United States
            Environmental Protection
            Agency
              Office of Solid
              Waste and
              Emergency Response
Technology Innovation Office
EPA/542/R-92/005
October 1992
oEPA
CERCLA/SUPERFUND
Orientation Manual
Word-Searchable Version - Not a true copy

-------
                                                  EPA/542/R-92/005

                                                     October 1992
               CERCLA /Superfund
                 Orientation Manual
                             U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

                             Office of Solid Waste and
                               Emergency Response
                              Technology Innovation Office
                              401 M Street, SW.
                              Washington, D.C. 20460
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                                          NOTICE
Development of this document was funded by the United States Environmental Protection Agency. It
has been subjected to the Agency's review process and approved for publication as an EPA document.

The policies and procedures set out in this document are intended solely for the guidance of response
personnel. They are not intended, nor can they be relied upon, to create any rights, substantive or
procedural, enforceable by any party in litigation with the United States. EPA officials may decide to
follow this guidance, or to act at variance with these policies and procedures based on an analysis of
specific site circumstances, and to change them at any time without public notice.

Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                                   FOREWORD
   In 1980 Congress passed a law called the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act (CERCLA), commonly referred to as Superfund. The law authorizes the Federal
government to respond directly to releases, or threatened releases, of hazardous substances that may
endanger public health,  welfare or the environment. CERCLA also enables EPA to take legal action to
force parties responsible for causing the contamination to cleanup those sites or reimburse the Superfund
for the costs of cleanup. If those responsible for site contamination cannot be found or are unwilling or
unable to clean up a site, EPA can use monies from the Superfund to clean up a site. In 1986, CERCLA
was updated and improved under the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA).

   The Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) has the responsibility for developing
policy and implementing Superfund response activities. The OSWER is comprised of several offices. The
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response (OERR) is responsible for national policy, regulations and
guidelines for the control of hazardous waste sites and response to and prevention of oil and hazardous
substance spills. The Office of Waste Programs Enforcement (OWPE) provides guidance and support for
the implementation and enforcement of CERCLA, Resource Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA), Oil
Pollution Act (OPA) and the Emergency Planning  and Community Right-to Know Act (EPCRA). The
Office of Solid Waste (OSW) is responsible for a management system for hazardous and solid waste. The
Office of Underground Storage Tanks (OUST) is responsible for administering the Leaking Underground
Storage Tank (LUST) Trust Fund. The LUST Trust Fund is available to States to help them dean up leaks
from underground petroleum storage tanks provided that certain conditions for use of the fund have been
met. The Superfund Revitalization Office's (SRO) goals are to accelerate the pace of cleanup actions,
improve contracts management, and communicate progress and build public confidence in the Superfund
program. The Chemical Emergency Preparedness and Prevention Office (CEPPO) has responsibility for
EPCRA, enacted as Title m of SARA and for the accidental release  provisions for the Clean Air Act
(CAA). The Technology Innovation Office (TIO) promotes the use of innovative treatment technologies
to permanently cleanup contaminated sites in the  Superfund, RCRA, and Underground Storage Tank
programs.

   The 'CERCLA/Superfund Orientation Manual" serves as a program orientation guide and reference
document, and it is designed to assist EPA and State personnel involved with hazardous waste remediation,
emergency response, and chemical and emergency preparedness. The Manual describes the organizational
and operational components of the Superfund Program.

   As the Superfund Program enters its second decade, EPA is identifying and responding to long-term
needs of the program. This process includes a program (Superfund 2000) to study the possible universe
of sites,  technologies, and opportunities for further integration with other EPA programs. EPA is also
piloting a new plan, called the Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model (SACM) designed to prioritize risk
reduction and take remedial action in shorter timeframes and enable better communication of program
accomplishments to the public.
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
The Technology Innovation Office extends special thanks, and acknowledgments, to the individuals (listed
on the following page) who assisted in the compilation of this material, reviewed the draft sections, and
provided comments.
Henry L. Longest n, Director /s/
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
Walter W. Kovalick, Jr., Ph.D., Director, /s/
Technology Innovation Office
Timothy Fields, Jr., Director, /s/
Superfund Revitalization Office
Bruce M. Diamond, Director, /s/
Office of Waste Programs Enforcement
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This manual was developed by the Technology Innovation Office of the Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response (OSWER). Special thanks to the following individuals in EPA who reviewed the
drafts and provided valuable comments:

     Technology Innovation Office (TIO) — Michael Forlini, Marlene Suit

     Office of Emergency and Remedial Response (OERR) — George Alderson, Joan Barnes, Steve
          Caldwell, Rhea Cohen, Bruce Engelbert, James Fary, Janet Grubbs, Jeff Langholz, Marsha
          Lindsey, Tina Maragousis, Robert Myers, Paul Nadeau, Carolyn Offutt, Bruce Patoka, John
          Riley, Karen Sahatjian, Thomas Sheckells, Susan Sladek, Dana  Stalcup, Richard Troast,
          Suzanne Wells

     Office of Waste Programs Enforcement (OWPE) — Tracy Back, Kathryn Boyle, Frank Finamore,
          Julie Klaas, Bruce Kulpan, Alice Luddington, Betsy Smidinger, Cecilia Smith, Deborah
          Thomas

     Office of Solid Waste (OSW) — Anne Price

     Chemical Emergency Preparedness and Prevention Office (CEPPO) — Kimberly Jennings

     Office of General Counsel (OGC) — Charles Openchowski, Lawrence Starfield, and other
          OGC staff

     Office of Federal Facilities Enforcement (OFFE) — Sally Dalzell

     Region 10 - Judith Schwartz

This document has been reviewed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and approved for
publication. Any trade names or commercial products are examples only and are not endorsed or
recommended by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

