United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Emergency
and Remedial
Response (OERR)
EPA-540-R-99-002
OSWER-9200.0-29A
PB99-963217
March 1999
-------
Foreword
C.PA's series of reforms have fundamentally changed the Superfund pro-
gram. Today, the program is working better than evercleaning up hundreds
of hazardous waste sites and protecting public health and the environment.
EPA remains committed to completing these reforms and fully integrating
them into its base program operations.
This report highlights Superfund accomplishments through FY98, showing
how EPA is cleaning up sites faster, fairer, and more efficiently. The data
reported are current through September of 1998 unless otherwise noted.
Those seeking additional information on the reforms should visit the new
Superfund Reforms Website at http://www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/
reforms/. The website outlines the history of the Superfund reforms and
provides detailed information on each reform, including results and success
stories, document links and downloads, answers to commonly asked ques-
tions, and contact information.
Annual Report FY 199Q
-------
Table of Contents
Foreword i
Table of Contents iii
Introduction 1
Superfund Program Accomplishment Headlines
Potentially Responsible Parties Commit to Over $15 Billion 5
Program Exceeds $1 Billion in Cost Savings 8
Revitalizing America's Land 13
Getting the Little Guy Out 20
Success Through Partnerships 22
Reforms at a Glance and the Enforcement Pilots
Reforms at a Glance 30
Round 3 31
Round 2 40
The Enforcement Pilots 47
PRP Search Pilots 48
Expedited Settlement Pilots 50
The Allocation Pilots 52
Community Involvement in the Enforcement Process Pilots 58
MI
-------
Introduction
he Superfund program is workingcleaning up hundreds of hazardous
waste sites and protecting public health and the environment. Since EPA
announced the first round of reforms in 1993, the Agency has made
Superfund a fundamentally different and better program. EPA has imple-
mented three rounds of reforms in seven major categories: cleanups,
enforcement, risk assessment, public participation and environmental
justice, economic redevelopment, innovative technology, and state and
tribal empowerment. EPA remains fully committed to completing these
reforms and integrating them into its base program operations. Through
reform efforts, the Superfund program is protecting public health and the
environment in a way that is faster, fairer, and more efficient.
The first round of reforms, announced in June 1993, responded to common
stakeholder concerns about the Superfund program, focusing primarily on
expediting site cleanups and increasing liability fairness. Through first-round
reform implementation, EPA surpassed its goal of tripling the number of
construction completion sitesbringing over 200 sites to this stage by the end
of FY93. Over the next two years, EPA removed thousands of small contribu-
tors from the liability system and produced several guidance documents on
improving cleanup efficiency. In February 1995, EPA closed out the first round
of reforms with the issuance of the "Superfund Administrative Improvements
Closeout Report."
EPA introduced the second round of reforms in February 1995. This round
strengthened and improved the program by testing many of the innovations
embodied in the proposal for the Superfund Reform Act of 1994. Round two
initiatives produced both pilot projects and guidance designed to promote
economic redevelopment and innovative technology, enhance public involve-
ment, and empower states and tribes.
Finally, EPA announced the third round of reforms in October 1995. This
round took a "common-sense" approach to reform and targeted the con-
cerns of stakeholders. Round three consists of 20 reforms that promote
cost-effective cleanup choices, reduce litigation and transaction costs, and
ensure that states and communities are informed and involved in cleanup
decisions.
EPA remains committed to fully implementing the reforms, refining or im-
proving them where necessary, and broadening their impact by effectively
communicating the scope, goal, and success of each initiative. As the
Agency evaluates each reform, it will continue to incorporate the most
successful ideas into the entire Superfund program.
paqe 1
-------
Introduction
This report highlights a number of significant program achievements attrib-
uted to the Superfund Reforms. Through improvements fostered by the
reforms, EPA has:
Accelerated the pace of cleanups to achieve "construction comple-
tion" status at approximately 47 percent of the non-federal facility
NPL sites; an additional 30 percent of the non-federal facility NPL sites
had their cleanup remedy under construction.
Worked with potentially responsible parties (PRPs) to obtain over $15
billion in commitments to conduct response work and reimburse
Agency costs, saving taxpayers' money;
Streamlined and enhanced the remedy selection process, producing
estimated future cost reductions or savings of over $1 billion;
Facilitated productive use at numerous sites by removing over 30,000
sites from CERCLIS and awarding 227 Brownfield Pilot grants;
Removed 18,000 small contributors from the Superfund liability
system; and
Partnered with various stakeholders to address Superfund concerns,
establishing over 45 community advisory groups (CAGs) and award-
ing over 200 technical assistance grants (TAGs).
A strong indication of the reforms' success is the number of sites on the NPL
where the construction of cleanup remedies has been completed (construc-
tion completion). In only two years, FY97 and FY98, EPA completed construc-
: US EPA
The Industri-Plex site in Woburn,
Massachusetts, illustrates Superfund's
effectiveness in returning sites to
productive use. Once a contaminated
property that threatened human health
and the environment, the site is now
poised to become a major commercial
and retail district that will include a
Target store (shown below), a state
regional transportation center, and a
wetlands preserve.
Source: Dnytott-Hstdsoa Corporation
gal Report FY 1998
page
-------
Introductior
tion at 175 sites on the NPL, far exceeding the target of 130 construction
completion sites for those years. Of the 175 sites completed during FY97 and
FY98, 128 sites (or 73 percent) are designated as enforcement-lead, demon-
strating the success of both the "enforcement first" policy and the numerous
enforcement reforms. In addition, the 175 sites account for 30 percent of the
total 585 sites completed since the program's inception in 1980. These 585
construction completions account for 43 percent of all NPL sites and approxi-
mately 47 percent of the non-federal facility sites as of October 3, 1998. Based
on these results, the Superfund program plans to exceed the Agency target
of 650 construction completion sites during FY99, one year earlier than
originally expected.
Forty of the 175 sites completed during FY97 and FY98 were added to the NPL
during the 1990smeaning that EPA has completed cleanup at a total of 111
sites that were added to the NPL during the 1990s. Completion of these sites
A site is considered
to reach "construction completion" when physical construction of all cleanup
remedies is complete, all immediate threats have been addressed, and all
long-term threats are under control.
Pace of Site Cleanup Accelerates
Total Number of Construction Completions
500
450 -1
400
250
| 200
2 150
50
436
149
FY 80-92 FY 93-98
Fiscal Year
page 3
-------
Introduction
in less than eight years reflects improvements in the pace of Superfund clean-
ups and demonstrates how the reforms have worked together to make
Superfund more efficient. Finally, states and local communities have been
active partners in cleanups. States have concurred on remedies and contrib-
uted a 10 percent cost share at the Fund-financed sites, while local communi-
ties have increased the overall effectiveness of the program through meaning-
ful public involvement and communication.
The initiatives, pilots, and new or reformed guidance embodied in the reforms
all combine to produce a better Superfund program. This report will show
how the Superfund program is workingfaster, fairer, and more efficientlyto
better protect human health and safeguard the natural environment. These
achievements are described in detail in Superfund Program Accomplishment
Headlines. Specific reform summaries and the final results of the numerous
enforcement pilot projects are provided in Reforms at a Glance and the
Enforcement Pilots.
I/)
-------
Superfund Program
Accomplishment Headlines
Potentially Responsible Parties Commit
to Over $15 Billion
EPA remains dedicated to maximizing PRP-lead cleanups, and reform initia-
tives have significantly increased PRP commitments to cleanups. In FY98, the
Superfund enforcement program secured private party commitments that
exceeded $1 billion, bringing the cumulative value of private party commit-
ments since the program's inception to approximately $15.5 billion. This
number includes $13.1 billion in response settlements and $2.4 billion in cost
recovery settlements. Response settlements conserve use of the Superfund
Trust Fund for use at sites without capable and willing responsible parties,
while cost recovery settlements help replenish the Trust Fund. PRPs initiated
approximately 72 percent of new remedial actions at NPL sites during FY98,
and PRP-lead sites accounted for over 70 percent of all construction projects
completed during FY97 and FY98.
Greater PRP Commitment
EPA has seen an increase in PRP involvement since implementing key fair-
ness reforms. Prior to developing initiatives such as orphan share compensa-
tion and special accounts, EPA ordered PRPs to conduct remedial cleanup
work in approximately 50 percent of all cases. Since EPA implemented the
reforms, PRPs have agreed to conduct cleanup approximately 66 percent of
the time.
o
o
ro
CD
_i
c/>
Q_
Q_
"c
-------
Superfund Program
Accomplishment Headlines
Encouraging PRPs to enter into cooperative cleanup settlements reduces the
need for litigation to recover past cost and oversight costs, thus reducing EPA
and private party transaction costs. Several factors affect a PRP's decision to
settle a case, and EPA is not privy to the reasons why PRPs ultimately decide to
settle. However, the Agency is encouraged by the increasing number of PRPs
entering cooperative cleanup agreements. In an effort to address stakeholder
perceptions, EPA is making full use of its enforcement discretion to encourage
settlements that are fair to all parties. EPA offers a toolbox of enforcement
reforms that allow PRPs to achieve a more equitable settlement with the Agency.
Several enforcement options available to PRPs are described below.
Orphan Share
The reform with one of the most immediate and direct impacts on EPA's
settlement practice is Orphan Share Compensation. The term "orphan share"
refers to costs at a site that are attributable to insolvent parties. Pursuant to
this reform, the Agency continues to share the cost burden of the orphan
share with settling PRPs at every eligible site. Through FY98, EPA offered
approximately $145 million in orphan share compensation at 72 sites. Many
of the offers made in FY98 were in the context of cost recovery negotiations,
as EPA has expanded this reform to include these cases. The average offer
was $2 million per negotiation. These numbers demonstrate EPA's commit-
ment to achieving greater fairness even where this commitment may result in
a significant reduction of the amounts ultimately returned to the Fund.
Special Accounts
Continuing in FY98, EPA encouraged the use of Special Accounts, which
accrue interest while holding settlement funds for response actions at
Superfund sites. Through the end of FY98, EPA collected over $399 million,
established 115 Special Accounts, and accrued over $69 million in interest for
a total of $468 million. In November 1998, the Agency issued the "Interim
Final Guidance on Disbursement of Funds From EPA Special Accounts to
CERCLA Potentially Responsible Parties." The guidance provides direction to
Regional offices on the possibility of disbursing funds from the Special Ac-
counts to PRPs who undertake response actions at Superfund sites under a
settlement agreement. This guidance represents EPA's commitment to con-
tinue improving and expanding the original reform where appropriate.
_
page 6
-------
Superfund Program
Accomplishment Headlines
Equitable Issuance of Unilateral Administrative Orders (UAOs)
EPA expects that PRPs will be more amenable to entering a settlement when
the Agency ensures that they will otherwise face a UAO. Accordingly, in FY98
EPA continued to implement the UAO reform, with Headquarters indepen-
dently reviewing all 68 UAOs to ensure that they had been issued to all appro-
priate parties (including governmental entities). During the fiscal year, EPA
issued its first CERCLA UAO to another federal agency; and issued at least six
orders to state and local government entities.
Enforcement
uccess
Hansen Container, CO
A letter dated September 21,1998, from Waste Management Inc., on
behalf of the Oil and Solvent Process Company regarding the Hansen
Container Superfund site (Denver, CO), shows the success of several
enforcement administrative reforms (e.g., Orphan Share Compensa-
tion, Expedited Settlement Pilots, and Alternative Dispute Resolution)
used at the site. Excerpts are listed below:
"The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 8 is
to be commended for its innovative approach in these consent
decrees which resulted in settlements quicker and with fewer transac-
tion costs than probably would have been possible if the Agency had
followed more conventional methods."
"Through the use of alternative dispute resolution EPA accomplished
this feat in a very cost-effective fashion."
"Even without the need to be part of EPA's pilot allocation projects,
the region was willing to consider a fundamentally different approach
to allocation at the site. We applaud the region's use of a third-party
neutral and senior agency officials to overcome obstacles to settle-
ment."
"The proposed Hansen Container settlements demonstrate a very
substantial commitment by Region 8 to aggressively execute the
Superfund reforms in connection with this site and to take other
initiatives which promote early settlement, reduce costs, and foster
cooperation among the stakeholders."
paqe 7
-------
Superfund Program
Accomplishment Headlines
Program Exceeds $1 Billion in Cost Savings
In 1995, EPA initiated several reforms to ensure that cleanup actions are consistent
nationally, reflect recent advances in science and technology, and are cost effective. By
reviewing proposed high-cost remedies in real time and updating selected remedies at
Superfund sites, Reforms 3.1 a (Establish the National Remedy Review Board) and 3.2
(Update Remedy Decisions at Select Sites) have realized substantial benefits. In particu-
lar, these reforms have facilitated savings of over $1 billion in estimated cleanup costs for
PRPs and the Superfund program since 1996. Combined with new program policy and
guidance developed under other reform initiatives, these reforms have significantly
improved remedy selection and implementation at many Superfund sites.
Remedy Reforms Lead to Dramatic Cost Savings
National Remedy
Review Board
# of updates2
Est. savings3
Remedy Updates
# of updates2
Est. savings4
FY 1996
12
$25 million
60
$355 million
FY 1997
8
$6 million
80
$390 million
FY 19981
13
$12 million
>60
>$255 million
Total
33
$43 million
>200
>$1 billion
1 As of 9/98.
2 May include more than one update per site.
3 Includes future cost savings as estimated at the time of the proposed plan.
4 Includes estimated future cost savings.
The National Remedy Review Board (NRRB)
EPA created the NRRB in January 1996 as part of a comprehensive package of reforms
designed to make the Superfund program faster, fairer, and more efficient. The NRRB is
essentially a peer review group that understands both the EPA regional and headquarters
perspectives in the remedy selection process. It reviews proposed Superfund cleanup
decisions that meet cost-based review criteria to assure consistency with Superfund law,
regulations, and guidance. The NRRB is composed of managers or senior technical or
policy experts from EPA offices important to Superfund remedy selection issues.
EPA believes the NRRB has accomplished a great deal. Its reviews have contributed to a
more cost-effective, consistent Superfund program; improved the quality of several high-
cost cleanup decisions; and contributed to human health and environmental protection.
