and functional either one

year after the construction is accepted or when EPA and the State concur that is

performing as design, whichever occurs first m the latter case, the NCP requires an

additional EPA/State joint inspection to declare the remedy Operational and

Functional.

2. Inspection Requirements ofPRP-Financed RAs

Contractual Inspections PreFinalfFimd

•

The PRPs will normally conduct a pre-final aud ilnal inspection with their construction

contractor. Through these inspections, the PRPs ensure mat work is complete and that

all requirements of their contract have been fulfilled. EPA may or may not be invited

to attend these inspections.

Enforcement Inspections

A separate inspection between the PRP, EPA, the oversight contractor, and other

agendeswim a jurisdictional interest (Le.,uie State) is requirecL The purpose of these

inspections is to determine if all aspects of the plans and specifications have been

implemented accordmg to appUcable enforcement documents. If any items have not

been completed, the PRP should develop a "punch list" detailing flie outstanding items

stiU requiring completion or correction before the work is accepted

u-3

001885 001885
Section n - Operable Unit Completion

The RPM and the oversight contractor should take careful notes of all remaining

activities necessary to meet the requir-.nents of the enforcement agreement. These

notes should be carefully compared to the punch list developed by the PRP.

A final inspection may be conducted when all items on me punch list have been

completed. All items shown as requiring correction on the "punch list" should be

reinspected, and all tests that were originally unsatisfactory should be conducted again.

A final "punch list" should be developed for any outstanding deficiencies still requiring

correction. Final Remedial Action (RA) acceptance at PRP lead sites should be in

accordance with applicable enforcement documents.

' (J. Remedial Action Report

The RA Report documents the cleanup activiticc *hat took olace at d. single operable

unit under remedial authority. It includes information of all early and long-term

actions v.nthin the OU. In addition, it documents that the cleanup standards specified in

the Record or Decision (ROD) have been met. At FRP-lead sites, the RA report also

certifies that the requirements in all applicable enforcement documents have been

satisfied.

For LTRAs, an interim RA Report is prepared when me physical construction of the

system is complete and the unit is operating as designed. The report is amended and

completed when the LTRA cleanup standards specified in me ROD axe achieved.

The RA Report should be prepared by someone familiar with both the design and

construction efforts associated with the RA. This familiarity with me project provides

the best background to discuss the successes and difficulties of the project This

knowledge is often limited to three parties: the RPM, me RA contracting/oversight

party, and the PRP. In either case, the contracting/oversight party has the major role in

the project implementation. Therefore, is recommended mat the contracting/ oversight

party be tasked with preparing the RA report. In that case, the development of the RA

report should be included in me .work assignment, mteragency Agreement GAG), or

settlement agreement (at PRP sites).

After signing and dating the RA Report, the preparer sends it to the RFN: for review

and comments. Once the RPM'so)mmcnts are incorporated^ the designated regional

official signs a letter accepting the final RA Report.

Although RA Reports may vary sUghtfy to meet unique site conditions, they should

follow a format similar to Exhibit 2. Appendix A presents a sample RA Report. For

further informatics regardmg this subject, refer to EPA's quick reference fact sheet,

n-*

001886 001886
. «.

Section n - Operable Unit Completion

Directive 9355.0-39FS, June 1992/ "Remedial Action Report, Documentation ror

Operable Unit Completion."

EXHIBIT 2

Remedial Action Report Summary

I. Introduction lnclu<to a brief uescriptton of the stearxi the selected remedy (e.g.. sits

location, site description, site history. components of the selected remedy.

and specific contaminants addressed).

l|. Chronology of Events Provide a chronokagyot events associated with the remedial acdon, starting

with (he Assistant Administrator or Regional Administrator's signature on the

ROD.

I. Penbnnance Standards and

Construction Quality Controf

• Include the criteria or req^remente that the remedial action contractor had

to meet (o compfe to the -TJect (e.g.. cleanup levels, quality onto. .a, and

other substantive requirements or KmitatkxK found In the ROD).

• Provide the stance;, the maJdmum level permissible, the results of fleld

sampling, the basis^lhe determination that the standard was met (except

tor long-term acaona), and thakxatton and frequency of these tests for

each performance standard.

• Explain the constnx^on qiiafity control plan operatkxis and provide an •

assurance ttut the remedial action Is complete.

• Indude a table that lists the ty pee of samptoc taken and provide a

comparison of teat reeults with the specified standards to be achieved by

the remedteJ acfinn.

V. Co • Oescribe ttw cx)n6frix;-ion acttvioes urKlertaken (or »w remedtei acikyi (e.g.,

quarrttiea excavated, dearxJptovgk achieved, and materials and/or

equipment used).

• Provide fte name and specttc rote of t»ma(ordeeign and remadtai action

contactors.

• Discuss participation by other Federal aqencteB.

• Provide a teesoi« teamed seclhxi. If appfcatite.HghlgNlngauocaBees and

problems. Include twopOon* considered, D(OOB«S used to select a

solution, and oauow of any delay encountered.

FfenI Inipectfon • nepontMpre-lrialarKllndlnspactonscxxiductedoy (he oonfrac«lng party

andt»»aon>aL<Lrafcroon<ple<onofoonrtucaonofiaoparabteuntt(«>

and MerMIIVwdrtktenltanc (La.. •punch kT). ______

1. OMMoitfon tut RiMdy !••

OpontftoiMf •nd FwtHoMt

• Indudeac i *^t»» remedy inM<i»«p<rionn«x»»tanaard«.

VN. QpmtoiwdMi •PC • lndhxte»»kaya(>pecliof(rNO(Mafcnandmrintenmo»pten.

• Provide IrMigrM Into polanUproUMnB/oonixrm.

f«L SumnMryofProfKtCoMi • Provide tulnricoBtifcy ft* pro)Mtmd<»n(«r» •Mm to •w original

•• TNBlTKtt*Bd(arRjnMMdpn(9.-^«nd

priwdted W»WM>V« pdMfeto «or PRP^Md prolMli.

• lnclu(telwn—dfar«ndoottof«nyi

n-5

001887 001887
Section n - Operable Unit Completion

D. Final Operatic Unit Completion

Completion of the final operable unit frequently means the site is eligible for

construction completion and eventually site completion. Initiation of the operable unit

completion and construction completion process can be simultaneous. However, while

documentation of construction completion and site completion requires the

preparation of reports other than the RA P eport, the RPM must ensure that a RA Report

is prepared for the final operable unit.

n-6

001888 001888
Section U - Operable Unit Completion

D. Final Operable Unit Completion

Completion of the final operable unit frequently means the site is eligible for

construction completion and eventually site completion. Initiation of the operable unit

completion and construction completion process can be simultaneous. However, while

documentation of construction completion and site completion requires the

preparation of reports other man the RA Report, me RPM must ensure mat a RA Report

is prepared for the final operable unit.

n-7 •

001889 001889
SECTION III.

CLOSE OUT PROCEDURES FOR NATIONAL

PRIORITIES LIST SITES

CONSTRUCTION

COMPLETION

001890 001890
Section in - Construction Completion

III. CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION

For many years, the traditional measure of Superfund's success was the n'unber of sites

deleted from the National Priorities Ust (NPL). However, Superfund sites may remain

in the NPL for a long time after actual construction is completed due to the stringent

regulatory criteria for site deletion or for die long duration of an operation phase. The

number of NPL-deletions is not an accurate measure of the work completed at

Superfund sites and the resulting reduction on threats to the human health and the

environment

EPA established the Construction Completion List to capture a milestone in site

remediation prior to site deletion and communicate more accurately progress toward

NPL site deanupc. The list indicates completed construction at sites presently or •

formerly on tl»e NPL. First published March 1,1393 (58 FR 12142), the Construction

Completion List is updated periodically in the Federal Register.

' 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 inleragency agreement); nor to the

eligibility of cost reimbursement from the fund.

Construction at an NPL site is considered complete when physical construction is

complete for me entire site, or a decision is made mat no physical construction is

necessary. Completion of physical construction means mat me final remedy or

remedies have been constructed at the site in accordance with design plan and

specifications and that no rurtherconstru^on is expected.

This section explains die documentation necessary to demonstrate the end of physical

construction activities at the site and the administrative requirements to achieve the

construction completion milestone. ;

A. Construction Completion Criteria

The Construction Completion List is composed of sites presently or formerly on the

NPL mat meet or have met completion or deletion requirements. Most sites satisfy

construction completion criteria when:

• Any necessary physical construction is complete, whether or not final

cleanup levels have been achieved

• EPA has determined that the response action should be limited to

measures that do not involve construction (e.g., passive remedies)

t —————————————————————^———————————————————————

m-i

001891 001891
Section m - Construction Completion

• The site qualifies for delet' on frc .A the N?L.

B. Construction Completion Initiation

The selected remedy at a site dictates when it becomes eligible for construction

completion and me type of documentation required to achieve this milestone. A site

may be a construction completion candidate even when no physical construction is

required or a long operation phase follows physical construction. If me activities

remaining at tile site may be perceived as construction-related, the site should not be

considered for inclusion in the Construction Completion UsL The following sections

provide more detail on the most common candidates for me construction completion

milestone and their reporting requirements.

1. Removal Authority

NPL sites that are fully addressed by early actions under removal authority can meet

the construction completion and site completion criteria simultaneously. Refer to

Section IV. 1, Site Completion, for documentation requirements.

2. Remedial Authority

Many Superfund sites cannot be fully addressed under removal authority. EPA

addresses me risks presented by these sites under its remedial authority through early

and long-term actions. Early and long-tezm actions under remedial authority have

identical doseout documentation requirements. This section addresses die following

cases:

• Sites requiring remedial construction in die final OU

• Special Cases

• Sites requiring no remedial construction in the final OU.

^

a. Sites Rttnuring Remedial Construction in the Final OU

»

l^us section presents die constniction compktionaiteria for sites requiring physical

oonstnictjbn on die final operable uniL At diese sites die constrociion completion

muestone is achieved when a pxe'fixsal Inspection has been conducted and a

Preliminary Close Out Report has been signed.

ffl-2

001892 001892
Section m - Construction Completion

EXHIBIT?

Construction Completion Process

ffl-3

001893 001893
Section m - Construction Completion

Pre-Final Inspection

A pre-final inspection should be conducted at the site's final OU following the

procedures outlined in Section n, "Operable Unit Completion initiation." Construction

completion criteria are satisfied when only minor "punch list" items are identified in

the inspection to finish the work in accordance with design plans and specifications.

Minor "punch list" items are described as activities that are part of me contract

specifications but do not affect the functioning of me remedy. These items must be

addressed by the construction contractor before the final inspection. Exhibit 4 lists

typical "punch list" items that allow a construction completion determination.

Because Exhibit 4 is only a representative list, each site must be evaluated individually.

The RPM must carefully evaluate Ac status of the selected remedy and a^Jdpate the

need for additional construction activities. If the RPM believes mat additional

construction might be required upon completion of the ROD remedy, the site should

not be placed on the Construction Completion List.

EXHIBIT 4

Representative Minor "Punch List" Items

RevegetaUng

Removing construction debris

Installing support equipment, such as fire extinguisher

Repairing poorly installed flashing on pump house roof

Repairing other minor defect mworlonanship or construction'

Demobilizing activities

Installing Monitoring Wells •

Maldng final connection of water supply (if support piping is already

installed)

Preliminary Close Out Report

, i

A Preliminary dose Out Report (PCOR) demonstrates and documents that physical

construction aft a site has been completed. The PCOR must contain a schedule for the

site to satisfy me NCP and ouierprcK«duralrequirexnents necessary to issue a Fmal

Close Out Report (tee section IV). It focuses on construction at a site, induding the

release at die site, site conditions, construction activities, response action, completion of

construction, and a detailed schedule of steps remaining for site oompletion. The

PCOR should contain me information shown m Exhibit 5. Appendix B presents an

example of a PCOR.

ffl-4

001894 001894
Section in - Construction Completion

The RPM may pi ^are the PCOR before tile RA Report for the final operabi "nit is

complete and me remedy has been determined operational and functional. The PCOR

generally should be three to five pages and it should address Five-year review

requirements even though this milestone is independent from site completion and site

deletion. For more information on Five-year reviews see OSWER Directive 9355.7-02,

"Structure and Components of Five-Year Reviews" dated May 23,1991, and its July 26,

1994 supplement, OSWER Directive 9355.7.02-A.

' The RPM sends the PCOR to EPA Headquarters for comments. After incorporating

Headquarters' comments and obtaining <he signature of the delegated regional official,

a copy of the signed report is forwarded to EPA Headquarters. The construction

completion milestone is achieved on me actual signature date of the PCOR.