For further information regarding this manual please contact:

     Michael  Forlini
     Technology Innovation Office
     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
     401 M Street, SW.
     Washington, D.C. 20460
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                     TABLE OF CONTENTS
 Section                           Title                              Page

   I.    INTRODUCTION TO THE SUPERFUND PROGRAM 	1-1

  II.    SUPERFUND LEGISLATIVE/REGULATORY FRAMEWORK	  II-l

  HI.   SUPERFUND PROCESS	III-l

  IV.    ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM	IV-1

   V.   REMOVAL ACTIONS  	V-l

  VI.   SITE ASSESSMENT	VI-1

  VII.   REMEDIAL ACTIONS	VH-1

 VIII.   STATE AND INDIAN TRIBAL INVOLVEMENT	 VIH-1

  IX.   FEDERAL FACILITIES  	IX-1

   X.   COMMUNITY RELATIONS/PUBLIC PARTICIPATION  	X-l

  XI.   MANAGEMENT AND TECHNICAL INFRASTRUCTURE	XI-1

  XII.   APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS XH-1

 XIII.   CERCLA's RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER LEGISLATION 	 XIH-1

 XIV.   FUTURE DIRECTIONS OF THE SUPERFUND PROGRAM	 XIV-1
Appendix A:    Resource for Superfund Program Publications	A-l
Appendix B:    EPA Organizational Charts 	B-l
Appendix C:    EPA Regional Office Directory	C-l
Appendix D:    CERCLA/Superfund Program Acronyms  	  D-l
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy     i

-------
                         LIST OF EXHIBITS
 Number                             Title                                Page





    1    The Superfund Process	III-2





    2    The Basic Enforcement Process	IV-5





    3    Removal Actions by Type of Incident 	V-3





    4    The Removal Process	V-10





    5    The Site Assessment Process	VI-3





    6    The Remedial Process  	\TI-3





    7    RCRA and CERCLA: Different Approaches to a Common Goal	 XIH-5





    8    The Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model (SACM) Process 	 XIV-4
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy     ii

-------
                             SECTION I

         INTRODUCTION TO THE SUPERFUND PROGRAM


           OVERVIEW

           WHY WAS SUPERFUND NECESSARY?

           WHAT MAKES SUPERFUND UNIQUE?

           WHAT IS HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE?

           -     CERCLA Definition of a  Hazardous substance,
                Pollutant, or Contaminant
           -     RCRA Definition of Hazardous Waste
           -     Other Hazardous Substances

           HOW DOES SUPERFUND WORK?

           -     Removal Actions
           -     Remedial Actions
           -     Enforcement Actions

           WHO IS INVOLVED IN SUPERFUND?

           WHERE IS THE SUPERFUND PROGRAM HEADED?

           -     The 90-Day study
           -     The Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
 SECTION I
INTRODUCTION TO THE SUPERFUND
PROGRAM
OVERVIEW
WHY WAS SUPERFUND
NECESSARY?
lass] KHe 3leti> gjlock Ecibune IS
** LOVE CANAL **
Ixjtrts
I!,'!!!!;:!!!!:
CHICAGO
iiil
i'!!."!'!'!'!!
Cwrecft'iw
ActioM Underway
!
I '
^
Egl
•i utiiitii
!! u'l'iuii
rj, j,o'x
"'"III
EEJJBWA
5KOCKED
;!' i
HOUiroH
!i!
1
                 The purpose of the Superfund program is to address
             threats to human health or the environment resulting from
             releases or potential releases of hazardous substances from
             abandoned or uncontrolled hazardous waste sites.  The U.S.
             Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has the primary
             responsibility for managing activities under the Superfund
             program.

                 The Superfund program  is one  of the nation's most
             ambitious and complex environmental programs. The number
             of actions taken and sites targeted by the Superfund program
             is substantial. For example more than 200 emergency actions
             must be taken each year to address immediate threats, and
             over 2,000 were taken in the first ten years of the program.
             More than 1,200 sites are currently scheduled for long-term
             cleanup and additional sites are being evaluated daily. While
             accomplishing its goals, the Superfund program must comply
             with a complex network of laws, regulations, and guidance.
             Superfund actions are further complicated by the necessary
             coordination  with response  officials  at  all  levels  of
             government, as well as the general public and the parties
             responsible for the threats. Finally, the response or cleanup
             technologies used at  Superfund sites are constantly being
             challenged by  the extraordinary variety  of hazardous
             substance  sites.

                 In the late 1970s, the threat of hazardous waste to human
             health and safety  was brought to national public attention by
             the  media coverage of several hazardous waste sites. The
             most controversial site was Love Canal in Niagara Falls, New
             York. Large amounts of abandoned, buried hazardous waste
             caused extensive  contamination of the area, declaration of the
             area as a disaster by the Federal government, and eventual
             relocation  of most area residents. Considerable publicity was
             also devoted to other sites such  as the chemical control of the
             Livingston Train  Derailment and the Valley of the Drums.
             Newspaper headlines frequently reported on transportation
             accidents,  fires  and explosions, buried drums,  and other
             incidents at  sites involving hazardous  substance releases.
             These sites caused potential threats to  soil, ground water,
             surface water, and air. However, there was no authority for
             direct Federal response to such hazards.
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy     l-l

-------
SECTION I - INTRODUCTION TO THE SUPERFUND PROGRAM
                                          Several  Federal  environmental  statutes  did  exist,
                                       however,  the  Federal  Water  Pollution  Control  Act,
                                       (FWPCA) and its amendment, the Clean Water Act of 1972
                                       (CWA),  focused  on  discharges of  oil and hazardous
                                       substances  into U.S.  navigable waters,  The  Resource
                                       Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) established
                                       a regulatory  system to manage hazardous wastes from the
                                       time they are generated to their final disposal. RCRA also
                                       imposes standards for transporting, treating, storing, and
                                       disposing of hazardous wastes. It is designed to prevent the
                                       creation of new hazardous waste sites by authorizing EPA to
                                       take administrative, civil, and criminal actions against facility
                                       owners and  operators who do not comply with RCRA
                                       requirements.