Since the Board began its reviews, EPA estimates that NRRB reviews have reduced total
estimated cleanup costs involving 33 high-cost remedies by more than $43 million. EPA
page 8
Report FY 1998
-------
Superfund Program
Accomplishment Headlines
expects these savings estimates to increase as regions complete their analyses of NRRB
comments and issue proposed plans. More importantly, however, the opportunity for
Board members to discuss remedy selection issues common to all regions has pro-
vided a significant boost to national consistency, both for the sites reviewed and other
sites across the regions. Members often return from Board meetings and apply lessons
learned to other lower cost site decisions in their home regions.
At some sites, NRRB discussions contribute to or bolster support for response plans
regions are only beginning to formulate. At the Region 8 Anaconda Smelter site, for
example, the region devised a decision framework involving extensive stakeholder
participation that ultimately reduced the estimated cleanup costs for the proposed
action by $20 to $70 million. This result can be partly attributed to the extensive Board
discussion about site revegetation and long-term effectiveness of the remedy.
MRRB
Anaconda, MT
The Anaconda Smelter Superfund site covers 15,000 acres in Anaconda,
Montana. A smelting operation operated on the site from the late 1800s until
it closed in September 1980, contaminating much of the area with heavy
metals and other dangerous substances. A key part of EPA's cleanup plan is
to use revegetation to prevent contamination from spreading, and to protect
the public and ecosystem from the site contamination. The NRRB reviewed
the proposed cleanup decision for the Anaconda Smelter Superfund site in
March and April of 1997. The Board offered several recommendations for the
region to consider as they finalized their cleanup plans.
EPA Region 8 responded with a creative approach to dealing with the
Board's concerns. Among the actions Region 8 took was the development
of a novel decision making system that helped focus the revegetation efforts.
To develop the system, the region took into account a great deal of data
gathered at the site before and during the public comment period on the
proposed cleanup. In cooperation with those responsible for cleaning up the
contamination, as well as the state and community stakeholders, the region
is using its system to assess physical and chemical data and vary the site
revegetation levels. Thus, they are able to improve the cost effectiveness of
their cleanup without sacrificing the level of protection it provides. These
efforts, in part, enabled the region to revise their cost estimate for the site
cleanup from approximately $180 million to an estimated range of $90 million
to $160 million.
page 9
-------
Superfund Program
Accomplishment Headlines
As regional managers indicate, while it is difficult to attribute such savings to Board
review alone, the additional analyses, ideas and encouragement provided by Board
discussions on proposed regional initiatives are often significant factors in the site
decision process.
National Remedy Review Board Review Criteria
With the exceptions noted, the NRRB reviews all proposed Superfund cleanup decisions for which:
the action costs more than $30 million; or
the action costs more than $10 million and is 50 percent greater in cost than the least-costly,
protective, cleanup alternative that complies with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
Requirements (ARARs).
The NRRB reviews proposed decisions for Department of Energy (DOE) sites where the primary
contaminant is radioactive waste in cases where:
the action costs more than $75 million; or
the action costs more than $25 million and this cost is 50 percent greater than that of the
least costly, protective, cleanup alternative that complies with ARARs.
In FY98the Board began reviewing all proposed EPA and DOE Non-Time-Critical Removal Actions
(NTCRAs) estimated to cost more than $30 million.
The Board does not review proposed decisions for Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) sites.
EPA expanded the scope of the Board in 1998. In addition to its usual reviews of reme-
dial cleanup plans, the Board now reviews cleanup plans for non-time-critical removal
actions that exceed defined monetary thresholds. The Board completed one review of a
non-time-critical removal action during FY98. In addition, on October 5, 1998, EPA and
the DOE signed an agreement under which the Board will review all DOE non-time-
critical removal actions that are estimated to cost over $30 million. The Board expects to
review 10 to 15 sites per year during both FY99 and FYOO.
Updating Remedy Decisions
The updating remedy decisions reform is one of EPA's most successful reforms, based
on its frequent use and the amount of money saved by the lead party for the remedial
action. This reform encourages regions to revisit selected remedy decisions at sites
where significant new scientific information, technological advancements, or other
considerations suggest an alternative remedy will protect human health and the environ-
ment while enhancing the cost effectiveness of the cleanup. From FY96 through FY98,
EPA and other parties updated over 200 remedies and generated estimated future cost
savings of over $1 billion. During the same period, only eight remedy updates generated
cost increases (estimated at approximately $65 million).
__
page 10
-------
Superfund Program
Accomplishment Headlines
EPA summarized the results of remedy updates completed during FY96 and FY97 in a
report entitled "Updating Remedy Decisions at Select Superfund Sites, Summary Report,
FY96 and FY97" (July 1998, OSWER Directive 9355.0-70). The report includes a list of
sites with remedy updates that generated either estimated cost savings or cost increases.
Most remedy updates in FY96 and FY97 were initiated by parties outside of EPA (e.g.,
PRPs, states, communities, federal facilities). Over the two-year period, parties outside
EPA initiated 90 updates and EPA initiated 34 updates (not including 24 updates initiated
Remedy Update Success
Avco Lycoming, PA
The Avco/Textron Lycoming site in Pennsylvania proposed a remedy
update based on successful pilot tests of molasses injection for metals
treatment and air sparging/soil vapor extraction for organics treatment.
The update to a new technology reduced the cleanup time by 33 percent
and saved an estimated $5.3 million.
Auburn Road Landfill, MA
At the Auburn Road Landfill in Massachusetts, new performance data
provided the necessary information to update the selected remedy. Two
years of monitoring and modeling performance data from the site showed
that the original ground water pump and treat remedy successfully brought
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) below the cleanup levels in most
areas. Updating the remedy to monitored natural attenuation saved an
estimated $12 million.
The Allied Chemical/lronton Coke Site,
Lawrence County, OH
On September 30,1998, EPA approved an amendment to the Record of
Decision for the Ironton Coke site that will result in cost savings of approxi-
mately $50 million.
The PRP at the site proposed the alternative remedy after data collected
during the engineering design phase showed that contamination levels in
the soils were not as high as previously estimated. The revised remedy will
replace in-situ bioremediation of over 450,000 cubic yards of soil with hot-
spot excavation and wetland development; and replace incineration of
other lagoon materials with recycling, treatment, and/or disposal of waste
materials in an approved off-site hazardous waste facility, with some
remaining soils used as an alternative fuel mixture. The new remedy will
achieve cleanup levels that are protective of human health and the environ-
ment, and the constructed wetland will create a valuable ecological habitat
for the community.
paqe 11
-------
Superfund Program
Accomplishment Headlines
by more than one party). These numbers are consistent with the percentage of EPA
versus non-EPA parties who conduct the actual cleanup work (i.e., since the inception of
Superfund, EPA has been the lead organization on only about 30 percent of remedial
design and constructions projects, compared with 70 percent of projects led by non-EPA
organizations).
After three consecutive years of over 60 updates per year, EPA is confident that the updat-
ing remedy decisions reform plays a major role in remedy decisionmaking and imple-
mentation by encouraging continued review of cleanup progress for opportunities to
ensure both protective and cost-effective remedies.
The success of these reforms combined with the completion of other related program
policy and guidance has significantly enhanced the remedy selection process. Policy
and guidance developed under other reform initiatives include the "Directive on Land
Use in Remedy Selection;" the "Guidance on the Role of Cost in Remedy Selection;" the
"Directive on National Consistency in Remedy Selection;" and a series of presumptive
remedy guidance documents for municipal landfills, sites with volatile organic contami-
nants in soils, wood treater sites, and contaminated ground water sites. These guidance
documents have heightened awareness of cost-effective cleanup measures that are
highly protective. Further, the initiatives have helped to ensure appropriate national
consistency in cleanup decisions.
Comments
"The new National Review Board is widely regarded as the flagship
among the 20 reforms announced on October 2,1995."
"EPA's Superfund Reforms: A Report on the First Year of Imple-
mentation," Superfund Settlements Project, December 1996 (p. 2).
The following statements appeared in a Chemical Manufacturers
Association report, "A Chemical Industry Perspective on EPA's
Superfund Administrative Reforms" (April 1997):
"Of the five reforms covered in this report, the updating of
previous RODs reform generated the most positive comments,
both from PRPs and from EPA" (p. 15);
"PRPs confirm that some remedies are being updated and that
additional petitions to update remedies are pending" (p. 15);
"In sum, this reform has produced the greatest tangible benefits
of any of EPA's Superfund administrative reforms" (p. 18).
__
page 12
_
-------
Superfund Program
Accomplishment Headlines
Revitalizing America's Land
EPA has stressed the reuse of formerly contaminated properties as a high priority, and
combines many different strategies to enable these sites to be considered for redevelop-
ment. These actions often spark a new economic boost to potentially depressed and
formerly contaminated areas.
The Agency's first strategy to enable reuse is the Brownfield Pilot Projects for non-
Superfund sites, which play a major role in encouraging the redevelopment of potentially
contaminated property. The second strategy involves two reforms (Refining CERCLIS
and Delete Clean Parcels from the NPL) that alter the inventory and listing status of sites
Success
Bridgeport, CT
Through both private and public funding, the former Jenkins Valve site, located at
Bridgeport's main gateway, will be home to an indoor skating rink, a new 5,500-seat
ballpark, and a new museum. The ballpark project alone has supported 361 jobs, 68 of
which are permanent.
Emeryville, CA
EPA awarded Emeryville a $200,000 Assessment Demonstration Pilot under EPA's Brownfield
Initiative in March 1996. On an abandoned, four-acre railroad site in Emeryville, CA, the city
and a development corporation plan to construct 200 units of housing. Approximately 100
construction workers have already been hired to build these housing units. Within the next
five years, construction of retail, hotel, and office complexes is expected to support as many
as 10,600 jobs and nearly 4 million square feet of new facilities, providing an additional $6.4
million in annual property tax revenues.
Trenton, NJ
EPA awarded Trenton $200,000 under its Brownfield Initiative in September 1995. Trenton's
Gould National Battery site was home to commercial lead-acid battery manufacturing from
the mid-1930s to the early 1980s. A research corporation developing innovative methods of
site remediation approached the city about conducting a demonstration cleanup project on
the Gould site. Phytotech was interested in a new soil cleanup technique called
phytoremediation, in which plant are used to extract lead and other heavy metals from the
ground. Indian mustard plants were planted at the site in 1996, and initial tests prove that
lead levels on the property have already been reduced. Through efforts of the Brownfield
Assessment Demonstration Pilot, the city, the community, and the researchers, the Gould
site will one day return to productive use.
page 13
-------
Superfund Program
Accomplishment Headlines
in CERCLIS as well as of small portions of Superfund sites. EPA uses its enforcement
discretion as a third strategy to remove liability barriers that might impede site reuse.
Documents such as prospective purchaser agreements and comfort/status letters have
aided this effort.
Brownfields Program Promotes Cleanup and Redevelopment
EPA continues to promote cleanup and redevelopment of brownfieldsabandoned,
idled, or under-used industrial and commercial properties where expansion or redevel-
opment is complicated by real or perceived environmental contamination. During FY98,
EPA funded Brownfields Pilots in three categories: Assessment Demonstrations, Job
Training partnerships, and Showcase Community collaboration projects. EPA also
provides support through the Brownfields Revolving Loan Fund Program. These efforts
are designed to promote cleanup and redevelopment through the active involvement of
states, local governments, communities, and tribes.
EPA has funded 227 Brownfield Assessment Demonstration Pilots through FY98. These
pilots award up to $200,000 over a two-year period for the creative exploration and
demonstration of brownfield solutions. The pilots are seen as catalysts for change in
local communities, and often spur community involvement in local land use decision
making. This is accomplished by extensive outreach to all stakeholders such as bank-
ers, developers, community and neighborhood grass-roots organizations, faith groups,
and small and large businesses. During FY99, EPA plans to identify new Brownfield
Assessment Demonstration Pilots and supplement up to 50 existing pilots. In addition,
through the Targeted Site Assessment (TSA) process, EPA provides funding and technical
assistance for environmental assessments at brownfield sites throughout the country. In
FY98, EPA distributed $8 million for this purpose.
During FY98, EPA announced 16 Showcase Communities that display the joint effort of
many federal programs and EPA to strengthen the brownfields effort. Over the next two
years, each community will receive up to $1 million in grants and other technical and
financial aid, depending on its specific needs. In addition, 24 community finalists
received supplemental funding to support assessments. The showcase communities
will also receive the assistance of a federal staff member for the duration of two years to
support all brownfield activities. These Showcases intend to empower America's com-
munities and demonstrate the benefits of coordinated federal attention to brownfields.
To strengthen economic growth within brownfields communities, EPA awarded 11 new
Job Training Development and Demonstration Pilots in FY98. These job training pro-
grams enable local citizens to take advantage of jobs created by the assessment and
cleanup of the brownfield areas. Based on the success of current training programs, EPA
anticipates awarding ten additional pilots in FY99.
__
page 14
-------
Superfund Program
Accomplishment Headlines
Brownfields
Showcase
Communities
EPA initiated Clean Air Brownfield Partnership Programs in Balti-
more, Dallas, and Chicago during FY98. These creative partner-
ships will demonstrate the effectiveness of innovative strategies
designed to enhance both air quality and economic vitality in
Baltimore, MD; Chicago, IL; and Dallas, TX.
Finally, EPA uses the Brownfields Cleanup Revolving Loan Fund
Pilots (BCRLF) to provide grants to cities to leverage their ability to
make low-interest loans for brownfields cleanup. The Agency is
currently implementing 23 grants awarded during FY97. Due to
Congressional restrictions, no new pilots were awarded during
FY98. However, EPA expects to fund up to 63 new BCRLF pilots
in FY99 in amounts up to $500,000 per pilot. Supplemental
support of up to $150,000 may also be available for up to 23
existing pilots.
Refining CERCLIS and NPL Status
Almost 42,000 sites have been entered into the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Informa-
tion System (CERCLIS), EPA's database of site information for all
potential or confirmed Superfund sites. Yet of these 42,000 sites,
less than four percent have been listed on the NPL. Until re-
cently, sites evaluated and not placed on the NPL remained in
CERCLIS, associating a perceived threat of Superfund liability
with the sites. To rectify this problem, EPA refined the process for registering and main-
taining site information in CERCLIS by archiving such sites.
EPA introduced the CERCLIS archiving effort in early 1995 as part of the Agency's
Brownfields Economic Redevelopment Initiative. Archive candidates include sites
where the initial investigation finds no contamination, where contamination is quickly
removed, and where contamination is insufficient to warrant federal Superfund attention.