Sometimes a PCOR may not be needed because the site meets both construction

completion and site completion criteria (see Section m. 2. c.). In these cases, the RPM

can prepare a Final dose Out Report (COR) or No Action ROD to satisfy

documentation requirements for both events. Section IV presents additional

information on preparing a Final COR.

ffl-5

001895 001895
Section in - Construction Completion

EXHIBIT 5

Preliminary dose Out Report Summary

/'*-',,';,' '. ^'fi/BWM . ' ' ,

11. Sunmuuy Of Site Conditions

III. Demonsfratfon Of Cleanup Ac«\!ty

QMQC

IV. ActfvttKK And Schedule For Site

Cofflploikxi

V. Fto-YearRoviM

; , ,«»MTE»» '\'1 ,'':-^->\' '

1—^l.lAt ••«uf—l -*»-^—^- ^ Jkftik •I ••n ^^|M| (•A^AafIa^ .kdaJ .«

statement that oonfractors or agenciee have comfrucladttie remedy in

1

r».ii«r« ——— — fJIkB ^I———JJIM| -•- —•—— —•—— —JKJ •—«kJd&—fttfJB^^

• Provide badkgroundBummary of Bto location, •Itedeccriptfon. and NPL

bating infonnalon.

e Indude remedy GoledBd, date RA Initiated method used to Implement RA

construction b complete.

implemented and tfiatcornttucooncoiTipteBon is oonsteidnt with the ROD

.•——J •M«——««JllMl |J.B^I^—— •J.BMft .B^J —— — -•^—^ ^ —— •

• Identity aetfvniaBremairAig In Of uur to:

Aaaure eftucUvuiiOM o( tn ramedy (e.g.. tn«Btutfanal oontrote, work

pbn tor operatfon anal maintenance)

• A—w oornlBtency wtti ttw NCP (e.g.. Joint EPA/State Inspection.

anddur—on)

- SaiMyMqulremMMi lor •lte aoflipktlon(eo..flnalRemodMAe&»i

Report EPAf appnwaq.

e Specify fte oroanlafcn r—porrMo lor ImtiluiiiumiiUi m of each acflvfty.

• Set da—tor oonipleoon of he •cttvMM and •lefflBntB reQUired to mlity

NCP arKlprooaduraliaqulramonte lor bUJino a Final CO''»d reaching

SI^B cofflptaten.

• State whetfier«l«»yaariwl«r It naqulred.Mihattn'e or review •I

re9Jlre^(«tBBJlaiy or poky), and actieduto. The ^ Five-year nwtmriB

action.

b. Special Cases

Tlus section mdudes special requirements for LTRAs,bioremediatioii, soil vapor

extraction, monitoring, and institutional controls.

1. Long-Tgrm Ttesponsg Aptions

Long-tennrespcaise actions (LTRAs) are undertaken to restore groundwater or surface

waterquality. These actions require a <xmtinuous operation phase to achieve the

cleanup levels specified in the BOD. Construction completion.criteria at LTRAs sites

is met when physic oc»smiction of the remedy (e.g., oonstructicm of the treatment

plant, pumps, and initial extraction wells) is complete and the pre-final inspection has

been conducted. TlieRPM should prepare then a PCOR to dociunent construction

completion, m this case the POOR'S "Schedule far Site Completion1' should include the

m-6

001896 001896
Section HI - Construction Completion

determination of the Operational and Functional period and the date when the remedy

is expected to achieve the clean-up standards.

2. Bioremediation and In-situ Soil Vapor Extraction Remedies

The process of achieving construction completion for final operable units with

bioremediation and in-situ soil vapor extraction remedies is similar to that for LTRAs.

As indicated in OSWER Directive 9320.2-06, "NPL construction Completion Definition

at Bioremediation and Soil Vapor Extraction Sites," June 1993, if the remedy is

constructed, and no further construction is anticipated, these sites may qualify for

inclusion on the Construction Completion list. The key criterion is whether the

follow-on work necessary to operate the remedy is mine • The RPM must consider the

nature and extern of anticipated post-constn, Jtion activity, which includes actions

during the treatment phase, as well as any final site closure activities beyond typical

demobilization activities. If significant post construction activity is likely, me site is not

a candidate for construction completion.

The many variations in apJ 'ying these technologies to sites make me establishment of

specific criteria for determining construction completion difficult. RPMs may only

declare construction completion at these sites when the treatment unit has been

constructed, data show that the remedy is operating as designed, and no additional

response is anticipated. RPMs should be conservative at bioremediation sites where

performance evaluation is particularly difficult to measure.

Additional consideration should be given to ensuring protection against direct contact

with contaminated soils during we treatment process. Safeguarding measures should

betaken, such as stockpiling contaminated soils in an enclosed storage area, to ensure

all pathways of exposure are eliminated.

Since bioremediation and in-situ soil vapor extraction remedies are generally

constructed and operated by the same contractor, a pre-final inspection is not usually

perforated after construction of the treatment unit is completed. However, a thorough

inspection, analogous to the pre-final'inspection, must be conducted and documented

before the RPM prepares the PCOR.

Even though the site may be dedared construction complete, the operable unit

involving bioremediation or in-situ soil vapor extraction remains classififd as an

ongoing remedial action. The operable unit completion milestone cannot be achieved

untfl the deanup goals specified in the ROD are achieved and an Remedial Action

Report is approved by EPA.

m-7

001897 001897
Section m - Construction Completion

3. Monitoring and InstituHonal Controls

A site can be included in the Construction Completion List before monitoring activities

begin or institutional controls are in place if those activities are included in the POOR'S

"Schedule for Site Completion,"

Monitoring results provide information about an RA's performance and the need for

future actions. Monitoring may be appropriate at any siage of an RA including

operation and maintenance (O&M). Although future RAs may or may not result from

such monitoring, the need for monitoring does not prohibit listing a site as a

construction completion if the site qualifies otherwise. Actual installation of

monitoring wells may also be included in the "Schedule of Site Completion" if the

number of monitoring wells is not significant or ib considered part of O&M activities..

Institutional controls are legal and administrative measures that prevent exposure to

contaminants at concentrations above healili bnsed risk levels mat may remain at a site.

Usually institutional controls limit activities at or near sites. Examples are: land and

natural resource use restrictions, deed restrictions (Le., controlling future land use),

prohibitions on well drilling, building permits, well use advisories, and deed notices.

Institutional controls may constitute a remedy by themselves or supplement

containment and treatment remedies to reduce potential threats to human health and

die environment.

c. Sites Requiring No Remedial Construction in the Final OU

At some NFL sites, EPA determines through the remedial investigation/feasibility

study (RI/FS) (or other means) that no remedial construction will be necessary to

achieve protection of human healm and the environment. Such a determination is

usually documented in a No Action ROD. Construction completion may also be

documented through the ROD. This section presents the construction completion

requirements for:

• No Action RODs with no previous RAs

• No Action RQDs with previous RAs

• RODs requiring pass! veremediation or monitoring only.

Headquartere does not review No Acticm RODs to detenxuneccanpliancewim the

conatroction completion criteria. However, the RPM.Aould assure that me criteria is

met and forward a copy to Ifcadquaiters once the proper signatures are obtainecL

m-a

001898 001898
Section in - Construction Completion

No Action RODs Wit.. 1 .'o Previous RAs

A No Action ROD results when the lead agency determines that no remedial action is

necessary to protect human health and the environment If the site is a No Action ROD

site where EPA has not previously undertaken an RA, the construction completion and

site completion milestones may be achieved when the ROD is signed. The RPM does

not need to prepare a Preliminary or Final COR and should instead place the following

certification of completion in the declaration section of me No Action ROD:

"EPA has determined that its response at this site is complete and no

action/no further action is necessary at this site. Therefore, the site now

qualifies for inclusion on the Construction Completion List."

No Action RODs With Previous RAs

A No Action ROD where EPA has previously conducted RAs triggers statutory

documentation requirements. At those sites, the RPM may choose to either prepare a

Final COR or a No Action ROD that: 1) incorporates the information normally included

in the Final COR and 2) includes the certification of completion discussed in the

previous section. The construction completion and site completion milestone are

achieved upon signature of either the No Action ROD or the Final COu.

RODs Requiring Passive Remediatwn or Monitoring Only

A site with a final operable unit ROD requiring passive remediation only may achieve

construction completion when me delegated regional official approves tile ROD.

Implementation of institutional controls and natural attenuation are examples of

passive remedies. No Action RODs requiring monitoring only (for other ihan O&M

purposes) fall within this category. These No Acdon RODs do not meet the

construction completion and site completion criteria simultaneously (see section VI).

As in the previous cases, the RPM does not need to prepare a PCOR to meet the •

construction completion criteria. Instead, He/She can place the following certification

of completion in the declaration section of die ROD:

•

"EPA has determined tfiat its future response at this site does not require

physical construction. Therefore, the site now qualifies for inclusion on

me Construction Completion List"

ffl-9

001899 001899
Section in - Construction Completion

3. Non Fund-Lead Actions

Some NPL site cleanups are addressed by parties other than EPA. Close out

procedures for these sites are discussed below.

a. PRPLead

The preamble to 40 CFR Part 300 states that inclusion of a site in the Construction'

Completion List does not have any legal significance. As explained in Section in,

"Construciion Completion Criteria," the construction completion milestone does not

affect any enforcement agreement with the PRPs. Construction completion criteria for

PRP sites are identical to those for fund lead. The RPM, ho'vever, should carefully

determine whetb°r the activities performed by the PRP are in accordance with any

applicable enforcement documents.

*

b. Federal Facilities

Construction completion procedures for Federal sites are identical to those for

PRP-financed remedial actions. Construction completion is generally documented by a

signed PCOR or No Action ROD (if applicable).

c. State Lead

State-lead sites with no ROD and sites where the State assumes all responsibility for

overseeing PRP response actions require additional documentation, m these situations,

EPA relies heavily on the State to detennine the appropriate response, m some cases,

the PRP conducts a response action in the absence of a ROD. EPA includes these sites

on the Construction Completion List based on a determination by the State that all

response action is complete. To initiate the construction completion process, EPA must

receive a letter from As State's Division Director (or equivalent) certifying completion

as follows:

•The State of _____ has determined this site is protective of human

healm and the enviroiunenL Therefore, aU response action at this site is

complete and no further construction is anticipated." .

In most instances, the State prepares me PCOR and EPA concmswimtius decision by

signing me PCOR and by mdud^g me site m the Constmction Completion UsL The

POOR must include EPA's concurrence of the State's determination Out no rurui&r

respotiseac^nb appropriate. If the State does nofprepaKnie PCOR, then the State's

certmcaticn letter mentioned abovemmtinducte a detaUed summary of all actions

taken at. the site.

m-io

001900 001900
Section in - Construction Completion

d. O^-T Statutes (e.g., RCRA)

In some cases, EPA may determine that it does not have die authority under CERCLA

to perform a site cleanup and may delete the site from the NPL. Although these sites

meet the qualifications for site deletion, they will not be counted as construction

completion until physical construction is completed under me proper authority — for

example, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Si'tea actually deleted

from the NPL when transferred to another authority arp not eligible for inclusion in

the Conatrurfinn Cnmplerinn List after phyaic-al conatnigHon is complete under the

appropriate authority.

-4-

m-n

001901 001901
Section in - Construction Completion

C Construction Completion Checklist

Construction completion activities vary according to site circumstances. For typical

sites, however, achieving construction completion requires the RPM to:

m-i2

001902 001902
SECTION IV.

CLOSE OUT PROCEDURES FOR NATIONAL

PRIORITIES LIST SITES

SITE

COMPLETION

001903 001903
Section IV - Site Completion

IV. SITE COMPLETKh.

Site completion signifies the end of all response actions at NPL sites. Site completion

means that the response actions at the site were successful; all cleanup levels and other

requirements specified in the Record of Decision (ROD) have been achieved for all

pathways of exposure, and no further Superfund response is required to protect human

health and the environment.

The Remedial Project Manager (RFM) applies EPA's site completion criteria to a site to

verify mat it is eligible for site completion status, then prepares a Final Close Out

Report (COR). In some cases, however, sites may achieve this milestone by preparing a

No Action ROD (see previous section). The Final COR covers the entire site, including

all operable units. This Section explains the documentation required to demonstrate - -

that site completion criteria have been met and site completion has been achieved.

A. Site Completioi. Criteria

A site must meet all four criteria below to be eligible for site completion:

• Qeanup levels specified in the RODs are met, and all cleanup actions and

other measures identified in me RODs are successfully implemented

• The constructed remedies are operational and performing according to

engineering design specifications

K * •

• The site is protective of human health and die environment, and

• The only remaining activities, if any, at the site are operation and

maintenance activities that are performed or controlled by the State or

responsible parties.