                                          The discovery and subsequent publicity  of hazardous
                                       waste  sites such as Love Canal and Valley of the Drums
                                       made it acutely apparent that existing regulatory requirements
                                       were not enough. The Federal government sought to obtain
                                       the authority needed to deal with threats from hazardous
                                       substance  sites to human health and the  environment. The
                                       Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
                                       Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) was  designed to  provide
                                       this authority.

                                          CERCLA's passage in 1980 launched the Superfund
                                       program. This Act gave the Federal government, for the first
                                       time, authority to take direct action or force the responsible
                                       party  to  respond to  emergencies  involving uncontrolled
                                       releases of hazardous substances. The  statute also required
                                       the Federal government to develop longer-term solutions for
                                       the  nation's most  serious  hazardous  waste problems.
                                       CERCLA gave authority to the President who, in turn, issued
                                       Executive Order 12316 delegating primary responsibility to
                                       EPA for managing activities under the  Superfund program.
                                       The activities under the Superfund program include:

                                       •   Identifying sites where releases of hazardous substances
                                          had already occurred or might occur and pose a serious
                                          threat to human health, welfare, or the environment

                                          Taking appropriate action to remedy such releases

                                       •   Ensuring that parties responsible for the releases pay for
                                          the cleanup actions. This payment could be either the
                                          initial funding of cleanup actions or the  repayment of
                                          Federal funds spent on response actions.
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy      1-2

-------
                                      SECTION I - INTRODUCTION TO THE SUPERFUND PROGRAM
                                          To pay for Federal response actions, CERCLA created
                                      a TrustFund, or "Superfund," of $1.6 billion. This TrustFund
                                      was financed primarily with  a tax on crude oil and 42
                                      commercially-used chemicals. The tax supports the concept
                                      that those responsible for  environmental pollution  should
                                      assume the cost. Thus, even though the Superfund program
                                      may finance the response action, recovery of these Federal
                                      funds is  sought from those  parties  responsible for  the
                                      hazardous release.

                                          On October 17,1986, Congress passed amendments to
                                      CERCLA,   called  the   Superfund  Amendments  and
                                      Reauthorization Act (SARA). SARA made several important
                                      changes  and  additions to the  Superfund Program that
                                      strengthened and expanded the cleanup program.  SARA
                                      increased the size of the CERCLA Trust Fund to $8.5 billion
                                      and refined its financing. SARA also stresses developing and
                                      using permanent remedies. In addition,  SARA provides new
                                      enforcement authorities  and  settlement tools,  requiring
                                      changes in the system used to determine which sites should be
                                      addressed and increasing State involvement in the Superfund
                                      process.

                                          SARA included a free-standing statute, Title m. This
                                      statute increased  community  awareness and  access to
                                      information regarding the presence of extremely hazardous
                                      chemicals in  their  community. Through the use of this
                                      information,  communities  are able  to  develop a local
                                      emergency response plan to help mitigate the effects of a
                                      chemical  incident.

                                          In November of 1990, Congress extended Superfund rs
                                      statutory  authority through 1994  and the taxing authority
                                      through 1995.

WHAT MAKES SUPERFUND            Prior to CERCLA, the Federal government lacked  the
UNIQUE?                            authority and resources needed to respond to releases of
                                      hazardous substances (other than releases to surface water)
                                      or to clean up hazardous waste sites. As discussed  above,
                                      earlier legislation provided primarily regulatory requirements,
                                      not authority to take emergency removal  or longer-term
                                      remedial  action. CERCLA-s authority for Federal response
                                      enables EPA to address releases, or threatened releases, in
                                      the event responsible parties  do not take timely,  adequate
                                      action.
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy      1-3

-------
SECTION I - INTRODUCTION TO THE SUPERFUND PROGRAM
                                           The  Superfund  program has  several  other  distinct
                                       characteristics. Superfund  is set apart  from many  other
                                       Federal environmental programs because it is uniquely action-
                                       oriented. It asserts that each potentially responsible party
                                       (PRP) associated with a site will be held liable, and places the
                                       cost burden on that party.

                                           CERCLA is a strict liability statute, which means that
                                       responsible parties are liable without regard to negligence or
                                       fault. In situations where more than one PRP is involved, it
                                       may be difficult to determine each PRPrs contribution to the
                                       release. In these situations, the courts  have held that an
                                       owner, operator, waste generator or transporter may be held
                                       liable for the entire cost of site cleanup, unless it can be shown
                                       that the harm is "divisible"  (e.g., there are two  or more
                                       physically separate areas of contamination). This  concept,
                                       known as, "joint and several liability", is atool that encourages
                                       PRPs to perform cleanups.

                                           Cost recovery of Trust Fund monies and PRP-fmanced
                                       actions are also unique characteristics  of the  Superfund
                                       program. EPA is authorized by CERCLA to take aggressive
                                       efforts to ensure that responsible parties assume as much of
                                       the cleanup costs as possible. Ideally, Trust Fund monies are
                                       used only when PRPs cannot be  identified or  are not
                                       financially viable. If they refuse to comply with a cleanup
                                       order under CERCLA, EPA may recover triple its costs from
                                       responsible parties. The Superfund program was also given
                                       broad and effective  authorities to  encourage responsible
                                       parties to  reach voluntary settlements to pay  for  site,
                                       cleanups. Cost recovery efforts are critical to the success of
                                       the Superfund program because the  cost of cleanup  of all
                                       priority sites far exceeds the  money available in the Trust
                                       Fund.