In June 1996, EPA provided guidance for identifying types of sites eligible for archiving.
The Agency continues to archive sites from CERCLIS as assessment and any necessary
non-NPL cleanup activities are completed. The Agency has archived 31,000 (75 percent)
of the sites in CERCLIS through FY98.
Reforms have also enabled EPA to delete portions of sites that are uncontaminated or
have achieved their cleanup goals from the NPL. These steps facilitate the transfer,
development, or redevelopment of property or portions of property where all necessary
response work has been completed. The Agency has developed tools and guidance to
identify, map, and track these partial deletion sites, and has initiated partial deletions at
14 sites since FY96. In FY98, the Agency completed six partial deletions and two notices
of intent to partially delete.
Baltimore, MD
Chicago, IL
Dallas, TX
East Palo Alto, CA
Southeast, FL
Glen Cove, NY
Kansas City, KS/MO
Los Angeles, CA
Lowell, MA
Portland, OR
State of Rhode Island
St. Paul, MN
Salt Lake City, UT
Seattle/King County, WA
Stamford, CT
Trenton, NJ
page 15
-------
Superfund Program
Accomplishment Headlines
Removing Liability Barriers
The prospective purchaser agreement (PPA) is one tool that EPA uses to facilitate the
cleanup and reuse of contaminated property. In May 1995, EPA published the "Guidance
on Agreements with Prospective Purchasers of Contaminated Property," which superseded
the 1989 prospective purchaser guidance. The 1995 guidance's revised criteria allow EPA
greater latitude in using covenants not to sue to support the cleanup and reuse of contami-
nated property. The Agency now may enter into PRAs whenever federal action has oc-
curred, is ongoing, or is anticipated. In addition, the guidance provides flexibility in the
form of benefits that purchasers must provide to EPA to receive a covenant not to sue.
PPA
buccess
Woburn, MA
To advance the redevelopment proposals at the Industri-Plex Superfund site in
Woburn, MA, EPA entered into three PPAs. The PPAs enabled the public/private
partnership to begin developing the area into a Regional Transportation Center with
over 200,000 square feet of retail space, and potentially over 750,000 square feet of
hotel and office space.
Environmental and economic benefits include:
Creation of an open land and wetlands preserve;
Reduced exposure to contaminants by enhanced remedy protectiveness;
Improved traffic and safety conditions through alleviation of congestion at a
major highway interchange; and
An average of 700 short-term jobs with an estimated total annual income of
$23.6 million.
Prior to publication of the 1995 guidance, EPA had entered into 20 PPAs. At the end of
FY98, close to 100 PPAs were referred to the Department of Justice; of these, close to 90 are
final agreements. Following issuance of the revised guidance, the number of PPAs into
which EPA entered increased by over 300 percent.
The impact of the PPA guidance is visible in communities across the country. EPA
regional staff estimate that, to date, PPAs have facilitated the purchase of over 1,500
acres of contaminated property and have supported over 1,700 permanent jobs. Fi-
nally, reuse projects associated with PPAs have resulted in an estimated $2.6 million in
local tax revenue and have spurred redevelopment of hundreds of thousands of adja-
cent acres nationwide.
_..
page ib
-------
Superfund Program
Accomplishment Headlines
Another tool available for re-
moving liability barriers is EPA's
"Policy on the Issuance of
Comfort/Status Letters" (No-
vember 1996). The policy
reassures parties that EPA will
not pursue them for cleanup
costs if they purchase, develop,
or operate on brownfields
property. Sample letters in the
guidance provide interested
parties with all releaseable
information EPA has on a piece
of property, what that informa-
tion means, and the likelihood
of or current plans for federal
Superfund action. Parties gain
"comfort" by receiving EPA's
data on a site and knowing the
Agency's intentions regarding a
Superfund response. To date,
the Agency has issued approxi-
mately 300 comfort/status letters.
Stakeholder Comments
EPA's reforms respond to many of the fundamental
concerns of those considering the acquisition or
financing of environmentally impaired real property.
As a result, these reforms are increasingly facilitating
the recycling of our nation's brownfields, thereby
advancing both economic and environmental policy
objectives.
Roger Platt, National Realty Committee
EPA has demonstrated a steadfast commitment to
reducing the anxiety of real estate investors interested
in properties where contamination, or the threat of
contamination, is present. Through a concerted
series of EPA Superfund Administrative Reforms and
associated Clinton Administration policy initiatives, a
remarkable number of previously abandoned or
underutilized properties are now being returned to
productive use.
Lawrence Jacobson, Commercial Real Estate
Finance Mortgage Bankers Association of
America
Comfort Letter
Success
Woburn, MA
A property owner adjacent to the Industri-Plex
Superfund site was receiving offers of less than
half his asking price for his property due to
potential ground water contamination. After EPA
issued a comfort letter to the property owner, he
received the amount he was asking.
Glendale, CA
Dreamworks, the film studio founded by Steven
Spielberg, showed interest in buying a large
parcel of land on which to build sound stages.
However, the land included a portion of the San
Fernando Valley Superfund site, a contaminated
aquifer subject to EPA cleanup activities. EPA's
comfort letter was able to address Dreamworks'
concern over potential Superfund liability.
On November 16, 1998, EPA issued
the "Handbook of Tools for Manag-
ing Federal Superfund Liability
Risks at Brownfields and Other
Sites." This handbook compiles
tools that describe federal liability
as it relates to real property. The
handbook provides background
information on CERCLA and sum-
marizes various statutory provisions
and Agency regulations, policies,
and guidance documents that help
manage CERCLA liability risks
associated with brownfields and
other sites. EPA hopes that the
handbook will facilitate reuse by
helping developers weigh the
benefits of redevelopment against
any associated environmental risks.
Annual Report FY 19
page
-------
Superfund Program
Accomplishment Headlines
The reforms discussed in
this section intend to help
government and communi-
ties work together suffi-
ciently to start, maintain,
and complete the
remediation process. The
cooperation and participa-
tion of all involved stake-
holders allows redevelop-
ment to occur both quickly
and efficiently. By support-
ing brownfields initiatives,
refining CERCLIS, and
addressing liability con-
cerns, EPA has successfully
enabled the return of sites
to productive use.
Superfund Site Reuse Success
Anaconda, MT
Through a cooperative effort involving EPA, state and
local governments, and ARCO, the responsible party, a
portion of the Anaconda Copper Smelter Site has been
transformed into an award-winning golf course. After
being capped, a 1,500-acre portion of a former smelting
and processing area was redesigned by golf pro Jack
Nicklaus. Nicklaus preserved and incorporated many of
the smelting structures into features of the golf course to
retain the lands' historical importance. A state-of-the-art
drainage system was also implemented to protect a
nearby watershed. During its six-month season, the Old
Works Golf Course supports approximately 20 full-time,
permanentjobs. The total annual income associated
with these permanentjobs is estimated to be $480,000.
These permanentjobs will result in over $30,000 in state
income tax. The county also expects to receive
$250,000 annually from golf course revenues.
Superfund Site
Su
uccess
York County, VA
The Chisman Creek watershed was contami-
nated by the dumping of over 500,000 tons
of fly ash (the soot-like byproduct from the
burning of fossil fuels like coal and petroleum
coke). Heavy metals such as nickel, vana-
dium, arsenic, beryllium, chromium, copper,
molybdenum, and selenium were leaking
into local rivers and ponds and contaminat-
ing drinking wells. Following site cleanup, a
partnership of EPA, the Commonwealth of
Virginia, Virginia Power, and York County,
with the full support and urging of the community, constructed Chisman Creek and Wolf Trap
Parks on a total of 41 acres. The two recreational facilities contain softball and soccer fields,
recreational support facilities, two ponds, and a memorial tree grove. The National Environmental
Awards Council, representing 23 non-profit environmental advocacy groups, presented an Environ-
mental Achievement Award to the "Chisman Creek: Fly Ash to Fly Balls" partnership.
page 18
Report FY 1998
-------
Superfund Program
Accomplishment Headlines
Recycling Superfund Sites
A logical outgrowth of the brownfields redevelopment work is the reuse of Superfund
sites. Recycled Superfund sites may be redeveloped for a variety of uses, including
commercial/industrial, recreational, and ecological projects. Major national corpora-
tions have established businesses at recycled Superfund sites, including Netscape,
Target, Home Depot, and McDonalds. Other sites have been redeveloped into athletic
fields, community parks, golf courses, and wetland and habitat preserves. Preliminary
analyses indicate that as many as 150 Superfund sites are in reuse or continued use,
supporting thousands of jobs and generating revenue for states and local communities.
EPA continues to make strides in spurring the beneficial reuse of Superfund sites.
EPA has produced
several fact sheets that highlight successful site reuse projects, such as the
document discussing the Denver Radium site (below). These fact sheets can
be found online at: http://www.epa.gov/superfund/accomp/redevel/index.htm.
3 Denvci Rdihuni Supeifund Site - Miuluiuft Internet Expluiei
file £* View fio Fsvortes Help
Address |j&"| hrlp//wviiw epagn^/'s
v>EPA
Unfed 3Uto
MlWMl
)' I
Otfic* of Eme.-gency jsnd
Remedial Response
(5201S)
OStfllER 0378.0 17FS
P8 98-963J12
Warcfi 19BS
Denver Radium Superfund Site
Denver, Colorado
A Superfund Redevelopment Success
Denver Radium
At a Glance
Problem: Contamination of soil resulting from
radium processing and other mcustnsl activitios.
Solution: Excavation of soils, demolition of
buildings, and off-site disposal of radioactrve
materials, construction of a soil cap ever metal-
contammatQd soil, and rQEtrictians on futurs land
and grounctwater UGS.
Redevelopment: Partnprsriip fnrmeil among FPA,
Colorado Department of Pubic Health and
Environment, and Home Depot USA, Inc., resulted m
the construction of a 130,000 square foot retail sales
facility on the site
A po-ton Qt'the Denver Raoium
Superfund site has been cleaned up and
relumed (o productive use with the
construction of a Home Depot store.
r_
page 19
-------
Superfund Program
Accomplishment Headlines
Getting the Little Guy Out
Since initiating the reforms program in 1993, EPA has removed thousands of small waste
contributors from the Superfund liability scheme. Recognizing that third-party litigation
can inordinately burden small parties, EPA has used its settlement authority to get small
waste contributors out of Superfund litigation. This effort decreases transaction costs
while increasing fairness and resolution speed.
EPA recognizes two main types of small contributors: de minimis and de micromis:
De minimis contributors are those parties who have contributed only a very small
amount of waste to a site, and whose contribution is minimal compared to other
waste at the site. For example, an individual who contributed one percent or less of
the waste at a site may be considered a de minimis party.
De micromis contributors are those parties whose contribution of hazardous sub-
stances to a facility is minimal, both in volume and in toxicity. De micromis parties
are defined by the following eligibility:
0.002 percent (of total volume) or 110 gallons/200 pounds of materials contain-
ing hazardous substances, whichever is greater; or
0.2 percent of total volume, where a contributor sent only municipal solid waste
(MSW).
The de minimis initiative was a Round 1 reform that has now been fully incorporated
into the base Superfund program. This reform has been one of the Agency's most
successful, embraced by the regions, major PRPs, and small waste contributors.
Through FY98, the government has completed settlements with over 18,000 small-
volume contributors (two-thirds since the de minimis reform was announced) at hun-
dreds of Superfund sites.
EPA has also sought to protect de micromis contributors. The Agency issued its first
policy in 1993, indicating that these parties should not be pursued, and subsequently
expanded the number of parties eligible for de micromis treatment in the "Revised De
Micromis Guidance" (June 1996). The revised guidance doubles previous eligibility
cutoffs and intends to further discourage third-party litigation against de micromis par-
ties. For such small parties, the cost of legal and other representation services may
actually exceed the party's settlement share of response costs. If private parties do
threaten suit against these very small contributors, EPA enters into settlements providing
contribution protection.
page 20
-------
Superfund Program
Accomplishment Headlines
By publicly offering parties a zero dollar settlement in the 1996 Revised Guidance, EPA
hinders big polluters from dragging de micromis contributors into litigation. The real
success of this method is measured by the untold number of potential lawsuits that the
Agency has discouraged. The low number of sites using de micromis settlements (nine
sites through FY98) illustrates how EPA's 1993 and 1996 de micromis policies have
successfully deterred PRPs from pursuing small parties.
In addition, when EPA settles with the primary PRPs, the Agency asks that the primary
PRPs waive their right to pursue de micromis parties. EPA and the Department of Justice
issued an October 2, 1998, policy entitled "Inclusion of Contribution Waiver by Private
Parties in CERCLA Administrative and Judicial Settlements." The policy provides that
EPA should seek these waivers in all agreements (e.g., Remedial Design/Remedial
Action, removal, Administrative Order on Consent, de minimis, cost recovery). Although
the 1996 Revised De Micromis Guidance provides that the government will exercise
enforcement discretion and decline to pursue these parties, it did not insulate such
parties from contribution actions by other PRPs at the site. The development of this
policy further strengthens EPA's commitment not to pursue de micromis parties and to
protect them from third-party litigation.
paqe 21
-------
Superfund Program
Accomplishment Headlines
Success Through Partnerships
When EPA began investigating ways to improve the Superfund program in 1991, it immedi-
ately recognized the critical importance of partnership and community participation. The
Agency saw involvement as key to the success of Superfund. Partnership includes both
community and EPA interaction as well as federal, state, and tribal integration. In addition,
partnership includes enhancing individual stakeholder participation in the program.
Community Involvement
EPA believes that communities must have meaningful opportunities for involvement
early in the cleanup process and should stay involved throughout site cleanup. Initia-
tives such as Community Advisory Groups (CAGs), Technical Assistance Grants (TAGs),
and job training programs are just a few of the ways that EPA is supporting this endeavor.
On the local level, CAGs foster meaningful public involvement and integrated problem-
solving. The CAG serves as a public forum for representatives of diverse community
interests to present and discuss their needs and concerns related to the Superfund site
with federal, state, tribal, and local government officials. The number of sites with CAGs
increased by over 50 percent before the CAG program was officially taken out of the pilot
stage. In FY98, 14 new CAGs were
created, bringing the total to 47. The
CAG concept has been so successful
that other Agency programs (Commu-
nity-Based Environmental Protection,
the Resource Conservation and Recov-
ery Act, and Project XL) adopted its
ideas in FY98. In Region 1, use of a
CAG led to community consensus and
the selection of a new remedy that
saved approximately $45 million.