B. Site Completion Initiation

A site is eligible for site completion following successful implementation of die final

operable unit RA. Approval of the Final COR signifies that all deanup levels specified

m the RODs have been adueved and the site has entered Q&M. An Remedial Action

(R:^ Report for the each operable unit, induding^hefil^, is xequix^ to document mat

me work was perfonned acoirding to dtesign spe&mcations. A RA report however,

cannot document site completion. Only the Final COR, and in some cases a No Action

ROD, satisfies completion requirements. The following section presents NPL rite

completion requirements for deanup activities under remove and remedial authority.

IV-l

001904 001904
Section IV - Site Completion

LXHIE.T6

Site Completion and fite Deklion Processes (Site Completion Focus)

IV-2

001905 001905
Section IV - Site Completion

1. Re. at Authority

Early action under removal authority achieve prompt risk reduction through

emergency, time-critical, and non-time critical actions. In general, cleanup actions

under removal authority will not have a Record of Decision (ROD) as is normally the

case for sites addressed under remedial authority. NPL sites addressed entirely by

early actions under removal authority reach the construction completion and site

completion milestones simultaneously when:

• The RPM documents in the final Pollution Report (POLREF) that the

contractor is demobilized and has left the site, or (in the case of a

potentially responsible party (PRPHead site, that the PKP's contractor has

completed the early action specified in the Action Memorandum and

fully met the terms of the applicable enforcement document, and

• A No Action POD or a Notice of Intent to Delete (NOID) states that all

necessary remediation is complete (see Section V for information on

NOIDs).

m some instances, it will be appropriate to document the removal action with an OnScene Coordinator Report For information regarding POLREP and OSC Reports refer

to Directive 93ouJ-03, "Superfund Removal Procedures, Removal Response Reporting:

POLREP and OSC Reports," June 1994.

2. Remedial Authority

This section presents the site completion requirements for:

• Sites requiring remedial construction in die final OU

• Sites requiring no remedial construction in the final OU

• Sites where no response action was required.

a. Sites Rafuaing Remedial Construction in the Final Oil

The site is eligible for rite completion whai all eariy and long-term actions have been

•. implemented and all four site completion criteria are met When rite completion

requirements are achieved the RPM prepares a draft Hnal COR. TheRnalCOR

consolidates the results of aU previous site activities and ensures that aU issues

regarding site completion have been addressed' (e.g., O&M assurances, deanup

concentrations, and implementation of institutioniil controls). The RPM send die draft

report to £PA Headquarters for conunei-ts, and requests the Regional Administrator's

signature after incorporating Headquarter's comments.

————————,—————————————/——————————————————————-

IV-3

001906 001906
Section IV - Site Completion

b. Sites Requiring No Remedial Construction in the Final OU

This category includes sites where remedial activities have been performed and the

ROD for the final operable requires no additional cleanup activities. In these cases site

completion can be documented through a Final COR or A No Action Rod. The No

Action ROD, however, should address all the components of a final COR including

information on previous site activities.

RODs requiring passive remediation or monitoring for other than O&M purposes do

not meet the site completion criteria immediately following me ROD signature. Once

the institutional controls are in place, natural attenuation has reached me dean-up

concentrations, or all monitoring requirements specified in me ROb are met, me site is

eligible for site -ompletion and site deletion. Publication of a Notice of Intent to

Delete will satisfy the site completion milestone.

c. Sites Where No Response Action Was RafuiredFor no action sites the KPM prepares either a No Action ROD or a Final CQR (in an

abbreviated form because there were no cleanup activities). The ROD documentation is

preferable since the ROD would address many of me components of the Final COR as

part of me justification for no action.

C Final Close Out Report

The Final Close Outiteport (COR) documents compliance with statutory requirements

and provides a consolidated record of all remedial activities for all operable units at the

site. Since it is the final record, the Final COR must be complete and able to stand alone.

It should briefly describe how me entire deanup was accomplished. Tlw report 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.

The Final COR provides the overall technical justification for site completion. It

demonstrates how site activities satisfy mis milestone requirements. The content and

format of me report may vary depending on site circumstances. However, it should

mdude the information presented in Exhibit 7. This information should be readily

available from previous documents such as the remedial investigation/feasibility study.

(RI/PS), the RODS, the remedial design, and the RA reports. The Final COR should

also identify issues that might be of contmuingcorioern to EPA or the community (if

any) and explain why mese issues do not predude me site from achieving site

^s^pipliCp^yn,

IV-t

001907 001907
Section IV - Site Completion

Usually the RPM prepares the Final COR, but he/she may task the State tc ^ripare it at

State-lead sites. The report should not exceed ^ .0 15 pages/ but rr-.y be longer for

large sites with multiple o]3erable units. To keep the report brief/ detailed technical or

cost information and data may be referenced or appended to the report. As Exhibit 5

shows/ EPA Headquarters and the State should have an opportunity to review and

comment on the report prior to final approval.

EPA Headquarters has Regional Coordinators assigned to act as primary reviewers of

the Final COR- These individuals will work closely with the RPM in performing

completion activities and vi/ill review the Final COR- A copy of the approved Final

COR should be sent to EPA Headquarters following signature by the Regional

Administrator. Appendix C presents a sample Final COR.

EXHIBIT 7

Final COR Summary

1. Introduction

1 1. Sumrr

III. De.-nonstraflon Of Cleanup AcOvH/

QA/QC

IV. Monte

V. Summwy6rOpar«kxiAJKl

Mat lie———

\M •»——.— —^- .—^ - ^ ^ VI. mO—CWW

•

V

»n. U d^k-Vf^ i n—i I'mw •t^-J— noTW—r

VM. BUog

nary Of Site Conditions

MtneReeute :

why

• General statement indlcaltng that the RA had been succesefufly performed.

• Srta background

• Eany action'; performed.

• Refneda Inve.tigatiorVteasfciBty study resutS

• ROOflrxiny

B Design crttarisi

• Cteanup acjMtes performed

•> Community Involvement aclMSas performed.

o CWQC protocol Sotowed

o SonpAng and anaiyciB protood (oaowal

• Results o( on-otte Inspections.

o SufBcten>dafalDdemona>atecte^BJ})latfelBBped6edln»haROOorA<aton

MBmorandQ ai« aditovod and bnptotnented and remadtes are peribnrdng to

deepen Bpadflcaaone.

a Mordtoring required at no actkxnsauartartM ROD b ri^ied ehould be briefly

aocumanted In tie Final COR.

• AmJr«x»«i«0«Mp(macrelnptaoaandareiulfclontk)rMln<trint«

proteOwta—o( •« remedy

o ;' Muanoa •UK — rmrnMafy bufiukxud oonkxib are In pteoa

^ teanMx»»^0«Macftr<BesGpac«todtortw«to««lb«parformedJy»w

a«^a or «»r—poortito party.

» A—unmo* tut •w ImtitoiiHiitri iwnady (or n>. ^•on d«cWon) •crdovea ttw

dB9M a( ctemup « prolMXan •pecNod In *w RCX)(B) (or aB paAway* of

eloxiaure md lial no lur«w GliMrtund rMponM k naed«l to pro«Bct numan

berth and tr •iwfronmenL

• AannncafatalamwctcanoBmdfiKiiftadhtiarff^.lrtnonaMobaan

• Statemrt >J^tetnlnu »»4»«TCT a fc^-ygar revte^ te a^uph^ ^ li «o, he

typoo»rwrtw(»taftJ«xyorpalcy)andtie«dr»dutBtoft»rB^w.

• Comptotec>Bdoi»ofalraiawm}roporti.

IV-5

001908 001908
Section IV - Site Completion

D. Site Compi^non Checklist

Site completion activities vary according to site circumstances. For typical sites,

however, achieving site completion requires the RPM to:

W-6

001909 001909
SECTION V.

CLOSE OUT PROCEDURES FOR NATIONAL

PRIORITIES LIST SITES

SITE DELETION

001910 001910
Section V-Site Deletion

V. SITE DELETION

The National Priorities List (NPL) deletion process begins at most sites once the site

completion milestone has been achieved. Site deletion requirements ensure that 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 a site is formally deleted from the NPL.

The deletion process is dictated by the National Oil and Hazardous Substances

Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). Deletion of a site from the NFL, however, 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 deleted from the NPL. V.'hen there is a

significant release from a site deleted from the NPL, the site may be restored to the

NPL without rescoring the site. Additional enforcement actions also may be taken,

depending on liability releases in the consent decree or administrative order. Deletion

of a site does not affect cost recovery efforts under CERCLA section 107.

This section focuses on the site deletion criteria, process, and documentation required

to achieve this milestone.

A. • NPL Deletion Criteria

The NCP (40 CFR 300.425(e)) states mat a site may be deleted from, or recategorized on,

{he NPL when no response/no further response is appropriate. EPA must consult with

the State in making this determination. To delete a site from the NFL, EPA must

determine, in consultation with the State, that one of the following criteria has been

met

• Responsible or other parties have implemented all response actions

required

• AU appropriate Fund-financed response under CERCLA has been

implemented, and no further response action by responsible parties is

appropriate

• The remedial investigation (RO has shown that die release poses no

significant Areat to public health or the environment, and, therefore, it is

not appropriate to take remedial measures.

If monitoring to determine the need for a future response action is ongoing at a site,

deletion is premature. In this situation, it is impossible to know whether a site satisfies

_____________________I______________________

v-i

001911 001911
Section V - Site Deletion

the NCP's deletion standaivi - "no further response is appropriate." Operation and

maintenance (O&M) of the remedy is x^t considered "further action' and does not bar

deletion.

Operation and Maintenance activities are performed to protect the integrity of the

remedy at the site. At hind-lead sites, the state performs O&M after the site is

transferred from the Federal Government to the State upon State and federal

agreement that the remedy is operational and functional. An exemption to this are

LTRAs where EPA operates the system for up to 10 years after it has been declared

Cite deletion from the NPL has been separated from the Rye-Year Review Program (56

. FR 66601, December 24,1991). ERA has prepared separate guidance addressingFive-Year Review requirements. For more information on Five-Year Reviews see

OSWER Directive 9355.7-02, "Structure and Components of Five-Year Reviews" dated

May 23,1991.

B. The Deletion Process

Most of the time the deletion process begins once the site achieves the site completion

milestone, m some instances, a site can be deleted from the NCP without meeting the

construction completion or site completion criteria (see section IOL3. Construction

Completion; Non-fund Lead Actions: Other Statutes). In general, die Region initiates

Ae deletion process. A State or an individual may also initiate the process by

specifically requesting die deletion of a site. Exhibit 8 shows me main steps in the

typical deletion process. •

The deletion process is divided in three steps: process initiation, publication of Notice

of Intention to Delete, and preparation of a responsiveness summary. '

1. Process Initiation

The Region initiates the deletion process by.

o Obtaining a letter of concurrence from me State,

• Compiling die deletion docket, and

• Preparing a Notice of Intent to delete.

v-2

001912 001912
Section V - Site Deletion

State Concurrence

Early in the deletion process the Region consults with Ac State and request their

concurrence on the agency's intent to delete the site. A Jte can not be deleted from the

NPL without the State concurrence.

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

Administrafve Record for the site. Documents in the Administrative Record can be

referenced and do not havp to be duplicated in the deletion docket (provided the

Administrative Record is still available to the public). The deletion docket should be

available to the public at the EPA Regional office public docket and a local repository.

The documents contained in the deletion docket will vary depending on the type of

response (e.g., remedial action, removal action, no action) and the lead agency (e.g.

Federal, State, or responsible party).

These documents can be included in the deletion docket as applicable:

'• Remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) Report

• ROD (or equivalent) for each operable unit, induding any ROD

amendments or Explanations of Significant Differences

• Consent Decree(s)

• Action Memoranda

• Community Relations Plans

• Superfund State Contract

• Cooperative agreements

• Agreements with potentiaUy responsible parties

• Design plans and specifications

• Construction inspection reports

• On-Scene Coordinator report

v-3

001913 001913
Section V - Site Deletion

EXHIBIT 8

Site Completion and Site Deletion Processes (Site Deletion Focus)

V-4

001914 001914
Section V-Site Deletion

• Documentation of state concurrence on deletion

• Operation and Maintenance Plan

• Close Out Reports)

• Transcripts from public meetings

•

• Responsiveness Summary for Notice of Intent to Delete

• Bibliography of Reports.

Regional progre-n offices should work with their Superfund community involvement

staff to ensure that complete copies of the deletion docket are placed in me appropriate

Regional and local repositories. The public will have an opportunity to review this

docket during the 30-day public comment period that follows publication of the Notice

of Intent to Delete (NOID). Public meetings are optional.