WHAT IS A HAZARDOUS                The Superfund program is triggered  by a "release" or a
SUBSTANCE?                        "substantial threat of a release" of hazardous substances into
                                       the environment. A "release" is defined in CERCLA as any
                                       spilling, leaking, pumping,  pouring, emitting,  emptying
                                       discharging,  injecting,  escaping,  leaching, dumping, or
                                       disposing of hazardous substances into the environment. The
                                       definition of a release includes the abandonment or discarding
                                       of barrels, containers, and other closed receptacles containing
                                       a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant. The release
                                       must involve either:
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy      1-4

-------
                                       SECTION I - INTRODUCTION TO THE SUPERFUND PROGRAM
                                          A hazardous substance, as defined in the Superfund
                                          statute,
                                          or
CERCLA Definition of a
Hazardous Substance, Pollutant,
RCRA Definition of Hazardous
Waste
•   A  pollutant  or contaminant that may present an
    imminent or substantial danger to public health or welfare.

    "Hazardous substance" includes substances defined as
"hazardous waste"  under RCRA, as well as substances
regulated under the Clean Air Act (CAA), Clean Water Act
(CWA),  and Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). In
addition,  any  element, compound, mixture, solution, or
substance may also be specifically designated as a "hazardous
substance" under CERCLA. "Pollutant or contaminant" is
defined in CERCLA as any element, substance, compound,
or mixture that, after release into the environment and upon
exposure, ingestion,  inhalation, or assimilation into any
organism, will or  may reasonably be anticipated to cause
illness, death, or deformation in any organism. Both definitions
specifically  exclude petroleum  and natural gas, and thus
CERCLA authority may not be used to respond to
releases of these substances.

    "Hazardous waste" is defined under RCRA as a "solid
waste, or combination of solid wastes, which because of its
quantity,  concentration, or physical, chemical, or infectious
characteristics may:

1.  Cause,  or significantly contribute to an  increase in
    mortality  or an  increase  in  serious  irreversible, or
    incapacitating reversible illness, or

2.  Pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human
    health or the  environment  when improperly treated,
    stored,  transported,  or  disposed  of,  or  otherwise
    managed."

RCRA defines hazardous waste in terms of properties of a
solid waste.  Therefore, if a waste is not a solid waste, it
cannot be a hazardous waste. RCRA regulations define a
solid waste as hazardous either by reference to a  list of
hazardous wastes or based on the waste's characteristics.

    EPA has identified four characteristics for hazardous
waste. Any solid waste that exhibits one or more of these
characteristics is classified as hazardous waste under RCRA
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy      1-5

-------
SECTION I - INTRODUCTION TO THE SUPERFUND PROGRAM
Other Hazardous Substances
and, in turn, as a hazardous substance under CERCLA. The
four characteristics are ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, and
toxicity. The responsibility for determining if a particular solid
waste is hazardous falls on the generator of the waste.

    The vast majority of hazardous wastes are generated by
chemical and petroleum industries.  These industries  alone
generate 71 percent of all hazardous wastes. The remainder
is generated by a wide  range of other industries, including
metal finishing, general manufacturing, and transportation.

    CERCLA's definition of "hazardous substance" also
includes substances regulated by CWA, CAA,,and TSCA:
HOW DOES SUPERFUND
WORK?
••  The CWA, including amendments from the Oil Pollution
    Act of 1990 (OP A), regulates the discharge of pollutants,
    oil, or hazardous substances into U.S. navigable waters.
    EPA has designated more than 400 substances as either
    toxic chemicals or "hazardous substances" under the
    CWA.

• •  The CAA, section 112, directs EPA to identify hazardous
    air pollutants (HAPs) and to establish emission standards,
    known as national emissions standards for hazardous air
    pollutants  (NESHAPs), for  sources  that  emit the
    pollutants. EPA has promulgated NESHAPs for sources
    of the following pollutants: arsenic, asbestos, benzene,
    beryllium, mercury, radionuclides,  and vinyl chloride.
    Section 112 also defines almost 200 other substances as
    hazardous air pollutants.

••  TSCA provides authorities to control the manufacture,
    sale, and disposal of certain chemical substances, such as
    PCBs, CFCs, asbestos, and TCDD.

Substances defined by any of the above Acts as hazardous or
toxic,  are   considered   "hazardous   substances"   under
CERCLA. However, CERCLA excludes petroleum unless it
is specifically listed or designated  under one of the above
statutes.

    EPA has the primary responsibility to manage the cleanup
and enforcement activities under Superfund. A comprehensive
regulation known  as  the National  Oil  and  Hazardous
Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP)  contains the
guidelines and procedures for implementing the Superfund
program. The Superfund process is depicted in Exhibit 1 on
page III-2.
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy      1-6

-------
                                       SECTION I - INTRODUCTION TO THE SUPERFUND PROGRAM
1 1 1 -
M"
1
CERCLIS
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1


j— — I
r~

                                           The first step in the Superfund process is to identify
                                       abandoned or uncontrolled hazardous waste sites. EPA does
                                       this through a variety of methods, including reviewing records
                                       and information on hazardous substance disposal and storage
                                       provided by  States, handlers of hazardous materials, and
                                       concerned  citizens.  The NCP requires facility owners  or
                                       operators to report releases exceeding the reportable quantity
                                       (RQ) of hazardous substances to the National  Response
                                       Center. This  center is continuously manned and acts as the
                                       single point of contact for all pollution incident reporting .