To facilitate CAG efforts, EPA released
two versions of a Community Advisory
Group Toolkit during FY98. The
toolkitsone for EPA staff and one for
community memberswere designed
to help communities set up and main-
tain a CAG. EPA tested the toolkits at 18
sites. Based on comments from the field
tests, the Agency revised the toolkits and
distributed final copies in October 1998.
As a companion document, EPA also
released "About the Community Advisory
TAG Success
Vertac Site, AR
TAGs have enabled communities to
better understand and therefore comment
on Superfund activities. For example, the
Concerned Citizens Coalition (CCC) of
the Vertac site in Arkansas was awarded a
TAG in 1996. According to a CCC
member, the community was better able
to understand EPA's technical decisions
and actions with the help of the Technical
Advisor (TA) provided by TAG funding.
AT&SF Site, NM
At the AT&SF site in New Mexico, the San
Jose Community Awareness Council used
TAG funds to pay for the technical
advisor as well as to help create and fund
a community newsletter that provides site
activities information to the neighbor-
hood.
page 22
Report FY 1998
-------
Superfund Program
Accomplishment Headlines
Group Toolkit: A Summary of the Tools" in September 1998, describing the toolkit and
explaining its uses. In addition to ensuring the continued success of the CAG program,
EPA will continue to evaluate CAGs; pursue CAG formation at appropriate sites; and de-
velop techniques for improving its support and assistance to communities that form CAGs.
Success
Orongo-Duenweg Mining Belt, MO
At the Orongo-Duenweg Mining Belt in Missouri, the formation of a CAG in 1995 gave
community members a voice in dealing with their concerns about EPA's plans for site
cleanup, including the impact these plans could have on real estate values and citizens'
health. The group helped establish a working relationship between the community and
EPA by opening up the lines of communication. This improved communication helped
EPA explain its site remedy choice to concerned community members. In fact, the
community came to agree with EPA's proposal to implement an innovative cleanup
technology, which promises to increase the pace of the cleanup and save money.
"Established communications forums where complex issues can be discussed in detail,
enable people to begin to understand site issues on a deeper level and help them to not
react from fear."
David Mosby, CAG Member
Geneva City Dump/True Temper Sports Site, OH
Co-founder Beth Robinson and Chairperson Pat Simpson of the Geneva City Dump/True
Temper Sports site's CAG in Geneva, OH, said that the CAG has strongly influenced the
cleanup of the True Temper Sports site. They cited the CAG's success in expanding the
scope of the original cleanup plan to include removal of contaminated sludge from a
lagoon. They also said that EPA listened and responded to community concerns by
doubling the size of the cleanup and incorporating citizen comments into the work plan.
"Our Community Advisory Group has had an excellent, non-adversarial relationship with
EPA from the beginning of the process. They said the community trusted EPA more as a
result of the formation and operation of the Community Advisory Group."
Co-founder Beth Robinson and Chairperson Pat Simpson, Geneva City Dump/True
Temper Sports Sites CAG
Velsicol Chemical Site, Ml
According to Chairman Ed Lorenz of the Pine River Task Force (Velsicol Chemical site) in
St. Louis, Ml, information in the Community Advisory Group Toolkit prompted the group
to focus on environmental justice issues. The task force has done extensive outreach to
local citizens, and a nearby Indian reservation now has an active member on the group.
The task force has also reached out to seasonal migrant workers. This outreach has
resulted in more diverse input to the cleanup process.
page 23
-------
Superfund Program
Accomplishment Headlines
looikit
The toolkit contains outlines, forms, publications, and other "tools" that can be used to
establish and operate CAGs. A brief overview of the tools follows.
Meet the Community Advisory Group
Explains the purpose of CAGs and provides presentation materials for members to
use in promoting their community group.
Tips for Involving Hard-to-Reach Segments of the Community
Contains suggestions on how to reach out to and involve portions of the commu-
nity with low-income and minority populations.
Let's Get Started
Highlights a few of the steps involved in structuring and starting a CAG, including
choosing a name, defining a mission, and setting up an organizational structure.
Writing a Mission Statement
Describes how to craft a well-written mission statement that focuses an organiza-
tion and tells how important a statement is in communicating the CAG's objec-
tives.
Developing Operating Procedures
Explains how to write operating procedures on how the group will conduct busi-
ness, make decisions, and resolve disputes.
Incorporating Your Community Advisory Group
Explains the importance of incorporating the CAG for tax purposes, and describes
the steps involved so that groups can qualify for financial assistance from federal,
state, public or private resources, or TAGs from EPA.
Securing Tax-Exempt Status
Outlines the steps involved in applying for tax-exempt status with the IRS and
provides guidelines for state and local governments (as incorporation does not
automatically exempt CAGs from taxation).
Community Advisory Groups and Technical Assistance Programs
Describes the steps involved in obtaining TAGs to hire independent technical
advisors, so that citizens can better understand complex issues at Superfund sites.
Finding Funding for Community Advisory Groups
Provides a guide to help groups write an effective proposal that will attract funding.
__
page 24
-------
Superfund Program
Through initiatives such
as the CAG program,
communities gain greater
input into and awareness
of Superfund issues.
Yet citizens also need to
understand complex
technical information.
To fulfill this need, TAGs
allow eligible community
groups to hire technical
advisors to help the com-
munity better understand
site-related technical
information. EPA has
awarded 202 TAGs to
various groups since the
program's inception in
1988. In June 1999, the
Agency plans to publish
the provisions of the
revised TAG regulation,
which is intended to
simplify the TAG program.
Accomplishment Headlines
Stakeholder Comments
The Dutch Boy Site Community Advisory Group has been an
effective way of getting everyone with an interest in site
decisions to talk to each other. Now, the two homeowners
associations work together closelynot only on site-related
issues, but on other common concerns. The flow of informa-
tion between the local, state, and federal government and
community residents has improved as well.
Co-chairs John Chenier and Tony Davenport, Dutch
Boy Site CAG, Chicago, IL
The CAG concept is "the best way to resolve issues at
Superfund sites, because everyone talks and listens to each
other."
CAG Member Catherine O'Brien, Brio Refining Inc.,
Superfund Site, Harris County, TX
The partnership was successful in developing practical
remedies that conserved financial and natural resources,
reflected input from the public, and relied on coordination
among regulatory agencies.
Tony Able, EPA Region IV Remedial Project Manager
regarding EPA, DOE, TDEC cooperation for Lower
East Fork Poplar Creek Oak Ridge Site, TN
Other outreach initiatives have also provided meaningful and timely participa-
tion for communities. In response to requests for local economic benefit from site
cleanups, EPA used interagency partnerships to design the Superfund Jobs Training
Initiative (SuperJTI). At the NL Industries-Taracorp Superfund site in Granite City, Illinois,
EPA worked with DePaul University in Chicago to provide environmental job training for
26 area residents, 18 of whom have been hired by environmental firms. Additionally,
EPA partnered with the U.S. Public Health Service to form the Superfund Medical Assis-
tance Work Group, which established the Medical Assistance Plan to address health
concerns of citizens living near hazardous waste sites. Since 1995, the Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry has provided 62 environmental health care training
programs, workshops, lectures, and seminars to health care providers, local agencies,
and residents of communities near hazardous waste sites.
State and Tribal Involvement
EPA recognizes the importance of ensuring effective state and tribal involvement. States
are successfully conducting thousands of hazardous waste site cleanups under both
state and federal Superfund programs. Approximately 35 states have implemented
Voluntary Cleanup Programs (VCPs)only one example of integrated programs that
affirm state and federal commitment to partnership. EPA has identified 11 program areas
page 25
-------
Superfund Program
Accomplishment Headlines
for potential state involvement, with over 50 percent of all states participating in at least
one, and with some states active in as many as five program areas.
EPA has begun collecting and evaluating data from state remedy selection pilots, and
will incorporate findings into the Agency's Enhanced State and Tribal Roles Initiative.
EPA is also supporting pilot initiatives in two states (New Hampshire and Texas) to
assess the ability of states to conduct more time-critical removal actions. The Agency is
developing an evaluation strategy and expects to complete it during FY99. These pilots
will help EPA focus on efficient and effective ways to increase state involvement and
reduce EPA oversight within the Superfund cleanup process.
Partnershi
uccess
RSR Smelter Site, Dallas, Texas
The names of the certified students who completed the 80-hour HAZMAT (hazardous materials) training
were sent via the remedial project manager to the selected contractors who will carry out the remedial
action for Operable Unit #4. It is hoped that the students will be selected for employment during the
implementation phase of the response action.
State Marine Site, Port Arthur, Texas
On July 22, a community meeting was held at the site to inform residents of future opportunities to
participate in the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) Minority Worker Training
Program. Approximately 20 students will be trained in study skills, life skills, math skills, HAZMAT, and
other related training. When removal action begins at the site, contractors will be encouraged to hire
the trained and certified community residents.
EPA Brownfields Job Training, Dallas, Texas
In addition to the NIEHS minority training opportunities available to communities affected by
brownfields, EPA is piloting its own brownfields-related minority worker training program. The program
offers citizens living in brownfields communities environmental and other related training so that they
can find jobs in local cleanup projects. EPA required that pilot applications be located within or near
one of the 121 pre-1998 brownfields assessment pilot communities. A Dallas pilot program was
forwarded to Headquarters for consideration and the approved proposal was announced on August 8,
1998, with the grant to be awarded by October 1,1998. The Texas A&M Extension Center will provide
training to 40 students in innovative technology, study skills, life skills, math skills, heavy equipment
operation, and HAZMAT training.
Integrated federal, state, and tribal site management efforts further empower states in the
cleanup process. Deferring sites from NPL listing and assigning cleanup responsibilities
to state or tribal agencies leads to greater state involvement. Since the initiative was
announced in 1995, at least 11 states have signed state deferral agreements that cover
over 30 sites. Region 8 signed a new agreement at the Smeltertown site in September
1998 and anticipates up to seven new agreements next year.
_
page 26
-------
Superfund Program
Accomplishment Headlines
Consolidated (Block) or-. -. A
Funding can be defined as fttate Participation Program Areas
the consolidation of two or
Pre-remedial/Site Assessment Cooperative Agreement
Remedial Response Cooperative Agreement
Enforcement Cooperative Agreement
Removal Response Cooperative Agreement
Core Program Cooperative Agreement
Support Agency Cooperative Agreement
Multi-site Cooperative Agreement
Voluntary Cleanup Program
Consolidated Cooperative Agreement Pilot
Remedy Selection Pilot
more of the six types of
cooperative agreements
currently offered in
Superfund under a single
umbrella cooperative
agreement (CA), with a
single scope of work and
budget. The initiative was
designed to enhance state
flexibility in redirecting CA
funds between and among
sites and activities (to the
extent allowed by the Superfund Advice of Allowance); expand state and tribal flexibility to
transfer funds among sites and activities within the approved tasks for the CA without prior
EPA approval; reduce the need for amendments when scope-of-work changes are needed;
and reduce other specific administrative budget and reporting requirements, where appro-
priate. The consolidated (block) funding reform was implemented in early 1997 with a
start-up of 13 pilots. In FY98, the number of pilots grew to over 20, resulting in reduced
reporting requirements, scope changes, money movement within and among CAs, and
generic obligation of monies. EPA hopes to evaluate the program's success in FY99.
Both community involvement and federal, state, and tribal initiatives have strengthened
the Superfund program. Reforms that enhance community involvement and communi-
cation increase the effectiveness of the program overall. Site-specific activities can move
forward in an environment of stronger community satisfaction and involvement. More
resources are provided for the community, including job training and health programs.
Federal, state, and tribal partnerships, built upon a foundation of demonstrated state
readiness and resources, provide clear state decisionmaking authority with support from
(but minimal overlap with) EPA. By forging partnerships and pooling the knowledge
and resources of various stakeholders, the Superfund program can better protect people
and the environment from risks associated with contaminated sites.
Enhancing Stakeholder and Citizen Participation
EPA is improving the Superfund program by providing the opportunity for input not only
at the state and community levels, but also at an individual level. Through tools such as
forums, Ombudsmen, and websites, interested stakeholders and citizens can easily
access information and participate in local cleanups.
Forums are one tool that EPA uses to enhance public participation in the Superfund
program. In September 1998, the Agency held the Sustainable Development/Recycling
paqe 27
-------
Superfund Program
Accomplishment Headlines
Websites
Headquarters Superfund Homepage (www.epa.gov/superfund/)
Region 1 Superfund Homepage (www.epa.gov/region01/remed/superfund/index.html)
Region 2 Superfund Homepage (www.epa.gov/region02/superfnd/superfnd.htm)
Region 3 Superfund Homepage (www.epa.gov/reg3hwmd/super/index.htm)
Region 4 Superfund Homepage (www.epa.gov/region4/wastepgs/sf/supfnd.htm)
Region 5 Superfund Homepage (www.epa.gov/R5Super/)
Region 6 Superfund Homepage (www.epa.gov/earth1r6/6sf/6sf.htm)
Region 7 Superfund Homepage (www.epa.gov/region07/programs/spfd/spfd.html)
Region 8 Superfund Homepage (www.epa.gov/region08/sf/sf_home.html)
Region 9 Superfund Homepage (www.epa.gov/region09/waste/)
Region 10 Superfund Homepage (http://epainotes1.rtpnc.epa.gov:7777/r10/cleanup.nsf/
webpage/Superfund + (CERCLA))
Superfund Reforms Homepage (www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/reforms/)
National Remedy Review Board Website (www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/nrrb/)
Rules of Thumb for Remedy Selection Guidance (www.epa.gov/superfund/resources/rules/)
Clarifying the Role of Cost in the Remedy Selection Process Factsheet (www.epa.gov/
superfund/resources/cost_dir/cost_dir.pdf)
Expert Workgroup on Lead Website (www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/lead/)
Superfund Site Dynamic Query Function (www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/)
Superfund Risk Assessment Website (www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/risk/)
Superfund Sites Forum to discuss issues surrounding the recycling of Superfund sites.
Over two days, a broad range of participants from local government, community groups,
private industry, and other parties involved with Superfund sites discussed their perspec-
tives on site reuse, provided feedback to EPA, and created a valuable network of stake-
holders who can share expertise in the field. The forum helped EPA gather input from
interested parties on the role the Agency can play in promoting and leveraging the reuse
of Superfund sites.