•

Notice of Intent to Delete WOlD)

The NOID informs the public of EPA's intention to delete a site from we NPL. The

deletion docket must be complete before the Region publishes the NOID in the Eedfiial

Register. The NOID contains general information about the site, EPA Regional staff

and other contacts, and deletion criteria and procedures. It provides for a 30-day

publk comment period. Site-specmcmfbrmation needed to prepare the NOID should

be available from the Final COR; the NOID should contain the sections illustrated in

Exhibit 9. Appendix D presents an example of a NOID.

V-S

001915 001915
Section V - Site Deletion

EXHIBIT 9

Notice of Intent to - -n-ie Summary

1. Summary

1 1. Dates

III. Addresses

IV. Further Information Contact

V. Supplementary Information

VI. Information

VII. NPL Dotation Criteria

VIII. Deletion Procedures

IX. Basis Fc- Intended Srta Oetot>on(s)

Armowy-ament of Intent to delate (NCXD).

Datas (or 30-day pubic comment period and submission of comments.

Name, address, and piione number or a Regional contact where comments may

be sent and location of the Regional Docket and local repository.

Name, address, and phone number of a Regional contact for further information or

questions. . •

Identification of sita(s) to be detoted, and summaly of kifonnation In N010.

1 tot of appBcahto NCP criteria (40 CFR 300.425(e)> and a statement Indicating

that EPA retains the aUBty to use Superfund auttiority at a deleted ste H fufare

copc'itions warrant sudh actfons (40 CFR 300.425(eX3)).

Brief descripdon or prooeduresfetowod to delete stes from the NPL.

Brief description of the lolowing Items: •

• Site NstDfy (locaflon formar usa type of contaminants. Federal Rsflfetef

dtatton of proposed and final NPLgstlnfl. and site condMonsresuHfrig In

feting)

• Al response actions taken Including scope of Rl.tf applicable, oeneral

reeute, and conclusions regarding luture peribrmanco o> (heee actions

• Spedflc deanup standards and criteria and resute of al confirmatory

samping and analysis

O&M procedures and site monitoring program

plans tot performance of such rovtows.

MatorcommunttylnvohwwmicBvlfcia

^L^^J •^^ ——nft^ '(tnlnJJB^ ——JkBJ—

Evidence of State concurrence to detetet» site.

V-6

001916 001916
Section V-Site Deletion

2. Publication u) the Notice of Intent to Delete and a Local Notice

The Region prepares and publishes the NOID in strict accordance with the Fedeial

Register publication requirements. Headquarters staff can help review these notices to

ensure national consistency and completeness.

The Regional Superfund Community Involvement Coordinator should also prepare

and distribute a local NOID. The local NOID should be published in a local newspaper

of general circulation. It should announce the Agency's intent to delete the site from

die NPL and the 30-day public comment period. The local NOID should also provide

an address and telephone number for submission of comments, and identify the

location of the local repository. Appendix E presents a sample local notice.

•

The coordinator should also prepare a press release and distribute it to community,

State, and local officials; all PRPs; appropriate Federal agencies (including the Agency

for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry and the National Response Team);

Superfund enforcement personnel; the Office of Regional Counsel (ORC); and any local

repositories. In addition, the ORC should inform the State Attorney General and other

interested agencies (State or Federal courts and the U.S. Department of Justice) of the

intended deletion of a site.

3. Eesponsweness Summary and Notice of Deletion

The Region is responsible for'preparing a responsiveness summary for all local and

national comments received. The responsiveness summary should present all

comments received during the public comment period paired with detailed responses

to me comments. Headquarters will assist the Region in preparing responses where

appropriate. The Region must include a copy of the responsivene&s summary,

approved by the Regional Admirdstrator,m the Regional docket and local repository.

The Region then wUl publish the Notice of Deletion in the EfidfiraIJSfigiater. Thisnotice

states that all appropriate Fund-financed responses under CERCLA have been

implemented and that no further response is appropria^. The Notice of Deletion

includes an effective date, a Regional contact and supplemental site information. All

NPL rulemakings after publication of this notice will reflect the deletion. AppendixF

presenu* a sample Nodce of Deletion.

V-7

001917 001917
Section V-Site Deletion

C Site Dpietion Checklist

For a site to achieve deletion, the RPM must:

V-8

001918 001918
APPENDIX A

CLOSE OUT. PROCEDURES FOR NATIONAL

PRIORITIES LIST SFTES

001919 001919
SAMPLE

REMEDIAL

ACTION REPORT

001920 001920
Appendix A - Sample Remedial Close Out Report

I. INTRODUCTION

The Sunshine County's California-Sunshine Water and Sewer Department (WSD)

prepared this Remedial Action Report. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA), where necessary, provided additional information.

The remedial action included the constru^tior. operations and maintenance of sixtythree (63) 14-foot diameter air stripping towers at me Orange and Hibiscus Water

Treatment Plants in Hopesville, California (see Figures 1 and 2) [Attach figures providing

this information]. The two plants are located in the City of Hopesville and are owned

and maintained by WSD.

The primary purpose* of ».~ air stripping towers is to treat and restore giound water in

the sole source of Hopesville's drinking water, the San Francisco Aquifer. Portions of

the aquifer have been contaminated over a period of years from several nearby

National Priority List (NPL) sites, including the Solvar spill at the Hopesville

International Airport, the Hopesville Drum site, and me 42nd Street Landfill.

The air stripping towers provide for the removal of a variety of contaminants referred

to as volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Through tower operations VOCs are

discharged to the atmosphere in a concentraticn below Federal air quality standards.

After the water is treated through the towers, it is discharged to WSD's water

distrib-.-LlJn system (for uses including drinking water).

EPA also initiated specific site source control measures at two of me three NPL sites

where hazardous materials were identified. The fvo sites have been cleaned by

separate remedial actions; the third was addressed by county agencies.

H. CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS

1963-1985 EPA's consultant constructed a comprehensive study of me San Frandsco

Aquifer and prepared a report of the findings.

9/16/G5 EPA's Region 4 Administrator signed me Record of Dedsion (ROD)

selecting air stripping towers as me recommended alternative.

^A miintatas Art the pimar^ purpoM of te remedy, •coxdix^ to d^

A-l

/

001921 001921
Appendiy A • Sample Remedial Close Out Report

1985 »VSD staff began to design air stripping towers. Separate construction

contracts to be prepared for <-ach plant.

8/88 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers reviewed WSD's plans and specifications

on behalf of EPA.

9/30/88 EPA executed a Coopex auve Agreement

3/16/89 Bid opening for Contract W-484B (Key).

3/30/89 Bid opening for Contract W-484C (Hbpesville).

7/11/89 Notice to Proceed issued' J The Poole and Kent Company for Contract

W-484B (Key).

8/7/89 Notice to Proceed issued to The Poole and Kent Company for Contract

W-484C Ofcpesville).

1989-1992 Construction underway.

9/1 /92 Initiation of operation of all air stripping towers.

10/29/92 Pre-Fmal/Rnal Inspection.

12/08/92 WSD confirms Construction Completion.

in. PERFORMANCE STANDARD:* AND CONSTRUCTION QUALITY

CONTROL

The capacity of the air stripping system is 152 million gallons per day (mgd). This

capacity was based on 70 mgd of water supplied by the contaminated "in town"

wdlfidds (Key, Hopesville, and California Springs) and me remaining water supplied

by the Northwest Wellfield. WSD's motive for treating finished water, including a

blend of Northwest Wellfidd water and in town wellfield water, was to reduce the

level of trihalomcthanes(resultmg mainly from cMorination of the water a^

and color in the water. The additional treatment for this purpose was unrelated to the

hazardous waste contamination of t'.ie ground water in the study area, and mus the

added costs were not eligible for Federal funding.

A-2

001922 001922
Appendix A • Sample Remedial Close Out Report

The treatment standards for the system included reducing VOC concentrations in

drinking water to acceptable levels sudi as:

Vinyl Uiloride 1 ppb

trans-l/2-dichlorethane 270 ppb

Throughout the construction, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corp of Engineers)

provided oversight of the remedial action on behalf of EPA. The Corp of Engineers

conducted frequent inspections at both water treatment plants and submitted written

monthly reports that described the results of their inspections. These inspection reports

are included in Appendix 1 [Attach appendix providing this infbnnation]. <

^11 water sample collection activities at the site were conducted in accordance with

EPA protocols and/or State permit requirements. The laboratories responsible for

analysis of treatment system performance data and groundwater quality are me

laboratories at the Key and Banner Water Treatment Plants, operated by Sunshine

County, or contracting laboratories.

Laboratory results indicate that the system is achieving performance standards and the

effluent is meeting the deanup levels established in me ROD. A review of the

analytical data indicated that the treatment system has been constructed in accordance

with the RD plans and specifications and is achieving the primary purpose of

providing dean drinking water to the public.

m March 1993, WSD collected a series of samples of influent and effluent water at die

plants and water from several individual air stripping towers at both of the water

treatment plants. The samples were analyzed for VOCs, but several samples were also

analyzed for the complete Target Compound/Target Analyte list. Contaminants were

either not detected or were well below Maximum Contaminant Levels.CMCLs) in all

samples of treated water. These analytical results are induded in Appendix 2 {Attach

appendix providing this information]. A summary of these results is presented in Tables 1-

3 [Attach tables'providing. Ms information].

i

WSD will continue to monitor VOC concentrations in treated water by analyzing

samples of treated water from each plant three times per week. The appiopriate

Federal and State agencies will be notified should levels exceed MCLs.

001923 001923
Appendix A - Sample Remedial Close Out Report

IV. CONSTR-JCnON ACTIVITIES

The engineering staff of WSD prepared ihe engineering plans and specifications for the

air stripping facilities. The Corps of Engineers reviewed these plans on behalf of EPA

prior to the award of the Cooperative Agreement.

Table 1

Sampling Locations

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

' 13

14

Hialeah before air stripping

(morning)

Hialeah raw water

Hialeah after air stripping

(morning) - treated

Hialeah NL . 5 tower effluent

Hialeah No. 17 tower effluent

Preston after air stripping

(morning) - treated

Preston after air stripping

(morning)

Preston No. 1 tower effluent

Preston raw water

Preston before air stripping

(afternoon)

^

Preston No. 13 tower effluent

Preston No. 26 tower effluent

Preston No. 40 tower effluent

Preston after air stripping

(afternoon) - treated

VGA

VOA, exiract, pest/PCB, metals

VOA, extract, pest/PCB, metals

VOA

VOA

VOA, extract, pest/PCB, metals

VOA

VOA .

VOA, extract, pest/PCB, metals

VOA

VOA

VOA

VOA

VOA, extract, pest/PCB, metals

A-4

001924 001924
Appendix A - Sample Remedial Close Out Report

15

16

Hialeah before air stripping

(afternoon)

Hialeah after air stripping

(afternoon) - treated

VOA

VOA, extract/ pest/PCB, metals

Poole & Kent, a mechanical contracting rirm selected by the competitive bid process,

performed the construction. The contractor had performed similar types of heavy

construction activities in the past and was well-equipped to administer this project

WSD has had previous experience with many construction contracts in which the

construction activity occurs in restricted and confined areas while also having to

maintain major treatment facilities in operatic:-. This experience, combined with the

contractor's similar knowledge, proved invaluable during the course of construction.

Change orders issued on both projects were no more than what is typical for

construction of this magnitude.

V. FINAL INSPECTION

A Pre-Final Inspection was conducted on October 29,1992 at me site. A list of

attendees is provided in Table 5 [Attach table providing this information]. Tours of the

treatment units were conducted at both plants. A list of incomplete construction items

was provided to me attendees at that time. A revised punch list of items is induded in

Appendix 32 [Attach appendix providing this information]. As-built drawings are being

finalized.

After the Pre-Final Inspection, EPA, with me concurrence of die State of California's

Department of Environmental Regulation, determined mat a Final Inspection was not

necessary, since the basic construction activity had been completed at the time of the

Pre-Final Inspection.

• VL CERTIFICATION THAT REMEDY IS OPERATIONAL AND FUNCTIONAL

(SUPPLIED BY EPA)

' 2 The punch Bat items did not have any si^lficant impact on Ac operation of the system, wh^

been in continuous operation since September 1992.

001925 001925
Appendix A - Sample Remedial Close Out Report

EPA determined that the system is operational and functional. The system began fullcapadty operation on September 1,1992, beating approximately 152 mgd. Since mat

time, no significant problems affecting me system have occurred. Furthermore, in

March 1993, EPA collected a series of split samples of influent and effluent water and

water from several individual air stripping towers at both of the water treatment

plants. Most of the samples were analyzed for VOCs, but several of the samples were

also ar alyzed for me complete Target Compound/Target Analyte List. Contaminants

were either not detected or were well below Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) in

all samples of treated water. These results confirm the results submitted by WSD (see

Tables 1-3).