                                           Once an abandoned or uncontrolled hazardous waste site
                                       is identified, information regarding the site is entered into a
                                       data  base  known   as  CERCLIS,  the  Comprehensive
                                       Environmental  Response,   Compensation,  and  Liability
                                       Information System. CERCLIS maintains a permanent record
                                       of all information regarding all reported potential  hazardous
                                       waste sites.

                                           After discovery or notification of a site or incident EPA or
                                       the State conducts a preliminary assessment (PA) to decide
                                       if the site poses a potential threat to human health and the
                                       environment.  If the site presents a serious imminent threat,
                                       EPA may take an emergency  "removal" action.  If the PA
                                       shows that a contamination problem exists but does not pose
                                       an imminent threat, or if the site continues to pose a problem
                                       following EPA actions, EPA may proceed to the next step of
                                       the evaluation process, and conduct a site inspection (SI). If
                                       at any point during the assessment and inspection process the
                                       site is determined to not present a potential threat, the site can
                                       be eliminated from  further CERCLA consideration with a
                                       decision that the site evaluation is accomplished (SEA).

                                           From the beginning of the  Superfund process, EPA
                                       makes every  effort to identify the  parties responsible for the
                                       hazard and encourage them to respond. If efforts to ensure
                                       responsible party response do not lead to prompt action,
                                       EPA may act using Trust Fund monies.

                                           Every Superfund site is unique, and thus cleanups must be
                                       tailored to  the specific  needs of each site or hazardous
                                       substance release. EPA may respond with enforcement or
                                       Trust Fund- financed removal  actions or remedial actions,
                                       collectively known as response actions.
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy      1-7

-------
SECTION I - INTRODUCTION TO THE SUPERFUND PROGRAM
Removal Actions
    Removal actions are usually short-term actions designed
to stabilize  or cleanup a  hazardous site that poses  an
immediate threat to human health or the environment. Also,
removal actions are conducted in response  to  accidental
releases of hazardous  substances.  Typical removal actions
include removing tanks or drums of hazardous substance  on
the surface, installing security measures such as a fence at site,
or providing a temporary alternate source of drinking water
to local residents.
Remedial Actions
Enforcement Actions
    Remedial actions are generally longer-term and usually
more costly actions aimed at a permanent remedy. EPA may
use Trust Fund monies for remedial construction only at sites
on the National Priorities List (NPL). The NPL is EPA's list
of the nation's  priority  hazardous waste sites.  Typical
remedial actions may include removing buried drums from the
site; thermally  treating  wastes;  pumping  and  treating
groundwater; and applying bioremediation techniques or other
innovative technologies to contaminated soil.

    Enforcement actions  to obtain voluntary settlement, or
if necessary, to compel PRPs, may be taken to implement
removal or remedial actions. Once the PRP has agreed to
take response actions at  a site, the  enforcement program
ensures that the studies or cleanup activities are performed
correctly and in  accordance with the order or decree, the
statute, the NCP, and relevant guidance.

    The PRPs may  include  the  owners and operators,
generators, transporters, and disposers of the hazardous
substance. If sufficient evidence is present to show that PRPs
are liable and the PRPs  are financially viable (i.e.,  not
bankrupt), they are generally given the opportunity to make
a voluntary, good faith effort to settle and take responsive
actions. Alternatively, EPA may issue orders directing them
to conduct the response, or take court action to secure the
necessary response.

    CERCLA also authorizes the use of Trust Fund money
for response actions and provides the authority necessary to
seek repayment from responsible parties. EPA generally uses
Trust Fund money to responsible if: (1) PRPs have not been
identified or  are not financially viable; (2) litigation against a
PRP is pending; (3) insufficient evidence has been collected
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy      1-8

-------
                                       SECTION I - INTRODUCTION TO THE SUPERFUND PROGRAM
                                       linking a PRP to the waste; or (4) the threat is substantial and
                                       imminent enough to warrant immediate action. Where a PRP
                                       refuses to comply with an order, and EPA uses Trust Fund
                                       monies to perform the ordered work, EPA may recover triple
                                       the costs.

                                          Criminal statutes also support CERCLA's enforcement
                                       tools. There are criminal penalties for failure to notify proper
                                       authorities of releases exceeding an RQ.  Submitting  false
                                       information about sites or releases are also criminal offenses.

WHO IS INVOLVED IN                  As stated above,  EPA has the primary responsibility for
SUPERFUND?                        managing the cleanup  and enforcement  activities under
                                       Superfund. The EPA officials with primary responsibility for
                                       directing response efforts and coordinating all activities at the
                                       scene   of a  discharge or  release  include  On-Scene
                                       Coordinators ( OSCs) and Remedial Project Managers
                                       (RPMs).
             EPA          "
                                          The OSC is the Federal official designated to coordinate
                                       and direct Superfund  removal actions. The RPM is the official
                                       designated to manage remedial and /or other response actions
                                       atNPL sites. To ensure the effectiveness of response actions,
                                       both OSCs and RPMs are responsible for coordinating with
                                       EPA Regional staff (e.g., Regional Administrator, Office of
                                       Regional Counsel, etc.), EPA Headquarters staff, and other
                                       Federal, State, and local agencies.
                                          In addition to OSCs and RPMs, EPA's Environmental
                                       Response Team (ERT) participates in the Superfund process.
                                       The  ERT  provides  technical  support  to the  Regional
                                       Superfund removal and remedial programs, and coordinates
                                       and conducts  safety  program  activities. Major  activities
                                       include on-site technical support,  administrative support,
                                       information transfer, and safety program activities.