In March 1998, EPA teamed with the International City/County Managers Association to
hold the third Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund (PvAGS) Stakeholder Forum in
Atlanta, Georgia. Participants discussed the role of community involvement in
Superfund risk assessments and helped develop public outreach products, including an
educational videotape for citizens. Participants provided helpful suggestions for improv-
ing the products and gained a better understanding of risk assessment reforms.
_____
page 28
__ _
-------
Superfund Program
Accomplishment Headlines
EPA's ten regional Superfund Ombudsmen help resolve concerns community members
have with cleanup actions. For example, EPA Region 7 undertook a major action to
clean up lead contamination in approximately 3,000 residential yards. The regional
Ombudsman helped resolve complaints from property owners who were not satisfied
with the outcome. In one particularly difficult case, the Ombudsman made an indepen-
dent assessment and then worked out an agreement acceptable to EPA, the property
owner, local officials, and the Army Corps of Engineers.
EPA also uses its extensive Superfund website to inform and involve the public. In
addition to the Headquarters Superfund page, all ten regions have their own homepages
that provide site information, link to important documents, and list appropriate contacts.
The Agency's new Superfund Reforms Website allows stakeholders to view documents,
read success stories, and access the latest information on each reform. Visit the
Superfund Reforms Website at http://www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/reforms/.
Suoerfund
I tir //rjiv tmrnrtl n ffiw» rw*iJ Hwlplul Inlunvirtliui
ky TW. «-<" «-'-" "«i«-«i-J «iu,l. ib
hy R«r«nd ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^H
510 " -- - "erorjn
Sfau* fc* lt«ft in S^rtoflS
altti sutl th
i«iMtitti£
, EPA imp1
In 1993, EPA A iSmiriistrstoi C-trcJ Browm*r anr-ounced tht fiist ofliufe founds of
*3'j|3 tcfurid RefoEKii " Each.j'Dund ofi*f':jiiii coiisLfted of *"4i3DU3 ioiliativts
pilots which fociisicd on. ch-mger thai ciiald bt unplttKtri±*d Hfithir. the exii-^
pros'*:. Tti* Eefiuni we-ie
gj^g from ei-sljon.-9i] prs p-amiaatic .rt'iiu'ig-f s :r ch&nges affecting Lndi^iduil silts
at *vtrr fftae of the cleanup and enfci cement processes.
Ae a result of thep« i^Forrne, Uu ptopamjp
-------
Reforms at a Glance
The Reforms Matrix section provides a quick reference tool that summarizes the current
status and activities for each reform. The reforms are separated into broad categories
within Rounds 2 and 3, including cleanups, enforcement, risk assessment, public in-
volvement and environmental justice, economic redevelopment, innovative technology,
and state and tribal empowerment.
The matrix is intended to be a comprehensive look at the activities and achievements of
the reforms. The column headings present easily accessible information for each re-
form. The first column, "Reform," provides the reforms name and number, as well as a
brief description of the reform goals. The second column, "Status," indicates whether a
reform is complete or ongoing, and lists current activities of the reform effort. "Com-
pleted" status indicates that the major objectives of the reform have been fulfilled and
future activity will consist mainly of continuing efforts to implement and strengthen the
reform. For these reforms, activities listed under the "Status" heading reflect ongoing
program implementation. The third column, "Successes," lists the reform's achieve-
ments and outcomes.
Reforms Strengthen and Improve
the Superfund Program
hasten, hairer, More bfficient
Ensuring consistent program implementation by applying lessons learned from past
initiatives to make cleanups faster, more efficient, and less costly.
Promoting economic development initiatives that foster cleanup and reuse of aban-
doned, idled, or under-used industrial and commercial properties where expansion or
redevelopment is complicated by real or perceived contamination.
Involving and informing communities in the cleanup process to ensure that cleanup
objectives are responsive to the needs of the communities served.
Ensuring environmental justice for people of all ethnic groups and the economically
disadvantaged through equal, prompt, and effective environmental protection.
Getting state and tribal governments more involved in recognition of the high quality
of state cleanup programs and state and tribal contributions to Superfund efforts.
Making the liability system work better by test-driving innovative enforcement pro-
cesses; reducing transaction costs for PRPs; and promoting fair, effective, and efficient
settlements.
_
page 30
-------
Reforms at a Glance
Reform
HI FANNPS
Status
UU
Successes
Establish National Remedy
Review Board (NRRB) (1a)
Promotes cost-effectiveness and
national consistency in remedy
selection through analysis of
site-specific cleanup strategies
Establish New Remedy
Selection Management Flags/
Rules of Thumb (1b)
Promotes cost-effectiveness by
developing remedy selection
rules that flag potentially "contro-
versial" cleanup decisions for
senior management
Update Remedy Decisions at
Select Sites (2)
Revisit remedy decisions at sites
where new scientific information
ortechnological advancements
will maintain protectiveness of
human health and environment
and enhance overall remedy and
cost-effectiveness
Reform Complete
Continue to review site cleanups
and non-time-critical removal
actions that meet certain criteria
Reform Complete
Continue to use consolidated guide
and guidance to improve remedy
selection process
Reform Complete
Work with states and PRPs to
identify opportunities for improving
remedies
Tabulate specific remedy update
data on a quarterly basis
Established Remedy Review Board
(11/95)
Issued memorandum and fact sheet
on Remedy Review Board (9/96)
Issued annual progress report (12/96
and 2/98)
Created National Remedy Review
Board website (www.epa.gov/
superfund/programs/nrrb/index.htm)
Reviewed and streamlined the scope
and mission of the Board (FY98)
Reviewed a total of 33 site deci-
sions, saving an estimated $43
million (through 9/98)
Issued consolidated guide to consul-
tation procedures for Superfund
response decisions (5/97)
Issued guidance on rules of thumb for
Superfund remedy selection (8/97)
Posted "Rules of Thumb for Remedy
Selection" guidance on EPA
homepage (10/97); over 1,500 users
have accessed the document
(www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/
reforms/reforms/3-1 b.htm#docs)
Issued final implementation memo-
randum (9/96)
Updated over 210 remedies, with
estimated future cost savings of over
$1 billion (through 9/98)
Published results of remedy updates
completed during FY96 and FY97 in
report, "Updating Remedy Decisions
at Select Superfund Sites, Sum-
mary Report" (7/98)
page 31
-------
a ance^
Reform
CLEANUPS
Status
Successes
Clarify the Role of Cost in
the Remedy Selection
Process(3a)
Clarify the role of cost as
established in existing law,
regulation, and policy
Directive on National Consis-
tency in Remedy Selection
(3b)
Emphasize critical importance
of national consistency in the
remedy selection process and
request that program managers
fully use existing tools and
consulting opportunities to
promote such consistency
Clarify Information Regard-
ing Remedy Selection
Decisions (4)
Design a tool for clearly pre-
senting, in a standardized
format, the context, basis, and
rationale for site-specific
remedy selection decisions
Establish Lead Regulator for
Federal Facilities (7)
Develop guidance to establish a
lead regulator at sites undergo-
ing cleanup activities under
competing federal and state
authorities to eliminate overlap
and duplication of oversight
efforts
Reform Complete
Reform Complete
Continue to review all proposed
plans and Records of Decision
(RODs) to promote national
consistency in remedy selection
decisionmaking
Reform Complete
Prepare more comprehensive
guidance
Reform Complete
1 Issued memorandum and fact
sheet on the role of cost (9/96)
1 Fact sheet posted on Superfund
homepage (12/96) and accessed
by over 1,000 users (www.epa.gov/
su perfu nd/resou rces/cost_d ir/
cost_dir.pdf)
1 Issued national consistency memo-
randum "National Consistency in
Superfund Remedy Selection" (9/96)
1 Established cross-regional
management and technical review
workgroups to promote communica-
tion and consistency
1 Published fact sheet on EPA's
management review procedures
(5/97)
Developed interim remedy selection
summary sheet (12/96)
Developed draft policy
Issued policy that promotes the
single regulator, defines roles, and
outlines the general principles and
guidelines for federal and state
partners in overseeing cleanup
responses (FY98)
page 32
Report FY 1998
-------
Reform
HI FANNPS
Status
Successes
Consider Response Actions
Prior to NPL Listing (8)
Provide greater flexibility to
current NPL policy for evaluating
the impact of completed remov-
als on the MRS score by allow-
ing post-Site Inspection com-
pleted removals to be considered
in MRS scoring
Promote Risk-Based Priority
Setting at Federal Facility
Sites (10a)
Develop draft guidance forthe
regions which will address the
role of risk and other factors in
setting priorities at federal
facility sites
Promote Risk-Based Priority
for NPL Sites (1 Ob)
Establish national Risk-Based
Priority Panel to evaluate the risk
at NPL sites with respect to
human health and the environ-
ment; use evaluations to estab-
lish funding priorities
Reform Complete
Continue to collect information and
monitor implementation of reform
Reform Ongoing
Implement on a regional level
Completion expected 3/99
Issue final guidance
Reform Complete
Continue review of cleanup projects
and establish funding
Reconvene panel (early Spring
1999)
Amended October 1992 NPL policy
(4/97)
Developed draft guidance
Regions began implementing risk-
based priority setting at federal
facilities
Issued "Interim Final Policy on the
Use of Risk-Based Methodologies in
Setting Priorities for Cleanup Actions
at Federal Facilities" (8/98)
Established National Risk-Based
Priority Panel to rank sites based on
risk (8/95)
Evaluated over 50 projects during
FY97 (8/97)
Evaluated over 50 projects in FY98,
30 of which were funded in accor-
dance with their recommendations
totaling over $180 million
Ranked over $1 billion worth of
cleanup projects since its inception
page 33
-------
a ance^
Reform
Status
Successes
RISK ASSESSMENT
Community Participation in
Designing Risk Assessments
(5a)
Create a concise, user-friendly
reference that provides risk
assessors and community
members with suggestions for
good risk assessments; pro-
motes public participation in the
risk assessment process
PRP Performance of Risk
Assessments (5b)
Reaffirms EPA's commitment to
authorize PRPsto perform risk
assessments underthe proper
circumstances
Establish National Criteria to
Plan, Report, and Review
Superfund Risk Assessments
(6a)
Prepare documents to help
insure that risk assessments are
more transparent, clear, consis-
tent and reasonable
Reform Ongoing
Complete and distribute final
guidance document (1/99)
Prepare a hand-out on community
participation (1/99)
Produce a video that discusses
risk assessment and opportunities
for public involvement (Spring 1999)
[See also Reform 3.6b]
Reform Complete
Survey regions to determine if there
are sites where PRPs perform the
RI/FS but not the baseline risk
assessment
Reform Complete
Continue RAGS Part D pilot during
FY99, addressing questions from
training and website feedback
Test RAGS Part D on various site
types and provide clarification and
usertips as appropriate
Revise guidance as appropriate
throughout and following pilot
period
Address lead, radionuclide, and
ecological standardization issues
Formed workgroup to develop
reference document (2/97)
Shared draft of reference document
with the Association of State and
Territorial Solid Waste Manage-
ment Officials (ASTSWMO), and
with participants at the Risk
Assessment Reform Stakeholder
Forum (3/98) and several EPA
technical community involvement
meetings
Revised document based on
feedback
1 Issued guidance clarifying PRP role
in risk assessments (1/96)
Drafted standard risk assessment
data reporting tables (7/97 or 7/96)
Issued Technical Approach to Risk
Assessment for planning, reporting,
and reviewing risk assessments (9/97)
Issued "Risk Assessment Guidance
forSuperfund (RAGS) (Part D)" (1/98)
Launched RAGS Part D website
containing guidance documents
(2/98) (www.epa.gov/superfund/
prog rams/risk/ragsd/index. htm)
Released "Ecological Risk Assess-
ment Guidance forSuperfund" (6/98)
Conducted RAGS Part D training for
risk assessors and risk managers
(7-9/98)
page 34
Report FY 1998
-------
Reform
RISK ASSFSSMFNT
Status
Successes
Standardize Risk Assessments
(6b)
Improve current national
Superfund risk assessment
guidance by updating and
expanding upon parts of the 1989
Risk Assessment Guidance for
Superfund (RAGS)
Utilize Expert Workgroup on
Lead (6c)
Utilize expert workgroup to
standardize risk assessment
approaches for lead-contami-
nated Superfund sites
Reform Ongoing
Develop videotape "Superfund Risk
Assessment & How Communities
May Become Involved: A Video for
Citizens" (Spring 1999)
Issue guidance document and fact
sheet on "Community Involvement
in Superfund Risk Assessment"
(FY99)
Complete expanded guidance
document to supplement EPA's
RAGS Part B (other-than-residen-
tial land uses) (10/99)
Develop technical guidance docu-
ment for soil background determi-
nations (10/99)
Develop guidance document
"RAGS Volume 3" and companion
workbook for probabilistic risk
assessment (10/99)
Reform Complete
Issue a directive on lead removal
actions (FY99)
Plan a second national conference
on lead (6/99)
Formed EPA Workgroups (3/97)
Issued draft workplans (3/97)
Initiated guidance development for all
RAGS reform projects (5/97)
Updated workplan (4/98)
Held 3rd RAGS Reform Stakeholder
Forum (3/98), workshop with
(ASTSWMO), and presented project
status and draft documents at a
number of EPA technical and
community involvement meetings
Released "Superfund Today: Focus
on Revisions to Superfund's Risk
Assessment Guidance" (10/98)
Convened a national conference on
lead (10/96)
Finalized 10 issue papers(9/98)
Held 3 meetings in 1997 and 2 in
1998
Posted the Technical Review
Workgroup for Lead (TRW) website
(FY97) (www.epa.gov/superfund/
programs/lead/index, htm)
Reviewed lead risk assessments at
6 sites nationally (FY97)
page 35
-------
a ance^
Reform
Status
Successes
ECONOMIC REDEVELOPMENT
T
Delete Clean Parcels from
theNPL(9)
Delete portions of sites from the
NPL that have been cleaned up
and are available for productive
use
Reform Complete
Issue additional notices of intent to
delete clean parcels
Pilot deletion of remediated parcels
at closing military bases
Continue to promote the use of
partial deletions of NPL sites
1 Issued notice on policy change to
allow partial deletions (11 /95)
1 Issued partial deletion guidance
(4/96)
1 Deleted clean parcels at 14 sites;