VIL OPERATION AND MAINFENANCE PLAN

The air stripping facilities will be operated and maintained by the WSD's plant

personnel and maintenance staff. The operation and maintenance manual provides

general information and overview of the air stripping system. In addition; the

following topics are addressed: system operations, auxiliary systems, emergency

operations, utilities, electrical power, water quality control, maintenance, buildings,

personnel, plant security and employee safety, use and disposal of hazardous

materials, and summary of reference material. The revised manuals (one for each

plant) were submitted to EPA on December 22,1992. Each manual was subsequently

revised in response to EPA's comments and resubniitted to EPA in March 1993. EPA

ultimately approved me manuals. .

Vm. SUMMARY OF PROJECT COSTS

A summary erf project costs through October 1992, ir^uding substantially aU •

oonstmctiott costs, is pro videdm Table 4 f Attach teMeprtwidm^ this i^bnnoriw The

actual construction costs do not differ significantly from the cost estimate provided by

PoOlefcKenL However, me a)r^tructicmo>sts do differ from me estimates provided in

theROD. Various factoreconttibuted to the increased costs induding: Danalmost

50% mcreasem the designed capacity of the system, 2) a Tustcrical"f^^

later during the design process, and 3) complexities associated with unknown

underground conditions, induding unlisted utilities.

A-6

001926 001926
Appendix A - Sample Remedial Close Out Report

The estimated capilal costs were: $5,1^8,000

The actual capital costs were: $36,505/000

EPA and Sunshine County jointly funded this remedial action through a Cooperative

Agreement issued by EPA in September 1988. EPA's share of the costs was

approximately 41% of the total pioject costs, or $19,129,388. Total project costs include

capital costs, administrative costs, and up to one year of an "operational and functional"

period.

The funding ratio recognizes that WSD desired additional capacity beyond that

suggested in the ROD. The approved design called for a system capacity of 152 mgd,

•kith 70 mgd supplied by the contaminated wellfields. The funding ratio Is 70/152

mgd or 46% or c:.e tocal project capacity. Since the contamination resulted from

privately owned and operated sites, EPA's share is calculated as 9u7b of the eligible

total project or 41 % of die total project costs.

A-7

001927 001927
CLOSE OUT PROCEDURES FOR NATIONAL

APPENDIX B PRIORITIES LIST SITES

001928 001928
SAMPLE

PRELIMINARY

CLOSE OUT

REPORT

001929 001929
Appendix 1 • Sample Preliminary Close Out Report

Waste-Be-Gone Disposal Coxp.

Dumpsburg, Iowa

L INTRODUCTION

This Preliminary Close Out Report documents that the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) completed construction activities for the final operable unit (OU2) at the

Waste-Be-Gone Disposal Corp. site in accordance with Procedures/or Completion and

Delation of National Prioritfy List Sites and Update (OSWER Directive 9320.2-3C). EPA

and die Iowa Department of Environmental rrotecdon (State) conducted a pre-final

inspection on June 2,1999, and determined that the contractors have constructed the

remedy in accordance with remedial design (RD) plans and specifications, and no

further response is anticipated. EPA and the State have initiated me activities

necessary to achieve performance standards and site completion.

IL SUMMARY OF SITE CONDITIONS

Background

The Waste-Be-Gone Disposal Corp. site is a 40-acre facility located in Dumpsburg,

Refuse County, Iowa. The site ism a rural area in me south central portion of me State,

near the Missouri border. Approximately 180 persons live and work within one mile of

thesite. The majority of this populadon lives to the east of the site and obtains drinking

w&«er from a public supply. The nearest residential area, a small subdiwion of 28

persons, is approximately one-half mile to me east

Waste-Be-Gone Disposal has operated me site as a disposal facility since 1965.

Originally, the facility accepted only solid waste from residential sources. .However,

tnc facility accepted smaU quantities of pestiddes and othfir organic wastes generated

by the local agricultural industry from 1969 to 1971. Site records indic?te that the

majority of pestiddes and organic wastes were disposed of in Ac soumeastem portion

of the site. Additionally, site operators occasionaUy sprayed waste oil on me dirt access

roads as a dust suppressant.

Through initial investigations of the site, EPA determined that me following

001930 001930
Appendix B - Sample Preliminary Close Out Report

contaminants of concern were present in surface soil, with lower concentrations of these

contaminants found L\ underlying soil areas:

• Pesticides (including aldrin, 0.35 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg);

chlordane, 70 mg/kg; dichlorodiphenyl trichloroethane (DDT), 211

mg/kg; and toxaphene, 712 mg/kg);

• Solvents (including aceton'; 100 mg/kg, and toluene, 75 mg/kg); and

• • Metals (including arsenic/537 mg/kg).

These soil contaminants posed the greatest risk to human health through dermal

contact. Concentrations of contaminants in the ground water beneath the site have

been, and continue to be, below health-based levels, and therefore, do not pose a threat.

EPA proposed the site to the National Priorities List (NPL) on December 30,1987 (47

£K 58476), and added't to the final list on September 8,1988 (48 EK 40674).

Remedial Construction Activities

On June 28,1991, die Regional Administrator signed a Record of Decision (ROD)

documenting the remedial action (RA) for Operable Unit 1 (OU1), which included

implementing institutional controls and gro'und water monitoring as an interim

remedy. A second ROD on November 9,1795, selected the following remedy to

address OU2:

• Sampling and analysis of soil to define tile estimated lateral and vertical

extent of contamination;

• Excavating highly contaminated surface soil, primarily from the

southeastern portion of the site, which exceeds health-based performance

standards specified in the ROD;

• Treating the contaminated soil on-site using soil washing followed by

solidification/stabilization technologies and consolidating treatment

residuals in the main landfill area;

• Backfilling the excavated areas witii dean impermeable fill, regradmg,

andrevegetating;

• Placing a multi-media Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)

cap on tile landfill with subsequent revegetation;

001931 001931
Appendix B • Sample Preliminary Close Out Report

• Implementing site access and groundwater use restrictions; a. -^

• Continuing groundwater monitoring.

Health-based performance standards specified in the ROD are: aldrin, .25 mg/kg;

chlordane, 5 mg/kg; DOT, 10 mg/kg; toxaphene, 3 mg/kg; acetone, 10 mg/kg;

toluene, 1 mg/kg; and arsenic, 50 mg/kg. The selected remedy eliminates the principal

threat posed by the site by reducing the (oxicity and mobility of the highly

contaminated materials, thereby reducing the potential for exposure to pesticides,

solvents, and metals detected in surfidal soils.

Before beginning the RD, EPA sampled and analyzed surface and subsurface soil

primarily in me southeastern portion of the site and'along site access roads. The

analytical results indicated that approximately 1,375 cubic yards of highly

contaminated soil from the southeastern portion of me site and 800 cubic yards from

the site access roads would require excavation, treatment, and consolidation within the

main landfill area.

On August 21,1996, EPA /recessed a work assignment to the Remedial Action

Contractor (RAC) to develop a work plan for the RD. The RAC responded with the

final work plan on September 4,1996. The RAC completed me RD on February 10,

1997.

EPA formally awarded the RA contract on March 23,1998, thereby initiating the RA.

EPA and the State conducted remedial activities as planned, and no additional areas of

contamination were identified. Next, EPA conducted a pre-final inspection on June 2,

1999, in conjunction with the State, and developed a list of outstanding construction

items. The RA activities were performed according to design specifications set forth in

the 1997 RD package, including:

• Sampling and analyzing soils to define the area of contamination;

• Constructing on-site treatment systems for soil washing followed by

solidification/stabilization;

• Excavating and treating contaminated soils and backfilling the excavated

area;

• ConsoUdating treatment residues in the landfill;

• Regrading, capping, and revegetating the landfill; and

• Cbnstmcting a cham-unk fence around the perimeter of the site with a

locked gate to restrict me access of unauthorized persons and equipment,

001932 001932
Appendix B - Sample Preliminary Close Out Report

and posting appropriate warning signs.

During pilot-scale treatability tests, EPA monitored air quality and took dust

suppression measures to ensure that contaminated materials did not become an

airborne threat. EPA also continued to monitor the groundwater. Contaminant

concentrations analyzed within these media did not exceed health-based or regulatory

standards.

Remaining activities to be completed by the EPA contractor include periodic

adjustments and/or modifications to the constructed remedy to maintain optimum

performance, as well as demobilization of on-site facilities no longer required to

conduct the remedial action. EPA and the State have not yet concurred en the

operational an^ functior al (O&F) period.

III. DEMONSTRATION OF CLEANUP ACTIVITY QUALITY ASSURANCE

AND QUALITY CON'i ROL

Activities at the site were consistent with the ROD and the RD/RA statement of work

issued to contractors for design and construction. The RD Report, including a Quality

Assurance P. ^xt Plan (QAFP), incorporated all EPA and State quality assurance and

quality control (QA/QC) procedures and protocol. EPA analytical methods were used

for all validation and monitoring samples during RA activities. All procedures and

protocol foUowed for soU and air sample analysis during the RA are documented in the

RD Report and were conducted through a participating Contract Laboratory Program

(CLP) in accordance with the statement of work. The Pre-Fmal Inspection Report

contains documentation of the sampling results to date.

The QA/QC program used throughout the RA was rigorous and in confonnance with

EPA and state standards; therefore, EPA and the State determined that all analytical

results are accurate to the degree needed to assure satisfactory execution of the RA, and

consistent with me ROD and RD plans and specifications.

IV. ACTIVITIES AND SCHEDULE FOR SITE COMPLETION

The RA activities that remain to be completed for me Waste-Be-Gone Disposal site

indude conducting validation sampling and analysis in me excavated area, approving

001933 001933
Appendix B - Sample Preliminary Close Out Report

the operations and maintenance (O&M) plan, determining the O&F period,

demobilizing facilities, conducting a final inspection, preparing the RA Report,

conducting a five-year review and preparing the Five-Year Review Report, and

preparing the Final Close Out Report. These activities will be completed according to

^he following schedule,

Approve O&M Plan

Determine O&F Period

Complete Facility Demobilization

Complete Final Inspection

Approve RA Report

Approve Final Close Out Report

Deletion From NPL

06/30/00

12/?1. '(T

02/28/03

03/31/03

04/28/03

04/01/04

04/01/04

EPA/State

EPA/State

EPA Contractor

EPA/State

EPA/State

EPA

EPA

The Final Close Out Re]30rt will contain a risk assessment based upon validation

sampling and analysis, which EPA conducted to determine that the RA has achieved

EPA's excavation levels. This assessment will provide adequate documentation to

support deleting the site from the NPL.

V. FIVE-YEAR REVIEW

Hazardous substances ^will remain at the site above health-based levels after the

completion of the remedial action. Pursuant to CERCLA section 121 (c) and as provided

in OSWER Directive 93,55.7-02, Structure and Components of Two-Year Reviews, May 23,

1991, and OSWER Directive 9355.702A, Supplemental Five-Year Review Guidance, July 26,

1994, EPA murt conduct a statutory five-year review. The Five-Year Review Report

will be completed prior to March 2003 (five years after RA onsite mobilization).

Director, Waste Management Division Date

7-5

001934 001934
Appendix B • Sample Preliminary Close Out Report

Millets Metal Sw«*i».mg Corp.

Mellslown, Colorado

I. INTRODUCTION

This Preliminary Close Out Report documents that the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) completed all construction activities for the Miller's Metal Smelting

Corp. site in accordance with Procedures far Completion and Deletion of National Priorities

List Sites and Updp*" (OSWER Directive 9320.2-3C). EPA and the Colorado Department

of Health (State) conducted a pre-final inspection on May 16. ''995, and determined that

the potentially responsible parties (PRPs) constructed the remedy in accordance with

remedial design (RD) plans and specifications. The PRPs have initiated activities

necessary to achieve performance standards and site completion.

U. SUMMARY OF SITE CONDITIONS

Background

The Miller's Metal Smelting Corp. site is a 75-acre lead smelter in Mdtstown, Slag

County, Colorado. This site is just south of Midcounty Road and east of Evergreen

Street Approximately 230 persons live and work within a one-mile radius of the site.

The majority of mis population lives to the west of me site near Mdtstown, and most

obtain drinking water from a public supply. Six private wells are located within one

mile of the site.