                                          In addition to EPA, there are other major players in the
                                       Superfund process who have important roles in many cleanup
                                       activities. These participants include other Federal  agencies,
                                       States and Indian Tribes, PRPs, and the communities in which
                                       the sites are located. Local governments are also involved
                                       because they are often the first on the scene in an emergency.
                                       It should be noted that Federal, State, and local agencies are
                                       not exempt from CERCLA, and therefore maybe identified as
                                       PRPs.
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy      1-9

-------
SECTION I - INTRODUCTION TO THE SUPERFUND PROGRAM
        States and
      Indian Tribes
           PRPs
       Community
States have always been encouraged to participate in the
Superfund process. Under current Superfund law, Indian
Tribes are generally treated the same as States. Involvement
of States has grown over time and they are now formally
involved  in virtually every phase of Superfund decision-
making. CERCLA requires EPA to coordinate with States
when the Federal government leads or oversees the site
response. CERCLA also authorizes EPA to allow States and
political subdivisions, such as county governments, with
sufficient technical and management expertise, to act as the
lead agency, and carry out most of the cleanup efforts. In
these cases, EPA is still the Federal agency responsible for
ensuring that the site cleaned up.

    The involvement and participation of PRPs is central to
the Superfund program. This participation may result from a
willingness on the part of the PRP to take the initiative to
clean up  their sites and from negotiations with EPA under
which the company undertakes the work. However, private
party participation may also be compelled by judicial action
by EPA and the Department of Justice. In either case, PRPs
follow the same process EPA follows; at each stage of the
process PRP decision and construction of the remedy are
subject to EPA's oversight and approval.

    EPA promotes two-way  communication between the
public, including PRPs, and the lead government agency in
charge of response actions. The NCP provides interested
persons about opportunity to comment on, and provide input
to, decisions about response actions. The NCP ensures that
the public is provided with accurate and timely information
about response plans and progress, and that their concerns
about planned actions are heard by the lead agency. Site-
specific and well-planned community relations activities is an
integral part of every Superfund response. Such activities
include the following:

•   Publish a notice and brief analysis of the response action,
    describing proposed action

•   Give the public an  opportunity  to  comment on the
    response action

•   provide  an opportunity for a public meeting to permit
    two-way communication on the response action
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy     1-10

-------
                                       SECTION I - INTRODUCTION TO THE SUPERFUND PROGRAM
WHERE IS THE SUPERFUND
PROGRAM HEADED?
The 90-Day Study
•   Make a transcript of the public meeting available to the
    public as a part of the response action decision document

•   Prepare a response to each significant public comment on
    the proposed response action plan.

Public participation requirements  may vary between the
remedial process and removal actions, because of the urgency
of removal actions.

    EPA's primary challenges, at the start of the Superfund
program, were to respond to cleanup requests, build and staff
an  organizational structure, develop program policies and
guidance,  and develop technologies to clean up sites. In
response to these challenges,  EPA has  developed and
continues to streamline management procedures and policies
to administer the Superfund program. In addition, the nation's
scientific and  engineering communities' efforts to solve the
unique problems identified by Superfund have resulted in the
development of a wide range of techniques for treating and
disposing of hazardous substances, a greater understanding of
the  health effects, and an expansion of the nation's laboratory
capacity.

    After more than ten years of experience implementing the
Superfund program, EPA has had the opportunity to evaluate
past program activities and  achievements, and to identify
enhancements  needed.   An   EPA-published   report,
Management Review of the Superfund Program commonly
called "The 90-Day Study," describes the achievements to
date and a strategy for future management of the Superfund
program. In this report, EPA announced a long-term strategy
for  Superfund. The strategy contains the following eight goals:

••  Control acute environmental threats immediately
• •  Address worst sites/worst problems first
• •  Monitor and maintain sites over the long-term
••  Emphasize enforcement
• •  Develop and use new technologies
••  Improve efficiency of program operations
• •  Encourage full public participation
••  Foster cooperation  with  other Federal  and  State
    agencies.

EPA developed these eight goals based  on the lessons
learned during the first ten years of the program, and will build
upon those lessons to chart the course for the future.
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy      l-l 1

-------
SECTION I - INTRODUCTION TO THE SUPERFUND PROGRAM
The Superfund Accelerated                In early 1992, EPA initiated a plan aimed at streamlining
Cleanup Model                        the Superfund process and redefining the way progress is
                                       measured. The key  objective of the  plan  is substantial,
                                       prioritized risk reduction in a shorter timeframe.

                                           Under this new plan, called the Superfund Accelerated
                                       Cleanup Model (SACM),   EPA will integrate removal
                                       actions  and remedial actions to  address immediate and
                                       substantial risks, thus eliminating the procedural distinctions
                                       between the remedial and removal programs.

                                           A goal of SACM is to streamline site assessments into
                                       one process and establish Regional Decision Teams to "traffic
                                       cop" sites for Early Actions, where appropriate. Early Actions
                                       are short-term, quickly  implemented actions  designed  to
                                       eliminate significant risk from  Superfund sites. These would
                                       generally be accomplished by  time-critical removal actions,
                                       non-time-critical removal actions,  or early action remedial
                                       actions. Long-term remedial actions would be used at sites
                                       requiring ground water restoration, mining sites, extended
                                       incineration projects, and wetlands /estuaries cleanups.

                                           In general, the new approach would reduce the risks to
                                       human health quickly. The changes resulting from this new
                                       process (i.e., the risk reduction) would require a new way of
                                       counting achievements under Superfund. Also,  this risk
                                       reduction will need to be communicated effectively to the
                                       general public.