issued notice of intent to delete
clean parcels at 3 sites (through
FY98)
ENFORCEMENT
Orphan Share Compensation
(11)
Provide greater fairness, reduce
litigation, and promote cleanup
of Superfund sites by compen-
sating parties who perform
cleanups for a portion of cleanup
costs to orphan shares
Site Specific Special Accounts
(12)
Encourage greater use of Special
Accounts for settlement funds to
be used for response actions at
Superfund sites; insure that
interest earned by Special
Accounts be credited and
available for response actions at
the site for which the Special
Account was established
Reform Complete
Continue to offer orphan share
compensation at every eligible site
underthe June 1996 interim
guidance on orphan share compen-
sation
Continue to offer orphan share
compensation in cost recovery
negotiations under discretionary
September 1997 policy
Reform Complete
Continue to promote and refine the
use of Special Accounts, and
develop guidance as needed
Explore options for disbursing these
funds to PRPs to perform response
work as an expansion of the original
reform
Issued interim final guidance on
orphan share compensation (6/96)
Existence of orphan share may be
considered in settlement cost
recovery cases, as stated in the
Addendum to the "Interim CERCLA
Settlement Policy," issued Septem-
ber 30,1997
Approximately $145 million offered in
orphan share compensation at 72
sites (through FY98)
Reached agreement with OMB
allowing interest to accrue directly
to special accounts (10/96)
Through FY98, collected over $399
million, established 115 special
accounts, and accrued over $69
million in interest (through 8/31/98)
for a total of $468 million
Issued the "Interim Final Guidance
on Disbursement of Funds From
EPA Special Accounts to CERCLA
Potentially Responsible Parties"
(11/3/98)
nnqal Report FY 1998
page
-------
Reform
FNFORnFMFNT
Status
Successes
Equitable Issuance of Unilat-
eral Administrative Orders
(UAO)(13)
Ensure that UAOs are issued to
all appropriate parties following
consideration of the adequacy of
evidence of the party's liability,
theirfinancial viability, and their
contribution to the site; establish
several different document
requirements
Revised De Micromis Guid-
ance (14)
Further discourage third-party
contribution litigation against de
micromis parties; where neces-
sary, resolve de micromis parties'
liability concerns quickly and
fairly
Adopting Private Party Alloca-
tions (15)
Provide private parties with the
opportunity to submit an alloca-
tion approach that covers 100
percent of the costs at a given
site
Reform Complete
Reform Complete
Only 9 sites have had de micromis
settlements. This low number
illustrates how the reform has
proactively deterred PRPs from
pursuing minuscule parties
Reform Complete
This reform was merged with the
orphan share reform (FY97)
Issued memorandum to regions
directing changes in procedures for
UAO issuance (8/96)
EPA Headquarters personnel
independently reviewed the docu-
mentation prepared by regional staff
and determined consistency with
existing Agency policy, including the
8/96 memorandum
Issued 68 UAOs (FY98)
Issued first CERCLA UAO to another
federal agency (FY98)
Issued at least 6 orders to state/
local government entities (FY98)
Issued de micromis guidance and
models in which levels previously
identified for small party protection
were doubled, and streamlined and
simplified the settlement process
(6/96)
EPA and the Department of Justice
(DOJ) issued the policy "Inclusion of
Contribution Waiver by Private
Parties in CERCLA Administrative
and Judicial Settlements" (10/2/98)
Determined that current Superfund
policies are adequate for providing
direction to implement this reform
Used allocations as basis for
settlement at several sites (9/96)
page 3
-------
a ance^
Reform
Status
Successes
ENFORCEMENT
Improving the Administration
of PRP Oversight (16)
Maximize effectiveness and
efficiency of EPA oversight of
PRPs through enhancement of
EPA's working relationship with
these parties
Reform Complete
Organize meetings between
regions and PRPs to discuss
oversight issues
Conduct site-specific evaluations to
assess reform impacts
Issued definition to Regions on
requirements for implementing the
reform during FY98 (FY98)
Included over 70 PRPs as partici-
pants in the reform (FY98)
Issued statement that the reform
has been reoriented to focus on
improving working relationships with
PRPs and the efficiency of oversight
management (FY98)
Conducted panel discussion at
annual conference of National
Association of Remedial Project
Managers to promote implementa-
tion of reform (6/98)
Participated on panel discussion of
oversight and cost recovery issues
at the semi-annual conference of the
Information Network for Superfund
Settlements (10/98)
STATE AND TRIRAI EMPOWERMENT
Pilot Remedy Selection by
Selected States and Tribes
(17)
Provide states and tribes with an
increased role in remedy selec-
tion at NPL sites when possible
Reform Ongoing
Continue implementing the remedy
selection process for pilot sites
Collect state remedy selection
dates (began FY98)
Prepare closeout report FY99
Incorporate conclusions into EPA's
Enhanced State and Tribal Roles
Initiative
1 Formed national workgroup to
develop criteria and process to
select pilot sites and evaluate
impact of reform (FY96)
1 Identified 11 pilot sites from 6
regions (FY97)
::
i ^"^^~^^~^^~
page
-------
Reform
Status
Successes
PUBLIC INVOLVFMFNT/FNVIRONMFNTAIINSTirLF
Pilot Community-Based
Remedy Selection (18)
Promote greater public involve-
ment in the Superfund program,
especially during remedy
selection
f
Establish Superfund Ombuds-
man in Every Region (19)
Place an Ombudsman in each
region to serve as a point of
contact for the public and help
resolve stakeholder concerns
Improve Communication with
Superfund Stakeholders (20)
Increase communication among
all Superfund stakeholders and
improve access to Superfund
information using electronic
tools, such as the Internet
Reform Ongoing
Complete case studies
Complete and distribute compen-
dium of useful experiences, ap-
proaches, and techniques (1/99)
Continue to discuss regional
approaches to community-based
remedy selection
Reform Complete
Continue to conduct public out-
reach
MJ
Reform Complete
Continue to post and revise
Superfund information on EPA
Superfund homepage, including
enhancements to the dynamic
Superfund Site Information Query,
visual improvements, restructuring
according to survey responses
(planned) of website users
Discussed regional community-
based remedy selection approaches
(ongoing)
Appointed an Ombudsman in each
region (completed 3/96)
Published "Fact Sheet: Regional
Ombudsman-Providing a Meaning-
ful Forum for Stakeholder Concerns"
(6/96)
Convened annual meetings (6/96,
2/97,4/98)
Conducted ongoing public outreach
and mediation training (2/97)
Developed new outreach tools, toll-
free numbers for stakeholders to call,
and new processes to resolve issues
Created Headquarters Superfund
homepage (4/96); over 100,000
users have accessed the site since
10/96 (www.epa.gov/superfund/)
Revised website (3/97) to facilitate
stakeholder access to Superfund
information
Released Superfund Site Dynamic
Query function on website for
personalized Superfund searches
(2/98) (www.epa.gov/superfund/sites)
Released Superfund Risk Assess-
ment website (11/98) (www.epa.gov/
superfund/prog rams/risk/index, htm)
Updates to website during FY98
include: online customer survey, user
buttons, and posted success stories
page 39
-------
a ance^
Reform
ENFORCEMENT
Status
Successes
PRP Search Pilots (1)
[See Enforcement Pilots Section]
Determine whether the time line
proposed in the Superfund
Reform Act of 1994 can be
accomplished through comple-
tion of early PRP searches; pilot
several techniques developed to
streamline and improve the PRP
search process
Expedited Settlement Pilots (2)
[See Enforcement Pilots Section]
Reduce transaction costs for all
PRPs at Superfund sites through
early settlements. Reform was
designed to encourage early de
minimissettlements, encourage
ability to pay settlements, and
give PRPs opportunity to nomi-
nate other PRPs
The Allocation Pilots (3)
[See Enforcement Pilots Section]
Offer a fundamentally different
approach to allocating Superfund
costs between parties-a neutral
"allocator" selected by the
parties conducts a non-binding,
out-of-court process resulting in
an allocation report from which
parties may offer to settle with
EPA based on their allocated
share
Reform Complete
Incorporating lessons learned into
the program
Sponsor a national PRP Search
Enhancement Conference
Initiated pilots at 15 Superfund sites
(FY95)
Developed "Regional Pilot Participa-
tion Package" as resource for pilots
(6/95)
Pilots completed
Reform Complete
Continue to monitor remainder of
pilots
Incorporating lessons learned into
the program
1 Initiated pilots at 18 Superfund sites
1 Issued guidance on standardizing de
minimis premiums (7/95)
Reform Complete
Incorporate lessons learned into
the program
Finish the allocation process for
the remaining pilots
Offered allocation process at 12
sites; process being piloted at 9
Superfund sites
Issued 5 allocation reports
Settlement complete at 4 sites
Settled pre-allocation report at 5
other sites
page 40
Report FY 1998
-------
Reform
Status
Successes
RFDFVFI DPMFMT
Brownfields Pilot Projects
and Brownfields Community
Outreach (4a-b)
Fund pilots designed to support
creative explorations and
demonstrations of brownfields
solutions; provide EPA, states,
tribes, municipalities, and
communities with useful informa-
tion and strategies; promote
community involvement and
partnerships
Refining CERCLIS (4c)
Refine CERCLIS (automated
inventory of site information);
encourage cleanup and redevel-
opment by archiving sites that
no longer need to be tracked
Reform Complete
Identify up to 50 new Brownfields
Assessment Demonstration Pilots
and supplement up to 50 existing
pilots
Identify up to 70 additional
Brownfields Cleanup Revolving Loan
Fund Pilots
Identify up to 10 new Job Training
and Development Demonstration
Pilots
Work with NIEHS to coordinate
minority workers with pilot activities
Work with American Society for
Testing and Materials (ASTM) to
develop standard guide to identify
interrelationship aspects of
brownfields revitalizations.
Reform Complete
Continue to archive sites from
CERCLIS
Awarded 227 Assessment Demon-
stration pilots - up to $200,000 per
pilot (through FY98)
Announced selection of 16
Brownfields Showcase Communities
as part of National Partnership
(FY98)
Awarded 11 job training pilots (FY98)
Continued oversight and develop-
ment of 23 Brownfields Cleanup
Revolving Loan Fund Pilots (FY98)
Awarded 3 Clean Air/ Brownfields
Partnership Pilots (FY98)
Provided support for brownfields
targeted site assessments (FY98)
Department of Transportation
announced policy to recognize the
importance of revitalizing brownfields
as part of transportation projects
(Earth Day '98)
Conducted Brownfields National
Conference with 12 co-sponsoring
organizations (11/98)
HMTRI held workshop to assist
community colleges in developing
environmental job training programs
(6/98)
Archived sites (31,116 as of 10/7/98)
Sent 200 letters to mayors with
archived sites in their cities (7/95)
Developed fact sheet "Archival of
CERCLIS Sites" as a reference (4/97)
Posted an inventory of archived sites
by state on the Internet (4/97)
paqe 41
-------
a ance^
Reform
Status
Successes
ECONOMIC REDEVELOPMENT
Clarifying NPL Sites (4d)
Provide regions with flexibility to
clarify areas within Superfund
sites determined to be contami-
nated oruncontaminated
Reform Complete
Removing Liability Barriers:
PPAs (4e)
Identify options and tools to
remove liability barriers to
encourage the cleanup and
redevelopment of contaminated
properties
Reform Complete
Continue using PPAs and Comfort
Letters to encourage redevelop-
ment of Superfund sites
Convened workgroup (5/95)
Workgroup recommended a policy
change to allow partial deletions
Published Federal Register notice
(11/95)
Published guidance describing
procedures for partial deletions (4/96)
Deleted clean parcels at 14 sites
and issued notices of intent to
delete 3 other sites (through FY98)
1 Issued guidance documents provid-
ing assurance to prospective
purchasers, lenders, and property
owners on CERCLA liability (5/95)
1 Issued "Policy on the Issuance of
Comfort/Status Letters" (11/96)
1 Issued "Handbook of Tools for
Managing Federal Superfund
Liability Risks at Brownfields and
Other Sites" (11/98)
1 Referred almost 100 PPAs to DOJ;
of these, close to 90 were finalized
asofendofFY98
1 Issued approximately 300 comfort
letters to date
___
paqe 42
page
-------
Reform
Status
Successes
PUBLIC INX/OI WFMFNT/FNWIPnNMFNTAI Jll.STIHF
MJ
Community Advisory Groups
(5a)
Encourage regions to promote
the establishment of CAGs,
which provide a public forum for
community members to present
and discuss their needs and
concerns about the decision
making process at sites affecting
them and to participate more
effectively in the Superfund
decision making process
Technical Assistance Grants
(5b)
Provide resources to eligible
communities affected by
Superfund sites to acquire
independent technical assis-
tance to help them understand
and comment on site-related
information
Reform Complete
Evaluate existing CAGs
Promote and assist CAGs by
developing a CAG website
Make continual improvements to
CAG Toolkit
Reform Ongoing
Publish proposed TAG regulation
(March 1999)
Promote citizen involvement by
improving TAGs and facilitating the
process
Publish provisions to the TAG
regulation in FY99
Continue to implement enhanced
community involvement activities at
the remainder of the selected sites
Incorporate lessons learned into the
program
Issued guidance summary on use of
CAGs (8/96)
Issued case studies of 5 sites,
"Community Assistance Groups:
Partners in Decisions at Hazardous
Waste Sites" (11/96)
Issued the CAG Toolkit, one of the
most effective mechanisms for
implementing the CAG program at
Superfund sites (8/97)
Established CAGs at 47 sites total
(through FY98)
Published CAG Guidance/Reference
sheet in English and Spanish (4/98)
CAG concept used by other Agency
programs (FY98)
Completed field-tests of the toolkits
at18sites(FY98)
Revised toolkits and final copies
printed and distributed (10/98)
Developed and produced booklet
highlighting content and promoting
toolkit use by communities (9/98)
Drafted proposed TAG regulation
More than 202 TAGs awarded since
the program's inception in 1988 (as
ofFY98)
Published strategic plan in FY98
page 43
-------
a ance^
Reform
Status
Successes
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT/ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
Community Involvement in
the Enforcement Process
Pilots (6)
[See Enforcement Pilots Section]
Pilot ways in which community
involvement in the enforcement
process could be enhanced
Training and Health Service
Assistance to Communities
(7a)
Respond to health concerns of
communities near hazardous
waste sites by establishing the
Medical Assistance Plan (MAP)
in coordination with the U.S.