Miller's Metal Smeltmg acquired the facility in 1956 from Carpenter Refining Corp. and

operated it until 1981. The facility had served as a primary lead smelter since me turn

ofthecentury. Throughout this time, ore typically was brought to the smelter via rail

cars md stored in several on-site facilities. Waste generated from the smelting process

included: a hot speiss from me dross plant which was pumped L.to the unlined spdss

pond, process waste water that was sent to Simpson Pond, and fugitive air emissions

from the smelter stack.

Contaminants of concern at the MiUei^s Metal Smeltmg site indude arsenic, cadmium,

andlead. The site posed potential threats to human health and the environment

001935 001935
Appendix B - Sample Preliminary Clo^ Jut Repor.

through dermal contact or ingesdon of conta'runated soil, sediment, groundwater, and

surface water, as well as inhalation of airborne contaminated-particulate matter.

EPA proposed the site to the National Priorities List (NPL) on September 8,1988 (53 £B

40674), and added it to the final list on September 21,1989 (54 £K 37070).

Remedial Construction Activities

On December 31,1992, the Regional Administrator signed a Record of Decision (ROD)

selecting the following remedy:

• Replacing the process oonds with steel tanks, installing secondary

containment for the tanks; and treating the process waste water v*a copredpitation prior to storage in the steel tanks;

• Excavating and disposing off-site approximately 150/000 cubic yards of

contamirated soil and sediments, followed by sampling;

• Pumping and treating contaminated groundwater via co-predpitation for

approximately 10 years, with groundwater monitoring; and

• Conducting surface water monitoring for 10 years after completion of the

remedial action <RA).

Hie ROD specified cleanup levels for soils and sediments, wastewater, and

groundwater. For soils and sediments contaminated with arsenic, cadmium, and lead,

the ROD specified excavation to a depth of 18 inches or until the 10^ risk level is

achieved. The cleanup levels for wastewater, containing arsenic, cadmium, and lead,

were 0.02 milligrams per liter (mg/1) for arsenic; 0.01 mg/1 for cadmium; and 0.004

mg/1 for lead. Lastly, the ROD specified cleanup levels for groundwater, reducing

levels of arsenic, cadmium, and lead to maximum contaminant levels of 0.05 mg/1,0.01

mg/1, and 0.05 mg/1, respectively.

to a consent decree signed with EPA, die PRPs agreed fee perform the remedial

design/remedial action (RD/RA). The RD was conducted in conformance with the

approvedROD. The RA was formally initiated on November 2,1993, when tixeFRP

awarded the RA contract. The contractor conducted remedial activities as planned, and

no additional areas of contamination were identified. EPA and the State conducted a

pre-final inspection on May 16,1995, which induded a description and schedule for

correcting minor oonstniction items by die contractor. EPA and die State determined

that die following RA activities were completed according to die ROD design

specifications:

T

7

001936 001936
Appendix B - Sample Preliminary Close Out Report

• Removing and treating process waste waters via co-preapitation, as well

as installing storage tanks and containment systems;

• Excavating and disposing off-site contaminated soil and sediments,

followed by sampling to characterize me excavated area; and

• Backfilling the excavated area with dean soil.

The contractor began pumping and treating the contaminated groundwater via copredpitation and will continue this process for an estimated 10 years. Remaining

activities to be completed by the contractor include any periodic adjustments and/or

modifications to the constructed remedy to maintain optimum performance. EPA and

the State have approved me operations and maintenance (0-&M) plan.

III. DEMONSTRATION OF CLEANUP ACTIVITY QUALITY ASSURANCE

AND QUALITY CONTROL

Activities at die site were consistent with the ROD, and all work plans were issued to

contractors for design and construction of the RA, including sampling ?*"1 analysis.

The RD Report, mduding a Quality Assurance Project Plan, incorporated all EPA and

State quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) procedures and protocol EPA*

analytical methods were used for all validation and monitoring samples during RA

activities. Sampling of soil, sediments, and water followed me EPA protocol Test

Methods for Evaluating Solid Wastes, Physical/Chemical Me/Quids. The Pre-Fmal Inspection

Report contains documentation of sampling results to date.

The QA/QC program used throughout me RA was rigorous in confonnance with EPA

and state standards; therefore, EPA and the State determined that all analytical results

are accurate to the degree needed to assure satisfactory execution of the RA and are

consistent with the ROD and die RD plans and specifications.

001937 001937
Appendix B - Sample Preliminary Close Out Report

IV. ACTIVITIES AND SCHEDULE FOR SITE COMPLETION

The following activities will be completed according to the following schedule:

Complete Punch List Items

Complete Final Inspection

Approve RA Close Out Report

Implement O&M Plan

Complete Surface Water Monitoring

Complete Ground Water Pump & Treat

Approve Final Close Out Report

09/15/9511/

16/96

01/15/97

09/15/03

09/15/05

10/01/05

12/31/05

PRP Contractor

EPA/State

EPA/State/PRPs

EPA/State

PRP Contractor

PRP Contractor

EPA

V. FIVE-YEAR REVIEW

Upon completion of this remedy, no hazardous substances will remain on-site above

levels that prevent unlimited use an dunrestricted exposure. However, because this

remedy will require greater than five years to adueve these levies, pursuant to

CERCLA section 121 (c) and as provided in OSWER Directive 9355.7-02, Structure an

dcomponents of Five-Year Reviews, May 23,1991, and OSWER Directive 9355.702A,

Supplemental Five-Year Review Guidance, July 26,1994, EPA must conduct a five-year

review. Therefore, the Five-Year review will be completed prior to November 1998

(five years after the award of the RA contract).

Director, Waste Management Division Date

001938 001938
CLOSE PLT PROCEDURES FOR NATIONAL

PRIORITIES LIST SITES

APPENDIX C

SAMPLE

FINAL

CLOSE OUT

REPORT

001939 001939
Appendix C - Sample Final Close Out Report

Metal Waste Products, Inc

Wasteville/ California

I. INTRODUCTION

This Final Close Out Report documents that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) completed all construction activities for the Metal Waste Products, me. site in

accordance with Procedures for Completion and Deletion of National Priorities Ust Sites and

Update (OSWER Directive 9320.2-3C). EPA and the California Department of Hcilth

Services (DHS) conducted a final inspection on July 26,1987, and determined that the

remedial action had been successfully executed.

IL SUMMARY OF Sr^E CONDITIONS

Background

The Metal Waste Products, me. site covers 9 acres in Wasteville, Hazard County,

California. The site is situated in an industrial area of town, approximately 2,000 feet

downstream from the confluence of the American and Sacramento Rivers.

Approximately 400 feet northwest and upstream of the site, is the surface water intake

supplying water for up to 145/000 people in Wasteville. Concern for impact on this

water supply was the primary reason me site was proposed for the National Priorities

List (NPD'on December 30,1982.

«

Between 1950 and 1965, the company salvaged all grades and types of metal, including

railroad cars, army tanks, batteries, and some electrical transformers. The total

Quantities of hazardous or non-hazardous materials handled or disposed of at this site

are unknown. In 1965, the State of California purchased the site as easement for the

pending construction of Interstate 5 (1-5). By 1967,1-5 and the realigned Main Street

covered 6.7 acrea of the original 9-acre site.

Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study

Between 1981, when the site first came to the attention of the California Department of

?

1

001940 001940
Appendix C - Sample Final Close Out Report

Health Services (DHa), and 1985, the 2.3 acres not covered by roadway structu^a and

adjacent areas were sampled seven times. EPA performed a remedial investigation (RI)

between June 1983 and June 1984. Lead, copper, and zinc were detected in the top foot

of soil throughout the 2.3 acres at levels significantly higher than State criteria.

Specifically, the maximum concentrations detected in the 27 surface samples from the

2.3 acres were 13,600 parts, per million (ppm) lead, 3,450 ppm copper, and 19,700 ppm

zinc. Of 48 subsurface samples from the 2 ?-acre area, contamination was detected at

only four locations at depths ranging from 3 to 10 feet below ground level. The final RI

report summarized all site analyses results.

On February 14,1985, EPA released a draft of the Feasibility Study (FS) for a threeweek public comment period. The FS provided an in-depth summary and discussion

of site sampling activities, a public health assessment, and an analysis of remedial

alternatives. The FS concluded that no action at the siie could result in a potential

health threat to the public through dermal contact with soil contaminated with lead.

The FS then provided a detailed analysis of capping, excavation and off-site removal,

encapsulation, and no action remedial alternatives.

ROD Findings

On May 9,19^ consistent with the Remedy Delegation Report of March 8,1985, the

Regional Administrator approved a Record of Decision (ROD), which selected

excavation and off-site disposal of all soil contaminated with lead above background

levels GOO ppm). This ROD was amended on October 4,1985, based on recent

guidance allowing dean site dosure action levels to exceed background levels where

EPA can demonstrate that the residual contamination would pose no threat to human

health or the environment Based on cleanup objectives at other Federal and State

hazardous waste sites, as well as recommendations from me VS. Centers for Disease

Control, the 500-ppm lead cleanup level was determined to be protective of health and

the environment at the site.

DedgnCriteda

On June 10,1985, EPA submitted an Interagency Agreement for $72^00 to the USAGE

to perform the remedial design. The RD was completed on August 28,1985.

Between April 1985 and September 1985, EPA and the State negotiated a State

Superfund Contract (SSC). The SSC was reviewed and revised five times before a final

contract was signed on April 1,1986. The SSC provided that the State pay 10% of the

001941 001941
Appendix C - Sample Final Close Out Report

remedial action costs and assume responsibility for all of the operation and

maintenance (O&M) requirements, as required by CERCLA.

Between October 1985 and March 1986, USACE held three open bid periods on the

remedial action construction contract. The contract award was delayed primarily

because of difficulties in implementing the previously untested EPA Off-Site Disposal

Policy (Procedures for Planning and Implementing Off-Site Response Actions, EPA

Memorandum, May 6,1985). EPA awarded a contract on July 17,1986, to U.S. Cleanup

Contractors for $1.95 million. The contractor identified in off-site disposal facility in

compliance with the Superfund off-site policy.

Remedial Construction Activities

On August 18,1986, EPA held a public meeting and gave a presentation to the City of

Wasteville Toxics.Commission on pending cleanup activities. EPA issued a Notice to

Proceed to the contractor on August 20,1986. After thorough review, the final work

plan was approved November 10,1986. On-site activities (specifically, background air

monitoring and site mobilization) began on October 17,1986. On November 20,1986,

EPA held a well-attended on-site press conference.

Excavation of contaminated soil began in October, 1986, and the first off-site shipment

of contaminated soil occurred December 2,1986. During me on-site stockpiling of

material in October and November of 1986, the contractor discovered the first of many

unanticipated subsurface objects. These items included concrete foundations and

footings, gas cylinders, drums, and sewer lines.

The contractor sampled all material discovered to identify any hazardous materials,

except for concrete which was taken directly to the approved disposal facility. Any

material found to contain lead at levels greater than 500 ppm or any RCRA priority

' pollutant at levels higher than de minimus levels was also rec.'.oved to die approved

facility. In all, the contractor removed approximately ll^XX) tons of contaminated

material, over twice the amount originally estimated in die ROD. Following {he

removal of all contaminated soil and debris, the site was covered with three feet of

dean fill-material, regraded to ensure proper drainage, and hydroseeded to prevent

soil erosion.

The contractor completed remedial construction in early May 1967 and EPA, USACE,

' and DHShdd a pre-final inspection on May 27,1987. Establishing vegetation required

an additional 60 days before the construction contract could be tenned completed. On

July 26,1987, USACE conducted the final inspection in conjunction with State and EPA

C-3

001942 001942
Appendix C • Sample Final Close Out Report

representatives and determined that the rem<- Ual action had been successfully

oecuted.

On March 30,1988, USAGE submitted a Remedial Action Report signifying successful

completion of construction activities. The report documents and discusses the 21

change orders issued throughout the project. Due to change orders and a growth in the

quantities removed, the total remedial action contract cost ($3,991,315) exceeded the

original $1.95 million contract.

Community Relations Activities

i ne water supply was the object of considerable public interest in Wasteville. As a

result, the Regions comm.unity relations staff conducted an a«.Jve campvy to ensure

that the residents were well-informed about the activities at the site. Community

relations activities included: public meetings, an on-site press conference, routine

publication of progress fact sheets, and a final dose-out meeting and site tour when site

construction activities were completed.

IIL DEMONSTRATION OF CLEANUP ACTIVITY QUALITY ASSURANCE

AND QUALITY CONTROL

EPA and USACE carefully reviewed the remedial action contract for compliance with

all EPA and USACE quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) procedures and

protocol Only EPA analytical methods, or where no EPA methods existed, other

Federally approved methods were used (such as National Institute of Occupational

Safety and Health methods for the analysis of airborne contaminants).