                                           The new Superfund model will be tested on a pilot basis
                                       in the Regions. SACM is discussed in greater detail in Section
                                       XTV: Future Directions of the  Superfund Program.
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy      1-12

-------
                           SECTION II

   SUPERFUND LEGISLATIVE AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

        OVERVIEW

        COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE, COMPENSATION,
        AND LIABILITY ACT OF 1980 (CERCLA)

        SUPERFUND AMENDMENTS AND REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1986
        (SARA)

        EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS AND COMMUNITY RIGHT-TO-KNOW
        ACT OF 1986 (TITLE HI)

        NATIONAL OIL AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES POLLUTION
        CONTINGENCY PLAN (NCP)
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
SECTION II
SUPERFUND LEGISLATIVE AND
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
OVERVIEW
CERCLA
                 There  are  several  laws  and regulations that guide
             Superfund activity. The foundations of the Superfund program
             are the:

             •   Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
                 and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA)

             •   Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986
                 (SARA)

             •   National  Oil  and  Hazardous Substances  Pollution
                 Contingency Plan (NCP)  (commonly known as the
                 National Contingency Plan).

             The Federal government's response to hazardous  substance
             releases is built upon these foundations.

                 The superfund cleanup program was created by congress
             with the passage of the Comprehensive Environmental
             Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980
             (CERCLA).  CERCLA provided the first Federal response
             authority to address the problem of uncontrolled hazardous
             waste. In general, CERCLA was designed to:

                 Give the Federal government the authority to take action
                 to respond to release or threats of release of hazardous
                 substances, pollutants, and contaminants

             •   Develop  a  comprehensive  program to  prioritize
                 hazardous waste site nationwide

             • •  Identify and compel potentially parties (PRPs) to conduct
                 and/or pay for those cleanup wherever possible

             • •  Set a $ 1.6 billion Hazardous Substance Response Trust
                 Fund—popularly known as "Superfund" —available to
                 finance cleanups e.g., where PRPs cannot  be found or
                 are unable to pay for the response
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy      Il-l

-------
SECTION H - SUPERFUND LEGISLATIVE AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
          Tax on Chemical and
          Petroleum Industries

             Trust Fund
SARA
•   Advance scientific and technological capabilities in all
    aspects of hazardous waste management, treatment, and
    disposal.

These  objectives are intended to  significantly  improve
hazardous waste management in the future.

    The Superfund program was founded on the premise that
the polluter must pay for problems created by the polluter.
CERLCA was specifically designed to ensure that the cleanup
responsibilities and costs are assumed by PRPs and that Trust
Fund monies are generally spent when necessary. Trust Fund
monies are generally spent for site cleanup if EPA cannot
identify  the responsible parties,  or the PRPs  are  not
successful.  Federal  agencies  pay  for  cleanup of Federal
hazardous wastes, such as military bases or weapons plants,
out of their own budgets. They do not use Trust Fund monies.

    The monies in the Trust Fund are the result of several
sources. First, CERCLA established a tax on the chemical
and petroleum industries. Specifically, this tax is on crude oil
and 42 different commercial chemicals. In addition to the tax,
Trust Fund monies are also the result of general revenues,
interest earned by the Trust Fund, and cost recoveries from
PRPs.

    During the first five years of the Superfund program, two
facts became increasing clear: (1) the problem of uncontrolled
hazardous substances sites was more extensive than originally
though and (2) its solution would therefore be more complex
and time-consuming.  Progress in identifying hazardous
substance site, investigating the sites' threats to human health
and the environment, and cleaning up the worst sites was slow
in the early years.

    CERCLA was due to be reauthorized in 1985, but delays
in reauthorization severely curtailed Superfund's activities in
late 1985 and 1986. Almost all non-emergency work ceased
as taxing authority ran out and remaining funds were carefully
rationed.

    On  October 17, 1986, the Superfund  program was
reauthorized  by  the  Superfund  Amendments  and
Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA). SARA  reflected
EPA'S
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy      II-2

-------
                                       experience in administering the complex Superfund program
                                       during its first six years. The reauthorized law made several
                                       important changes and additions to the program. One of the
                                       major features of SARA was that the new Trust Fund was
                                       $8.5 billion. This is more than five times the amount of money
                                       previouslv in the Trust Fund.

                                          SARA introduced many  other improvements to the
                                       Superfund program. These improvements had an impact on
                                       nearly every major action and authority under Superfund.
                                       SARA improved the power of:

                                       Removal Actions

                                       •   The limits on removal actions financed by the Trust Fund
                                          were raised from six months/$l million, financed by the
                                          Trust Fund, to one year/$2 million (although these  limits
                                          may be exceeded if an exception is justified).

                                       •   All removal actions were required to be consistent with
                                          any long-term remedial action.

                                       Remedial Actions

                                       •   New cleanup goals and  schedules were established.
                                          Goals were set for the  completion of preliminary
                                          assessments  of sites on EPA's inventory of potentially
                                          hazardous sites.

                                       •   Mandatory deadlines were set for the  completion of
                                          critical phases of remedial work at priority sites.

                                       •   A preference was established for remedies that reduce
                                          the toxicity  mobility,  or  volume  of waste  through
                                          treatment as a primary element.

                                       •   EPA was   ordered  to  select  remedies  that are
                                          cost-effective, and utilize permanent  solutions to the
                                          maximum extent practicable.

                                       •   The  statute  established off-site land  disposal  without
                                          treatment as the least-preferred alternative.

                                       Enforcement Authorities

                                          The  use  of settlement tools was encouraged to obtain
                                          agreements with PRPs to pay for and/or  conduct the
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy     II-3

-------
SECTION H - SUPERFUND LEGISLATIVE AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
                                           cleanup. During the first years of Superfund, EPA realized
                                           that settlements were the  most cost-effective way of
                                           preserving Trust Fund resources. Lengthy litigation was
                                           too resource intensive.