Public Health Service
Superfund Jobs Training
Initiative (7b)
Develop interagency partner-
ships to train and employ
community residents living near
Superfund sites through class-
room instruction and hands-on
experience
Reform Complete
Incorporating lessons learned into
the program
Reform Ongoing
Target 4 sites for assistance (9/97)
Reform Complete
Continue funding NIEHS's Minority
Worker Training Program
Continue establishing SuperJTI
pilots
Continue awarding grants to health
and safety programs
Initiated pilots at 13 sites in 9 out of
10 regions
Completed piloted activities at some
of the 13 sites selected
Used effective approaches at a
number of sites outside the pilot
project
1 Established Superfund Medical
Assistance Work Group to develop
MAP (FY94)
Started 5 pilots at Superfund sites
Established 7 programs at 11 sites
(6/96)
Awarded 20 grants for health and
safety programs (9/96)
Funded NIEHS Minority Worker
Training Program for FY97
page 44
Report FY 1998
-------
Reform
HI FANNPS
Status
Successes
Guidance for Remedy Selec-
tion (8)
Improve consistency and take
advantage of streamlining
opportunities in site character-
ization and remedy selection
Reform Complete
Issue user's guide for wood treater
sites presumptive remedy
Complete evaluation of implemen-
tation of presumptive remedy
Issue presumptive remedy directive
for metals-in-soils (FY99)
Issued final soil screening guidance
(5/96)
Issued new land use directive (5/95)
Issued "CERCLA Landfill Caps RI/FS
Data Collection Guide" (8/95)
Issued presumptive remedy guid-
ance for: MSW landfills (9/93),
VOCs in soils (9/93), presumptive
remedy policies and procedures (9/
93), wood treater sites (12/95),
MSW landfills at military bases (4/
96), and ground watersites (10/96)
Issued a presumptive remedy users
guide for volatile organic compounds
in soils (7/96)
Issued supplemental bulletin report-
ing results of MSW landfill presump-
tive remedy pilots (1/97)
Issued supplemental bulletin for
multi-phase extraction technology for
the VOCs in soils presumptive
remedy (4/97)
IMMDVATIVF TFCHMDI PHY
Risk Sharing: Implementing
Innovative Technology (9a)
Share the risks associated with
implementing innovative tech-
nologies for a limited number of
approved projects by "underwrit-
ing" the use of certain promising
approaches
Risk Sharing: Identifying
Obstacles to Using Innovative
Technology (9b)
Develop programs to share
implementation risks associated
with the use of innovative
technologies
Reform Complete
Engage state agencies in this
initiative through the Interstate
Technology & Regulatory Coopera-
tion Working Group (ITRC)
Review proposals from Regions 5
and 7
Reform Complete
Issued final guidance for Risk
Sharing Initiative (3/98)
Technical evaluation panel reviewed
Region 7 proposal and forwarded
decision package recommending
approval to Assistant Administrator
(11/98)
Issued innovative technologies in
waste management directive,
"Promotion of Innovative Technolo-
gies in Waste Management Pro-
gram" (4/96)
page 45
-------
a Glance
Reform
Status
Successes
STATE AND TRIBAL EMPOWERMENT
r
Voluntary Cleanup Program
(10)
Support and promote effective
state/tribal voluntary cleanup
programs, and, in conjunction
with the Brownfields Initiative,
provide limited financial assis-
tance to such programs
Integrated Federal/State/
Tribal Management Program
(11)
With combined EPA and state
effort, develop a pilot program
which defers sites from NPL
listings to the states, territories,
commonwealths, and federally
recognized tribes who would
oversee and compel PRP actions
at selected sites
State/Tribal Superfund
Consolidated (Block) Funding
(12)
Offerways forstates and tribes
to realize greater flexibility in
their use of Cooperative Agree-
ment (CA) resources
Reform Complete
Continue to work on developing
agreements with state and tribal
voluntary cleanup programs
Anticipate continuation of coopera-
tive agreement awards to states in
FY99
Reform Complete
Evaluate review of state deferrals
and determine appropriate follow-up
actions
Reform Complete
12 states and 3 tribal pilots are
underway
Collect information from EPA
regions and states to evaluate and
develop lessons learned from the
pilots (8/99)
Incorporate block funding concepts
into Subpart O revision (2/00)
Decided preferred approach is for
EPA regions and states to negotiate
MOAs on a case-by-case basis that
can be customized to better fit the
state's VCP and legislation
35 states have implemented pro-
grams since its inception
Signed MOAs with 11 states
(through FY98)
Published guidance on drafting
MOAs between regions and states
(9/97)
EPA distributed $10 million of FY97
funding to support state Voluntary
Cleanup Program infrastructure
1 Issued final guidance on deferral
program (5/95)
1 Initiated review of Superfund deferral
sites (FY97)
1 Signed agreements with 12 states
(through 9/98)
1 Issued final report documenting
obstacles in awarding and utilizing
Superfund resources (12/97)
1 Initiated evaluation of ongoing pilots
in FY98
page 46
Report FY 1998
-------
The Enforcement Pilots
As part of the Superfund reforms effort, EPA committed to improving the enforcement
processprimarily by increasing fairness, reducing transaction costs, and expediting
settlements. In February 1995, the Agency announced its efforts to pilot ways to meet
this commitment. Over the past several years, EPA has implemented four enforcement
pilots: Potentially Responsible Party Search, Expedited Settlements, Community In-
volvement in the Enforcement Process, and Allocations. These pilot sites test concepts
introduced in the Superfund Reform Act (SRA) of 1994 at Superfund sites. After more
than three years, the pilots have generated clear trends and provided lessons that will
improve the Superfund enforcement process. The following summaries look at cumula-
tive accomplishments and lessons learned for each of the respective pilots. EPA will
continue to monitor these pilots; however, the Agency will not issue another detailed
summary unless new trends develop.
paqe 47
-------
The Enforcement Pilots
PRP Search Pilots:
A Balance of Speed and Comprehensiveness
The primary goal of the PRP Search Pilots was to determine whether the time frame
proposed in the Superfund Reform Act (SRA) of 1994 (H.R. 4916) could be best accom-
plished through completion of early PRP searches. EPA also tested several techniques,
identified during a national PRP search conference, designed to streamline and improve
the PRP search process. In addition, EPA's Office of Site Remediation Enforcement
(OSRE) formed the national PRP Search Enhancement Team (Team) in early 1997. The
Team has worked closely with regional PRP search staff to identify, develop, and priori-
tize a number of tasks designed to support and promote an enhanced PRP search
process.
In the Spring of 1995, EPA identified 15 sites where PRP searches hadjust begun or were
about to be initiated as pilot candidates. To test the relevant provisions contained in
SRA, each pilot site was set up to conform as closely as possible to a time frame that
would lead to notification of potential de minimis parties within 12 months after the
search start, and notification of all other parties within 18 months after the search start.
Each pilot also tested one or more of the streamlining techniques.
At the 15 pilot sites, PRP searches varied widely in their duration and scope due to
variation in site size, the number of PRPs, nature and extent of contamination, available
documentation, and level of state involvement. None of the 13 sites that had potential de
minimis parties notified those parties within 12 months of the search start date. Five
Piloted streamlining
techniques included:
Using radio announcements, newspaper advertising, and toll-free
telephone numbers to solicit information about PRPs from the public;
Conducting early interviews of parties to obtain information and
minimize the need for multiple rounds of information requests; and
Establishing a publicly available repository for PRP search information
to help PRPs identify other PRPs earlier in the enforcement process.
page 48
-------
sites made the deadline for notifying all other parties within 18 months of the search start
date. The results of the PRP Search Pilots, as well as previous PRP search improvement
efforts and evaluations, serve as building blocks for EPA's efforts currently underway to
enhance PRP searches.
Several of the streamlining techniques improved PRP searches. At one site, use of the
new model information request letter was instrumental in identifying 150 additional
parties early in the search process. At another site, an early interview led to valuable
information about other PRPs, and assisted in a better understanding of business prac-
tices contributing to contamination of that site. Also, the use of a publicly available
repository for PRP search information was very helpful in providing valuable information
to PRPs and a local community group, and led to nomination of additional parties earlier
in the search process. Early interviews of people with knowledge of a site was the
technique most commonly cited as being effective in increasing the speed and efficiency
of PRP searches.
EPA learned several lessons from the PRP Search Pilots. Primarily, SRA notification time
frames were too ambitious for the piloted sites, and would most likely be too ambitious
for a majority of Superfund sites. Of all the difficulty factors, the three most common
factors preventing adherence to the SRA time frames were complex sites, troublesome
hazardous substances, and uncooperative PRPs. To improve the PRP search process, it
appears that speed is most effective when balanced with comprehensiveness.
page 49
-------
Expedited Settlement Pilots
In 1995, EPA announced the Expedited Settlement Pilots reform, intended to reduce
transaction costs for all PRPs at Superfund sites through early settlements. The reform
had three specific goals: to encourage early (i.e., pre-ROD) de minimis settlements; to
encourage ability to pay (ATP) settlements with de minimis PRPs who demonstrate they
cannot pay their full share of response costs at the site; and to give PRPs the opportunity
to nominate other PRPs who they believe are also responsible for site cleanup. EPA
initiated pilots at 18 Superfund sites to test concepts for meeting these expedited settle-
ment goals.
At the end of FY98, EPA had settled with a total of 1,402 de minimis and ATP parties,
resulting in recovery of approximately $22.7 million. From the pilots' inception through
the end of FY98, EPA achieved early de minimis settlements at eight pilot sites and ATP
settlements at 5 pilot sites, and solicited nominations of additional PRPs. During FY98,
EPA also began three new efforts to track the progress of these pilots: determine the
feasibility of pre-ROD settlements; evaluate the lessons learned from these pilots; and
examine which aspects of this reform should be incorporated into the existing
Superfund Enforcement Program.
Lessons Learned and Recommendations
After over three years of piloting expedited settlements, EPA has learned several valuable
lessons. First, the Agency has learned the benefits of encouraging pre-ROD de minimis
settlements. Reaching these settlements helps EPA resolve liability issues early in the
process, reduces future transaction costs, creates funds that can be used to encourage
other PRPs to settle with the Agency, and generates positive feedback from de minimis
and non-de minimis PRPs.
In addition, EPA has recognized several factors that lead to successful expedited settle-
ments. Regions should plan to do significant work early in the cleanup process to
identify the de minimis PRPs and to craft an appropriate strategy for each of them. As
early as possible, regions should obtain reliable information on the identity and contri-
butions of each PRR This includes obtaining good data on the type and volume of
waste contributed by each PRP to the site. In addition, credible and accurate informa-
tion on the costs of likely future response actions help establish the basis for a de mini-
mis settlement and allow the Agency to provide PRPs with that information. Performing
these research tasks early in the process allows the regions to proactively solicit interest
in early de minimis and ability to pay settlements.
It is important to involve PRPs in the de minimis identification process (EPA makes the
ultimate decision on whether a PRP is a de minimis party for that site) and to make sure
that PRPs understand pre-ROD de minimis settlements, their benefits and risks, and the
_
page 50
-------
The Enforcement Pilots
premium payment provision. This involvement is especially beneficial to PRPs who are
not generally knowledgeable about CERCLA. PRPs who believe that they are not finan-
cially able to pay their full share of any de minimis settlement should be aware that EPA
is willing to consider them for an ATP settlement. The regions should also inform them
of the information that they must provide to EPA to establish their limited ATP situation.
In some cases, PRPs may choose not to enter into a settlement with EPA before the
Agency has selected the response action. The PRPs may feel that paying a share of the
estimated costs of a yet-to-be-selected response action plus a premium is too risky for
them, and they may prefer to wait to negotiate any settlement until EPA decides on a
response action. Finally, it is important to allow PRPs to nominate other parties as PRPs.
EPA will then have time to include such nominated PRPs, should they qualify and
choose to be included, in an early de minimis settlement.
buccess
Tulalip Landfill, Region 10
EPA settled with 207 de minimis parties, resulting in recovery of
approximately $10.0 million. All three goals of the reform were
achieved at this remedial pilot: early de minimis settlement, ATP
settlement, and nomination of additional parties.
Solvent Recovery Services, Region 1
EPA settled with 945 de minimis parties, resulting in recovery of
approximately $7.3 million. EPA was also able to achieve two goals
of the reform at this pilot: early de minimis settlement and ATP
settlement.
page
-------
The Allocation Pilots:
Sharing Responsibility Among Parties
EPA initiated the Allocation Pilots in May 1995, offering a fundamentally different ap-
proach to allocating Superfund costs between parties. The main purpose of the pilot
was to test the implementability of the allocation scheme proposed by the 103rd
Congress and assess the impact of an allocation process on settlement.
Under the pilot, allocation parties were initially given the opportunity to nominate
additional parties. The parties then selected a neutral "allocator" to conduct a non-
binding, out-of-court process resulting in an allocation report. The allocation report
detailed each allocation party's assignment of shares of responsibility. Parties were
offered an opportunity to settle with EPA based on their allocated share. Under the
pilot, EPA was responsible for 100 percent of the orphan share, which consists of the
shares of allocation parties that are insolvent or defunct.
Implementing the Process
In previous reports, EPA has provided useful information regarding the strengths and
weaknesses of the SRA allocation provisions and of the various aspects of the allocation
pilot process in general (e.g., allocator selection, development of protocol document
between parties, settlement issues, and information derived from surveying the alloca-
tion parties). These findings have proved consistent throughout the sites. This year, EPA
is reporting on the nomination process, discovery of new parties during the allocation
process, the role of the allocator, consequences of an pre-allocation settlement, and the
cost of conducting an allocation.
The Nomination Process at Pilot Sites
The allocation pilot process allowed PRPs to propose for inclusion on the PRP list any
additional parties whose potential liability could be justified by supporting documenta-
tion. At eight of the nine pilot allocation sites, PRPs submitted nominations of additional
parties to be included on the list of PRPs for those sites. At one pilot site, parties waived
the nomination stage due to no evidence of additional PRPs.