All procedures and protocol followed for scil and air sample analysis during die

remedial action are well documented. The EPA Field Investigation Team (FTT) and the

EPA Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory sampled and analyzed ground

water. Only EPA procedures and protocol were employed. The summary reports

comprehensively document the ground-water sampling and analytical results.

The QA/QC program used throughout' the remedial action was rigorous and in

oonfonnance with federal and state standards; therefore, EPA and USACE determined

mat all analytical results are accurate to me degree needed to assure satisfactory

execution of me remedial action consistent with the ROD and me RD plans and

specifications. All equipment used for sampling met the criteria established for

04

/

001943 001943
Appendix C - Sample Final Close Out Report

accuracy and were calibrat^ »d to assure the accuracy of the results.

IV. MONITORING RESULTS

The contract for the remedial action detailed a rigorous sampling and analysis program

for the remedial action. Specifically, sampling was required and implemented to: 1)

protect the off-site public, 2) protect on-site workers, and 3) confirm compliance with

RA objectives. The sampling program included:

• Daily perimeter air monitoring for total particulates, respirable

particulates, total lead;

• Daily personnel air sampling of exclusion-zone workers for copper, lea^,

and zinc;

• ' Random instantaneous on-site and perimeter air sampling for total

particulates;

• Confirmatory soil sample(s) for all EPA priority pollutants wherever

additional contamination was suspected or known to occur;

• Complete sampling of backfill soil for all EPA priority pollutants; and

• Ground-water samples to confirm all EPA priority pollutants.

The contractor excavated and removed additional soil to the approved disposal facility

wherever lead was detected at a level above 500 ppm or any priority pollutant was

detected at a level higher than acceptable risk standards. Overall, contaminated soil

was excavated to depths greater than one foot from over 50 percent of the Z3-acre site,

resulting in die removal of 11,000 cubic yards of material. Subsequent sampling

confirmed that this quantity was sufficient to ensure that all contamination was

removed from die site, and that the cleanup level for lead of 500 ppm specified in the

ROD was achieved.

The RnalTechmc^ Report and Contractor Quality Control Summary Report contains

documentation of the complete results and accuracy of die confirmatory sampling

program.

V. SUMMARY OF OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

C-5

001944 001944
Appendix C - Sample Final Close Out Report

The cleanup uf the site complies with th* "dee. i closur." requirem -•- consistent with

the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, as amended, 40 CFR section

264.111. Site operation and maintenance (O&M) activities to be performed include

annual inspections of the site to ensure erosion control measures are effective, routine

mowing, and maintenance of the perimeter fence. Per the SSC, the State has assumed

all responsibility for O&M.

VI. FROTECTTVENESS

This site meets all the site completion requirements as specified in uSWER Jirective

9320.2-3C, Prc'eduresfor Cumpletion and Deleticr. ^National Priorities List Sites and

Update. Specifically, confirmatory sampling verifips that the sit? has achieved the ROD

cleanup objective, that all lead has been removed to levels below 500 ppm, and that all

cleanup actions specified in 'the ROD have been implemented. Furthermore, EPA has

removed all other contamination detected to acceptable risk levels. Confirmatory

ground-water sampling and backfilling the site with dean soil provide further

assurance that die site no longer poses any threats to human health or the environment.

The only remaining activity to be performed is O&M that the State has guaranteed. A

bibliography of all reports relevant to the completion of this site under the Superfund

program is attached. These documents are available by calling the Regional Office at

(415)555-1111.

VIL FIVE-YEAR REVIEW

Because no hazardous substances remain at the site above health-based levels, EPA will

not conduct a five-year review.

Approved By: Disapproved By.

Regional Administrator Date ' Regional Administrator Date

C-6

/

001945 001945
Appendix C - Sample Final Close Out Report

VIII. BIF ^GRAPHY

[Include complete citations of all documents relevant to the cleanup of the site.]

C-7

I001946 001946
APPENDIX D CLOSE OIT' PPOCEDURFS FOR NATIONAL

PRIORITIES LIST SITES

001947 001947
SAMPLE

NOTICE OF

INTENT TO

DELETE

001948 001948
Appendi". D • Sample Notice of Intent to Delete

^nited States Army Fort Lewis Landfill No. 5

Fort Lewis Military Reservation, Washington

SUMMARY:

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 10 announces its intent to delete

die United States Army Fort Lewis Landfill No. 5 from the National Priorities List

(NPL) and requests public comment on this proposed action. The NPL constitutes

Appendix B of 40 CFR part 300 which is the National Oil and Hazardous Substances

Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), which EPA promulgated pursuant to Section 105 of

me Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and liability Act

(CERCLA) of 1980, as amended. EPA and the State cf Washington Department of

Ecology (Ecology) have determined that the Site poses no significant threat to public

health or the environment and, therefore, further remedial measures pursuant to

CERCLA are not appropriate.

DATES:

s

Comments co" ""rning this Site may be submitted on or before April 26,1995.'

ADDRESSES:

Comments may be mailed to: Mary Jane Neannan, U. S. Environmental Protection

Agency, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Mail Stop: HW-124, Seattle, Washington 98101.

Comprehensive information on this Site is available through me public docket which is

available for vipwing at the Fort Lewis Landfill No. 5 site information repositories at

die following locations:

TUlicum library, 14916 Washington Avenue SW., Tacoma, WA 98498.

Lakewood library, 6300 WUdaire Road, Taooma, WA 98499.

Fort Lewis Environmental and Natural Resources Division, AtA: Paula

' Wofford, Fort Lewis, WA 98433-5000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

D-l

/

001949 001949
Appendix D - Sample Notice of Intent to delete

Mary Jane Nearman, U.S. EPA Region 10,1200 Sixth Avenue, Mail Stop: HW-124,

Seattle, Washington 98101, (206) 553-6o-«2.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Introduction.

IL NPL Deletion Criteria.

in. Deletion Procedures.

IV. Basis of Intended Site Deletion.

I. Introduction

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 10 announces its intent to delete

the United States Army Fort Lewis Landfill No. 5 Site at the Fort Lewis Military

Reservation, Washington 98433-5000 from the National Priorities List (NPL), Appendix

B of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), 40

CFR part 300, and requests comments on this deletion. EPA identifies sites mat appear

to present a significant risk to public health, welfare, or me environment ar.d maintains

the NPL as the list of thsse sites. As described in §300.425(e)(3) of the NCP, sites

deleted from the NPL remain eligible for remedial actions in the unlikely event that

conditions at the site warrant such action.

EPA will accept comments on me proposal to delete mis Site for thirty days after

publication of mis notice in me Federal Register.

Section n of this iiotioe explains the criteria for deleting sites from the NFL. Section m

discusses the procedures that EPA is using for this action. Section IV discusses* the Fort

Lewis Landfill No. 5 Site and explains how me Site meets the deletion criteria.

It NPL Deletion Criteria

< , .

Section 3u0.425(e) of the NCP provides that releases may be deleted from, or

recategorized on the NFL where no further response is appropriate. mmakinga

detennination to delete a release from me ^T., EPA shaU consider, mcoroultation

wi& the state, whether any of the following criteria have been met:

(i) Responsible parties or other parties have implemented all appropriate

D-2

001950 001950
Appendix D - Sample Notice of Intent to Delete

response actions required;

(ii) All appropriate response under CERCLA has been implemented, and no

further action by responsible parties is appropriate; or

(iii) 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.

Even if a site is deleted from the NFL, where hazardous substances, pollutants, or

contaminants remain at the site above levels that allow for unlimited use and

unrestricted exposure, EPA's policy is that a, subsequent review of the site will be

conducted at lea&t every five years after the LiitiaUon of the n^edlal action at the site

to ensure that the site remains protective of public health and the environment. In the

case of this Site, the selected remedy is protective of human health and the

environment. Consistent with Section XIX of the Fort Lewis Federal Facility

Agreement, the Department of the Army will conduct a five-year review of this final

remedy. If new information becomes available which indicates a need for further

action, EPA may initiate remedial actions. Whenever there is a significant release from

a site deleted from the NPL, the site may be restored to the NFL without the

application of the Hazard Ranking System.

IIL Deletion Procedures

The following procedures were used for the intended deletion of this Site: (1) EPA

Region 10 and the United States Army issued a Record of Decision which documented

th^t no further remedial action is necessary at Fort Lewis LamJuiU No. 5 to ensure

protection of human health and the environment; (2) Ecology concurred with the

proposed deletion decision; (3) A notice has been published in {he local newspaper and

has been distributed to appropriate federal, state, and local officials and other

mterested parties aJinouncmg the commencement of a 30-^y public comment neriod

on EPA's Noticp of Intent to Delete; and, (4) All relevant documents have been made

availabte for publk review m the local Site information repofiitories.

Deletion of the Site froon tiie NFL does not itself o-eate, alter, or revoke any individual's

rights or obligations. The NPL is designed primarily for informational purposes and to

assist Agency management. As mentioned m Section Hot this Notice, 3 300.425(eX3)or

001951 001951
Appendix D - Sample Notice of Intent to Delete

the NCP states that the del ': "n of a site from the NPL does not preclude eligibility fc

future response actions.

For deletion of this Site, EPA's Regional Office will accept and evaluate public

comments on EPA's Notice of Intent to Delete before making a final decision to delete.

If necessary, the Agency will prepare a Responsiveness Summary to address any

significant public comments received.

A deletion occurs when the Regional Administrator places a final notice in the Federal

Register. Generally, the NPL will reflect deletions in the final update following the

Nodce. Public notices and copies of the Responsiveness Summary will be made

available to local residents by the Regional office.

IV. Basis for Intended Site Deletion

The following site summary provides the Agency's rational for the proposal to deleted

this Site from the NPL.

A. Site Background

The Fort Lewis Landfill No. 5 NPL site is a oO-aae landfill located adjacent to the

Dupont-Steilacoom Highway on the west side of the Fort Lewis Military Reservation in

Pierce County, Washington. It is approximately 1.5 miles norm of Dupont and 3.5

miles south of Steilacoom.

B. History

TheFcrtLewisLandfiUNo.5NPLsiteoperatedfroml%7duoughJulyl990.It

•accepted mixed municipal solid waste (industrial, commercial, and residential)

demolition waste (concrete, asphalt, wood, steel, and other builcLig debris) from the

Fort Lewis Military Reservation, VA Medical Center, and McChord Air Force Base.

As a result of iron and manganese contamination found in nearby groundwater,

Landfill No. 5 was added to the NPL in 1987. In 1988, the Army, with oversight

provided by EPA and the State of Washington Department of Ecology, began a

Remedial Investigation (RI) to characterize the nature and extent of contamination and

to assess potential risks to human health and the environmenL

Based on die results of me RI and risk assessment, a Record of Decision (ROD) for die

Site was signed on July 24,1992. The ROD documented the decision that no further

EM

/

001952 001952
Appendix D - Sample Notice of Intent to Delete

remedial action was necessary at Fort Lewis L<- idfill N y 5 because n • conditions at

the site pose no unacceptable risks to hunu^i health or the environment. The Army will

continue to implement the operating and closure requirements of Landfill No. 5 under

a permit administered by the Tacoma-Rerce County Health Department. The closure

complies with State Minimum Functional Standards for Solid Waste Handling,

pursuant to Washington Administrative Code (WAS) 173304.

C. Characterization of Risk

The RI included an investigation of the surface water, sediments, air, and groundwater

in the vicinity of the landfill. The investigation included a wide range of analyses to

detect volatile organic compounds, base/neutral and add extractable compounds,

pesticides, and polychlorinated biphenyls, and inorganic compounds (inducing

metals,'. Conce itrations fr d were below stah* and federal regulatory leveb-and risks

for both current and future use were within acceptable levels as '-lefined by the NCP.

The results of the ecological risk assessment indicate that Landfill No. 5 does not pose a

threat to ecological receptors or habitats. No endangered or sensitive resident species

or critical habitats were identified in the study areas.

' Confirmational monitoring of groundwater demonstrate that no significant risk to

public health or me environment is posed by residual materials remaining at the Site.

EPA and Ecology believe that conditions at the site pose no unacoep*a'^l-. risks to

human health or the environment.

One of de three criteria for deletion specifies that EPA may delete a site from the NPL

if "the remedial investigation has shown that the release poses no significant threat to

public health or die environment and, therefore, taking of remedial measures is not

appropriate." EPA, with concurrence of Ecology, believes that this criterion for deletion

has been met. Subsequently, EPA is proposing deletion of this Site from {he NPL.