The nomination stage of the pilot was a valuable opportunity for PRPs to identify addi-
tional allocation parties who could be assigned shares by the allocator. This opportunity
provided the Agency additional information about parties linked to the site and enabled
the Agency to determine the nominated party's status (e.g., whether the party is eligible
for de minimis or ATP settlements) while ensuring fairness to the existing allocation
parties. To discourage PRPs from making frivolous nominations, EPA tested a "fee-
shifting" provision adopted from the proposed Superfund legislation. Under fee-shifting,
a PRP who nominated another PRP would pay the costs incurred by that party if the
_
page 52
-------
The Enforcement Pilots
Allocation Pilots Data
net
Pilot Facts
EPA offered the pilot at 12 sites. At three sites, parties declined to enter the pilot
because they believed they could reach settlement outside the allocation process
(e.g., orphan share reform) or had already performed a private allocation. At the
remaining nine pilot sites, the following activities occurred:
Nominations Process
At eight sites, PRPs submitted nominations of additional parties to be included
in the allocation process. At the remaining site, parties waived the nominations
stage due to no evidence of additional PRPs.
Based on nomination and followup PRP search efforts, additional parties were
added to the list of allocation parties at seven sites. At one site, there was
insufficient evidence to include parties in the allocation process.
Selection of Allocator
Allocators were selected at all sites.
Allocation Report
Allocators issued an allocation report at five sites:
At two of the sites, the allocator issued a report that reflected an agreement
on the shares of responsibility reached between the parties;
At two other sites, the majority of parties settled, but the allocator had to
issue a report for parties who did notjoin the settlement; and
At one site, the allocator issued a report that there had been no settlements
to date.
Settlement Offers Based on Allocation
At two sites, parties submitted settlement offers based on the allocation report;
at one site, the Agency is awaiting settlement offers.
Status of Remaining Site
Without Allocation Report
For the four sites without an allocation report, the status is as follows: at one
site the parties reached an agreement on shares and the allocator was dis-
missed; at two sites there are agreements that have not yet been finalized; and
at the one remaining site the allocation process is ongoing.
paqe 53
-------
nominee is subsequently assigned a zero share by the allocator. During implementation,
however, private parties did not agree to fee-shifting because they believed it was an
unfair burden. Instead, they withdrew the names of nominated parties who EPA did not
believe were liable.
In the summer of 1997, EPA began surveying participants at the nine allocation pilot sites
to collect their perceptions of issues related to the pilot, including the nomination of
additional PRPs. The survey asked parties to consider whether they had enough time to
nominate additional PRPs, and if they did not, what factors limited the nomination of
additional parties.
Overall, allocation parties participating in the survey were generally satisfied with the
time and opportunity allowed for nominating additional PRPs. Only a small number of
parties indicated that they had specific complaints about the fairness of the nomination
process, while others indicated that site data and access to documents were limited.
Discovery of New Parties During the Allocation Process
During the information gathering process, there were instances in which new parties
were discovered (e.g., a transporter remembered hauling from a company he previously
did not identify). Potentially adding these new parties to the ongoing allocation process
raised procedural and substantive issues. Procedurally, EPA had to consider the timing
of the addition of new allocation parties. To protect the rights of newly added parties, it
was suggested that the allocator or EPA impose a deadline for adding new parties to the
allocation. This time restriction attempted to protect the newly added parties from the
potential unfairness associated with inadequate time to participate in the allocation
process in a meaningful way.
Substantively, the addition of new parties was treated differently at different sites. At one
site, the allocator decided whether to add new parties after the information gathering
phase of the process brought new information to light (the allocator ultimately added
approximately 30 new parties). At several other sites, the parties directed the allocator to
make recommendations on adding new parties, but left the ultimate decision to EPA. In
these cases, the standard for adding a new party was that, based on new information,
there was an adequate basis in law or fact to conclude that the additional party might be
liable under CERCLA.
The Role of the Allocator
When EPA commenced the allocation pilots, the Agency developed the allocator selec-
tion process to identify experienced neutrals who could implement a process resulting
in an allocation report delineating the parties' shares of responsibility at the site. Al-
though many neutrals had experience as mediators or facilitators, most had limited
experience as allocators. For the majority of the pilots, the parties wanted a person who
page 54
-------
The Enforcement Pilots
could act as both a mediator and allocator because they believed there would be at-
tempts to settle the matter before or during the allocation. The neutral could act as a
mediator during early settlement negotiations and act as an allocator (and issue the
allocation report) if settlement negotiations proved fruitless. For example, at one site, the
parties selected one group of neutrals to serve as mediators while another group was
directed to perform the allocation. When the case at that site was settled, the mediators
assisted in finalizing the settlement and dismissed the allocators.
As part of information gathering, several allocators asked the parties to fill out question-
naires, and interviewed parties with knowledge of the waste disposal practices at a site.
Although the allocator conducted the interviews, parties were able to attend the inter-
views and provide questions for the allocator to ask the witnesses. Overall, most parties
found this approach fairer than the normal EPA PRP search process. However, at one
site, parties believed that the allocators did not have the site experience to ask the most
pertinent questions. Other parties questioned the fairness of this process because they
could not cross-examine witnesses.
Neutrals performed several activities other than the actual allocation. At one site, the
mediators helped resolve issues such as remedy selection, access, covenants, re-
openers, and premiums. Other neutrals were charged with convening the parties to aid
the allocator selection process and protocol agreement negotiations. Even when acting
as the allocator, the neutral conducted numerous meetings with the allocation parties to
help resolve issues. Each of these activities proved time-consuming and resource-
intensive. The major benefit of these activities is that they enabled the allocation parties
to participate in each stage of the process and (when appropriate) remain involved in
decisionmaking.
When the allocator acts as a mediator to assist in settlement negotiations, there is the
potential for a conflict of interest. In one case, while the neutral was preparing the
allocator report, he tried to simultaneously convince all parties to settle, and successfully
used the threat of issuance of the allocator report to encourage all parties to settle. That
approach may have made the neutral appear less "neutral" and raised questions on the
allocator's impartiality. One way to address this concern is to have different parties serve
as mediator and allocator. Overall, the use of neutrals as mediators appeared to facilitate
settlement.
Pre-Allocation Settlements
At almost all pilot sites the allocation parties requested settlement negotiations with the
government prior to completing the allocation process. Where successful, this ap-
proach benefitted both the parties and the federal government. EPA was able to begin
site cleanup earlier, and the PRPs received certainty as to their cost share. However,
there were a number of issues and consequences to conducting settlement negotiations
during the allocation process. Most often, the allocation process was tolled, sometimes
paqe 55
-------
indefinitely. Instead of issuing an allocation report within six months, the reports were
delayed for several months. For some pilots, settlement negotiations occurred concur-
rently with the allocation process. Both the government and parties incurred transaction
costs associated with negotiations and the allocation process. This approach was
contrary to the intent of the proposed legislation EPA was testing, which was to limit
transaction costs.
Unfortunately, at times only some of the allocation parties sought a settlement to perform
cleanup work, while others sought to cash out of their responsibilities at the site. A
settlement that resulted in less than 100 percent of the liability at the site required that the
government incur transaction costs associated with settlement negotiations as well as
those associated with conducting the allocation pilot for allocation parties who did not
settle before an allocation report was issued. This approach was not considered effi-
cient by the government, but at times it was necessary to conduct both negotiations and
an allocation because of site-specific factors.
Cost of Conducting an Allocation (Allocator Costs)
To date, allocator costs total $1.3 million, or roughly $182,000 per site for seven of the
nine pilot sites. Allocator costs per site ranged from approximately $11,500 to $540,000.
For one pilot site where the allocator was recently hired, the allocator costs are projected
to be approximately $280,000. No estimate is available for the one remaining site where
the allocator contract has not yet been awarded.
The broad range in costs can be attributed to the scope and complexity of the responsi-
bilities of the allocator, the level of information available and complexity of the site, and
the number of parties participating in the allocation.
The significance of these costs can be put into some perspective by considering the
remedy costs associated with each site. The average cost to clean up the nine pilot sites
for the components of the remedy addressed by the pilot is $10.5 million, ranging from
$1.4 million to $26 million. EPA's findings are that the lower cost allocations in the pilot
seemed relatively consistent with the lower-cost remedies. The more expensive alloca-
tor costs were incurred at sites with remedies expected to cost over $10 million dollars.
It should be noted that the cost of hiring the allocator is not the only cost associated with
the allocation process. The cost of implementing the process for both the government
and private parties is also significant. In addition, in several instances, mediators were
employed as well as allocators. Since the pilots are ongoing, only a portion of that cost
data has been collected and, therefore, cost data are not included in this analysis.
_
page 56
-------
The Enforcement Pilots
essons Learne
led
Implementing the allocation scheme
Flexibility was needed in the allocation process (e.g., for selecting the alloca-
tor, gathering information) to address site-specific issues.
The allocation process was not cost-effective for small businesses because
many believed they had to participate to protect their interests.
Time frames were exceeded for each step of the allocation process. For
example, projected time frames for completing the nominations process and
hiring the allocator were insufficient to address numerous issues raised by
parties.
Allocation parties were generally satisfied with the time and opportunity
allowed for nominating additional PRPs, but felt that the allocation process as
a whole was expensive and time-consuming.
Parties believed that the use of neutrals was beneficial to the process.
Effect on settlements
It was difficult to translate individual shares into a global agreement to perform
work. (Parties only wanted to be responsible for their individual share.)
At a number of sites, 90 percent or more of the parties (including EPA) wanted
to settle before the allocator issued a report, but the allocation scheme
required a 100 percent settlement before the process could be stopped.
Filing briefs when simultaneously negotiating with parties was difficult because
arguments were directed to all parties without knowing which of them would
actually remain in the allocation.
The length of the process hindered progress of cleanup. (Parties wanted to
know their share prior to committing to perform work.)
page
-------
Community Involvement
in the Enforcement Process Pilots
Piloting Innovative Ways to Enhance Community Involvement
in the Enforcement Process
As part of the Superfund reforms effort, EPA committed to pilot ways in which commu-
nity involvement in the enforcement process could be enhanced. This initiative was
originally developed to pilot the relevant provisions of the 1994 proposed SRA. The
regions would implement those provisions that would have required EPA to invite com-
munities to participate in technical workplan discussions related to remedial design/
remedial action negotiations. However, EPA regions were given the discretion to modify
the initiative to pilot other innovative approaches in lieu of the relevant SRA provisions,
including looking at community participation at other points in the Superfund response
pipeline.
Over half the pilot sites submitted
by the regions did fall within the
criteria identified. For the pilot sites
that did not meet the criteria, re-
gions proposed to involve commu-
nities in discussions before EPA
selected the response action. EPA
initiated pilots at 13 sites in nine of
its 10 regions where PRPs were
committed to conducting cleanup
actions or investigations. A variety
of approaches were tested to
enhance community involvement.
These approaches provided com-
munities the opportunity to:
Site Selection Criteria
Each EPA region was asked to identify sites at
which increased public participation methods
could be tested and evaluated. In general, EPA
was looking for sites where:
EPA had already selected (or will, in the very
near future, select) the response action;
EPA expects that PRPs will perform the
response action; and
The community demonstrated an interest in
the cleanup.
Assist in creating and comment on draft technical documents (i.e., the Statement of
Work for designing and conducting the cleanups and for evaluation of possible
measures for reducing threats) (post-ROD);
Assist in the re-evaluation and revision of a site community relations plan so that any
special community methods that work for the community could be addressed (pre-
ROD/post-ROD);
Be involved in technical discussions with PRPs and federal officials to increase the
level of participation and understanding of site activities (pre-ROD/post-ROD); and
page 58
Report FY 1998
-------
The Enforcement Pilots
Be actively involved in the decision making process for determining the appropriate
cleanup goals and/or appropriate remedy for a site (pre-ROD).
EPA piloted these approaches to observe their impact on Superfund cleanups and
settlement negotiations. At selected sites, piloted activities are completed; at other sites,
EPA continues to test various approaches. EPA is using effective approaches at a num-
ber of sites outside the pilots.
Pilot Evaluation
Information was gathered via two different survey instruments, which are summarized
below. The surveys covered a range of community involvement influences, from involve-
ment in the development/review of draft work plans and technical documents to whether
community involvement affected technical discussions or negotiations with PRPs.
Pilot
buccess
Vertac, Jacksonville, AR
At the Vertac site, EPA conducted several open houses and a number of official briefings since
the development of the remediation for the site. The purpose of the meetings was to solicit
comments from the citizens on how they wanted to see the site cleaned up. The proposed
plan for soils was rewritten as a result of community input. Also, EPA established a satellite
community involvement office which helped EPA staff to establish a greater presence within the
community and made it easier for the region to oversee community involvement. The satellite
office served as the focal point where community members could ask questions, articulate
concerns, and obtain information. Most community members felt that the EPA was very
responsive to their concerns.
Impacts on Superfund Cleanups and Settlement Negotiations
For the 13 pilots examined, some delays were reported to be due to increased commu-
nity participation. For many of the pre-ROD pilots, it was generally noted that community
involvement had resulted in considerable but unspecified delays in finalizing the ROD.
At a few post-ROD sites, community involvement delayed construction activities. At
these sites, community involvement played a crucial role in lengthening the negotiation
period with PRPs. However, these delays resulted in higher quality work products and
increased community acceptance and support.
page 59
-------
earned
Communities whose members regularly attend technical meetings are more informed
and, therefore, better able to understand the progress of response activities at a site;
Efforts to involve the community can be extensive and require a significant amount of
time, but the efforts are well worth the investment and can result in widespread accep-
tance and support of cleanup actions; and
Increased community involvement tends to result in greater community satisfaction
with the selected remedy at a site.
General Observations
Soliciting input from the communities yielded varied results. Where communities have
become involved, their input has often proven valuable. In many pilots, increased
community involvement resulted in greater community understanding and acceptance
of the work being conducted. Community members appreciate the opportunity to
participate and act as stakeholders in the decisionmaking process. Communities were
also satisfied with the level and quality of PRP interaction.
Approaches that add value
ocess and the Community
TAGs and CAGs. Useful and effective, these mechanisms keep commu-
nities affected by Superfund sites well informed and involved with decisions
concerning the site. They also enable communities to better articulate their
concerns in the decisionmaking process.
Door-to-door/face-to-face/individual meetings. Several sites
interviewed individuals in an attempt to develop consensus on cleanup goals
and appropriate remedy selection. Also, door-to-door activities helped
generate previously lacking community interest.
Establishment of a satellite community involvement
office. Although not identified as a part of the pilot, at one pilot site this
approach greatly facilitated communication between EPA and the community
during many phases of the Remedial Action (RA). This office also served as
the focal point where community members could ask questions, articulate their
concerns, and get information.
page 60
Report FY 1998
------- |