Documents supporting this action are available from the docket

Date Regional Administrator

U.S. EPA Region 10

001953 001953
CLOSE OUT PROCEDURES FOR NATIONAL

/JTENDIX E PRIORITIES LIST SITES

001954 001954
SAMPLE

LOCAL NOTICE

OF INTENT TO

DELETE

001955 001955
Appendix E - Sample Local Notice of Intent to Delete

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announces the deletion of the ABC

Recycling Co. site in Wasteland, Idaho, from the National Priorities List (NPL), which

is Appendix B of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency

Plan (NCP). EPA requests comments on this deletion. EPA and the State have

determined that all appropriate Fund-financed responses under Comprehensive

Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), as amended,

have been implemented and that no further cleanup by responsible parties is

appropriate. Moreover, EPA and the State have determined that remedial actions

conducted at the site to date have been protective of public health, welfare, and the

environment. However, this deletion does not preclude future actions under

'''iperfund.

The public is invited to comment on the proposed decision to delete this site from the

NPL. The public comment period will begin on January 1,1999, and extend for 30

days* Written comments must be postmarked no later than January 30,1999, and

should be addressed to:

Name: Jane Doe

Address: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10

Region 10 Docket Offix

1200 Sixth Avenue

Seattle, WA 98101 \

Oral comments will also be received through this date and should be directed to Susan

Johnson at (206) 555-1111.

A local repository has been established to provide detailed information concerning this

site at the following address:

Name: John Doe

Address: Local Superfund Information Repository

111 Main Street

Wasteland, ID 84601

E-l

/

001956 001956
CLOSE OUT PROCEDURES FOR NATIONAL

APPENDIX PRIORITIES LIST SITES F

001957 001957
SAMPLE

NOTICE OF

DELETION

001958 001958
Appendix F • Sample Notice of Deletion

United States Army Fort -ewis Landfill No. 5

Fort Lewis Military Reservation, Washington

SUMMARY:

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announces the deletion of the United

States Army Fort Lewis Landfill No. 5 site located Pierce County, Washington, from the

National Priorities List (NPL). The NPL is Appendix B of the National Oil and

Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan (NCP), which EPA. promulgated pursuant to

section 105 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and

Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended. EPA and the State, of Washington ...... .

Department of Ecology have determined the Site poses no significant threat :o public

health or the environment and, therefore, no further remedial measures pursuant to

CERCLA are appropriate.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 22,1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTA CT:

Mary Jane Nearman, Site Manager, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10,

1200 Sixth Avenue, Mail Stop: HW-124, Seattle, Washington 98101, (206) 553-6642.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The site to be deleted from the NPL is: United States Army Fort Lewis Landfill No. 5,

Pierce County, Washington.

A Notice of Intent to Delete for this site was published on March 27,1995, (60 FR

15737). The closing date for comments on the Notice of Intent to Delete was April 26,

1995. EPA received no comments.

EPA identifies sites that appear to present a significant risk to public health, welfare, or

the environment and it maintains the NPL as the list of those sites. Any site deleted

from the NPL reanains eligible for Fund-financed remedial actions in the unHkeiy event

that conditions at the site warrant such action in the future, NCP section 300.425(e)(3) of

theNCP. Deletion of a site from the NPL does not affect responsible party Uability or

impede agency efforts to i-ecover costs associated with response efforts.

List of Subjects in 40 CRI Part 300

F-l .

001959 001959
Appendix F - Sample Notice of Deletion

Environmental protection, — pollution control. Chemicals, Hazardous Waste,

Hazardous substances,, Intergovernmental relations. Penalties, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Superfund, Water pollution control, and Water supply.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 300 is amended as follows:

Part 300 -[Amended]

The authority citation jFor Part 300 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 9601-9657; 33 U.S.C. 1321 (c)(2); E.0.12777,56 FR 54757,

3 CFR 1991 Comp., p 351; E.0.12580,52 FR 2923; 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 193.

Appendix B [Amended]

2. Table 2 of Appendix B to part 300 is amended by removing the site United States

Army Fort Lewis Landfill No. 5, Pierce County, Washington.

Date Regional Administrator

U.S.EPA Region 10

F-2

001960 001960
CLOSE OUT PROCEDURES FOR NATIONAL

APPENDIX G PRIORITIES LIST SITES

001961 001961
SUPERrUND

ACRONYMS LIST

001962 001962
Appendix G - Superfund Acronyms L 1- .

SUPERFUND ACRONYMS LIST

CERCLA: Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

of 1980, as amended

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

COR: Close Out Report

EPA: Environmental Protection Agency

FR; Federal Register

HQ: EPA Headquarters

HRS: Hazard Ranldng System

LTRA: Long-Term Remedial Action

MCL: Maximum Contaminant Level

NCP: National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan

NOD: Notice of Deletion

NOID: Notice of Intent to Delete

NPL: National Priorities List

O&M: Operations and Maintenance

ORC: Office of Regional Counsel

OSWER Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response

OU: Operable Unit

PA: Preliminary Assessment

POLREP: Pollution Report

PRP: Potentially Responsible Party

QA/QC: QuaUty Assurance/Quality Control

RA: Remedial Action

RCRA: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, as amended

G-l

001963 001963
Appendix G - Superfund Acronyms List

RD: Remedial Design

RI. Remedial Investigation

RI/FS: Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study

ROD: Record of Decision

SP: Responsible Party

RPM: Remedial I^roject Manager

SARA: Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986

^T: Site Inspection

USACE: United Stales Army Corps of Engineers

G-2

/

001964 001964
CLOSE OUT PROCEDURES FOR NATIONAL

APPENDIX H PRIORITIES LIST SITES

001965 001965
GLOSSARY

001966 001966
Appendix G - Glossary

GLOSSARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL TERMS

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR): Document that codifies final regulations having

general applicability and legal effect that have previously appeared in the Federal

Register.

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

(CERCLA): A Federal law passed in 1980 that est-'-lshed Federal authority for

responding to the release of hazardous substances into the environment including

creating a Federal fund to finance responses and imposing liability for releases on the

responsible parties. CERCLA was amended in 1986 by the Superfund Amendments

-nd Reauthorization Act.

Final Close Out Report: A 'stand alone' report documenting <v>mpliance with the

statutory requirements of CERCLA and providing a consolidated record of all remedial

activities at all of a site's operable units.

Final Pollution Report (POLREF): The document that signifies that a removal has

been completed (i.e., when all objectives outlined in the Action Memorandum and any

addenda, such as removal and transport of wastes off site, waste disposal, and

demobilization have been accomplished).

Hazard Ranking System (HRS): A scoring system developed as part of the National

Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contir.gency Plan (NCP) used to evaluate

potential relative risks to public health and the environment from releases or

threatened releases of hazardous substances. EPA and States use the HRS to calculate a

site score based on an actual or potential release of hazardous substances from a site

through air migration, surface water migration, groundwater migration, or soil

exposure pathways. This score is used to dedde if a hazardous waste site should be

placed on the National Priorities list (NPL).

Hazardous Substance: Under CERCLA section 101(14), any element, compound,

mixture, solution, or substance that, when released to the environment, may present

substantial danger to public he dth/wdfare o.- the environment The term also includes

substances designated as hazardous or toxic under me Clean Air Act, the Federal Water

Pollution Control Act, as amended by the Clean Water Act of 1986, the Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act, as amended and die Toxic Su^tances Control Act.

The term does not encompass petroleum, including crude oil, natural gas liquids,

liquefied natural gas, or synthetic gas usable for fuel.

Load .Notice of Intent to Delete: A notice published in a local newspaper of general

G-l

001967 001967
Appendix G - Glossary

circulation, announcing the agency's intent co delete a site from the NPL. It also

announces a 30-day public comment period/ among other things, and identifies the

location of the local repository.

Long-Term Response Action (LTRA): A site that requires a long/ continuous period of

on-site activity before the cleanup levels specified in the ROD are achieved.

National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP): The

regulation for Federal response actions under CERCLA, commonly referred to as the

National Contingency Plan, or NCP. The NCP sets forth the Hazard Ranking System

and establishes procedures and standards for responding to releases of hazardous

substances. The plan has been codified in Title 40 CFR Part 300.

National Priorities List (NPL): EPA's list o'' thc» ^ost serious uncontroUec hazardous

waste sites identified for possible long-term remedial response. This list is based

primarily on the score a site receives on the Hazard Ranking System. EPA is required

to update the NPL at least once a year.

Notice of Deletion (NOD): A notice published in the Federal Register announcing a

site's deletion from the NPL.

Notice'of Intent to Delete (NOID): A notice published in the Fpdpral Register

announcing die Agenc/s intent to delete a site from the NPL. This notice provides

information about the site and associated cleanup activities, and provides the public

with a 30-day public coniment period.

Operable Unit (OIJ): A term for each of a number of discrete activities undertaken as

part of a Superfund site cleanup. An example of an operable unit would be removing

drums and tanks from a surface of a site.

Operation and Maintenance (O&M): Activities conducted at a site after a Superfund

site action is completed to ensure mat the action is effective and operating properly.

Potentially Responsible Party (PRP): Any individual(s) or company(s) (such as

owner, operator, transporter, or generator) potentially responsible for, or contributing

to, contamination at a CERCLA site. Whenever possible, EPA requires PRPs, through

administrative and legal, actions, to dean up hazardous waste sites mat they have

contaminated.

Preliminary Assessment (PAh The process of collecting and reviewing existing

information about a known or suspected hazardous waste site or release. EPA uses this

information to determine if the site requires further study. If further study is needed, a

G-2

001968 001968
Appendix G - Glossary

site inspectiori is performed.

Preliminary Close Out Report: A report, documenting the completion of the physical

remedy construction at a site, that is prepared after wcrk at the final operable unit is

complete. To name a few, it summarizes the release at the site, site conditions,

construction activities, and any response actions.

Quality Assurance/Quality Control <QA< QC): A system of procedures, checks, audits,

and corrective actions to ensure that all EPA research design and performance,

environmental monitoring and sampling, and other technical reporting activities are of

the highest achievable quality.

Record of Decision (ROD): A public document that expl?ins which cleanup

altemative<s) wiil be used 01 National Priorities List sites. The ROD is based on

information and technical analysis generated during the remedial

investigation/feasibility study and consideration of public comments.

Remedial Action (RA): Taken instead of or in addition to a removal action, a remedial

response is the permanent remedy taken at a site; it seeks to proven;, or minimize the

release of hazardous substances and to prevent further migration. Remedial actions

may include storage, confinement, perimeter protection, neutralization, cleanup,

recycling, repair of leaking containers, bioremediation, and indnerc.d.-:-..

Remedial Action Report: The Remedial Action Report documents the activities that

occur under each specific remedial action operable unit at a site.. It also provides

documentation that a particular operable unit has met its-objectives, and certifies that

all items in the settlement agreement and any incorporated documents have been met.

Remedial Design (%D): A phase of remedial action that follows the remedial

investigation/feasibility sludy and includes development of engineering drawings and

sptidfications for a site cleanup.

Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS): Two distinct but related studies.

They are usually performed at the same time, and together are referred to as the RI/FS.

They are intended to: (1) gather the data necessary to determine die type and extent of

contamination at a C^RCLA site listed on the National Priorities List (2) establish

criteria for cleaning up the site; (3) identify and screen cleanup alternatives for remedial

action; and (4) analyze in detail me technology and costs of the alternatives.

Remedial Project Manager (RPMh The EPA or state official responsible for overseeing

remedial action at a site.

G-3

001969 001969
Appendix G - Glossary

Removal Action (RA);; The cleanup or remo' 1«,.' released hazard?" s substances from

the environment or the taking of other actions as may be necessary to prevent,

minimize, or mitigate damage to the public health or welfare when immediate action is

considered to be necessary. In addition to physically removing hazardous substances

from the site, removal actions may include measures to limit access to the site and the

provision of alternative water supplies and temporary housing.

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA): An amendment to the Solid Waste

Disposal Act, addressing the safe management of the hazardous and non-hazardous

municipal and industrial waste generated nationwide. This act governs hazardous

waste treatment, storage and disposal facilities, and was amended in 1984 by the

rL^zardous and Solid Waste Amendments.

Site Inspection (SI): An. investigatory phase following a preliminary assessment in

which more extensive information is collected through site sampling. The collected

information is used to score a site under the Hazard Ranking System to determine

whether the site will be placed on the National Priorities List.

Superfund: The common name used for the Comprehensive Environmental Response,

Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended in 1986 and the EPA activities

implementing the Act.

..,-'

Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA): Amendments to

CERCLA enacted on October 17,1986, that expanded the size of the cleanup fund,

established cleanup standards and deadlines for response actions, and addressed

cleanup of Federal facilities.

Trust Fund: Commonly referred to as "Superfund," this is a fund established by

CERCLA to pay for the cleanup of hazardous waste sites and for the costs of legal

action necessary to force those responsible for creating the sites to dean them up or pay

for dean up costs.

001970 001970