                                       •   Increased criminal penalties were authorized for failure to
                                           report releases of hazardous substances. SARA also
                                           made it a criminal offense to provide false or misleading
                                           information regarding releases.

                                       •   EPA's  access to hazardous  substance  sites for the
                                           completion of investigations and cleanups was improved.

                                       State Involvement

                                       •   EPA was required to coordinate with the State during all
                                           phases of a response.

                                       Public Participation

                                       •   Requirements  were  established  that ensure  public
                                           participation and notification during the formulation of
                                           plans for  Superfund actions.

                                           Technical assistance grants were authorized so citizens
                                           could  hire experts   to  explain  the  complexities  of
                                           hazardous  substance problems  and  the Superfund
                                           program at NPL sites.

                                       •   Information repositories and  Administrative Records
                                           documenting  site information  and response activity
                                           decisions were required for each site and must be made
                                           accessible to the public.

                                       Research, Development, and Training

                                       •   A comprehensive, coordinated research and development
                                           program was initiated. This  program included technology
                                           demonstration programs  that  offer  alternatives  to
                                           conventional  hazardous substance treatment or  site
                                           cleanups.

                                       •   Research and training programs for hazardous substance
                                           response  were expanded.
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy      II-4

-------
                                       In addition to the above improvements, SARA included an
                                       important section that focused on strengthening the rights of
                                       citizens and communities in the face of potential hazardous
                                       substance emergencies. This section is commonly called
                                       "SARA Title m."

TITLE m                                SARA  Title  III,  the  Emergency Planning and
                                       Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (EPCRA), was
                                       designed to help communities prepare to respond in the event
                                       of  a chemical emergency,  and to increase the public's
                                       knowledge  of  the  presence and  threat  of hazardous
                                       chemicals. SARA Title m established a four-part program to:

                                       1.  Define emergency planning structures at the State/local
                                          level and develop local emergency response plans

                                       2.  Require emergency notification of chemical releases

                                       3.  Require  notification of chemical  use,  storage, and
                                          production activities

                                       4.   Report annual emissions requirements.

                                       The organizations  responsible for the State/local  planning
                                       include State Emergency Response Commissions (SERCs)
                                       and Local Emergency Planning Committees (LEPCs).

                                          Under SARA Title IE, facilities must compile information
                                       about extremely hazardous substances they have on site and
                                       the threat posed by  those substancess. In addition, those
                                       facilities must report any accidental releases of extremely
                                       hazardous substances. This information must be provided to
                                       State and local authorities, and more specific data must be
                                       made available upon request from those authorities or from
                                       the general public.

                                          Under the  Community  Right-to-Know provisions of
                                       SARA Title HI, facilities must report to the SERC, LEPC,
                                       and fire department  all  extremely hazardous substances at
                                       their   facility  above  a  certain  amount.  In  addition,
                                       manufacturing facilities must report any routine releases of
                                       toxic chemicals to EPA and the State.

                                          It should be noted that, strictly speaking, SARA Title m
                                       is a separate statute from CERCLA.
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy     II-5

-------
SECTION H - SUPERFUND LEGISLATIVE AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
NCP
                                              Throughout this manual, specific and relevant
                                         sections of CERCLA are referenced and applied to the
                                         different programs or actions.  Henceforth, when
                                         CERCLA is cited, it is CERCLA as ammended by
                                         SARA.
    The Superfund response effort is guided by the National
Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency
Plan, commonly referred to as the National Contingency
Plan  (NCP).  The NCP is the regulation that implements
CERCLA. Revised on March 8,1990 (55 FR 8666-8865),
it outlines EPA's national program for response to releases of
hazardous substances. The NCP outlines a step-by-step
process for conducting both removal and remedial actions. In
addition, the NCP defines the roles and responsibilities of
EPA, other Federal agencies, the States, private parties, and
communities in response to situations in which  hazardous
substances or oil are released into the environment.

    The National Response  Team (NRT),  made up  of
representatives from fourteen Federal agencies, is responsible
for planning and coordinating preparedness and emergency
response actions. Regional Response Teams (RRTs), made
up of designated representatives from each Federal agency
and State government, are responsible for regional planning
and preparedness activities  before  Superfund  emergency
response actions.

    The NCP, which actually predates Superfund,  was
originally written to implement provisions in the Clean Water
Act having to do with spills of oil and hazardous substances
into navigable waters. It has been revised three times: first to
incorporate the 1980 Superfund program; then in 1985 to
streamline the Superfund process; and most recently in March
of 1990 to address significant changes in the Superfund
program resulting from the enactment of SARA.

    The NCP reiterates EPA's goal of selecting remedies that
protect human health and the environment, that maintain
protection over time, and that minimize untreated waste. EPA
believes that treating waste and rendering it nonhazardous
(rather than containing it) is generally the preferred method for
achieving long-term protection. The NCP promotes use of
innovative technologies in order to bolster development of
new methods to ensure long-term protection.
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy      II-6

-------
                                           The NCP describes  the  procedures for conducting
                                       Superfund removal actions in response to  a  release or
                                       threatened release  of a hazardous substance which may
                                       present an imminent and substantial danger. The NCP criteria
                                       for selecting a removal action are actual or threat of exposure
                                       from  a  release,   contamination  or  drinking   wells  or
                                       ecosystems,  and threat of fire or  explosion.  If a removal
                                       action is warranted, EPA evaluates the situation and selects
                                       a response.  This  remedy is documented in  an Action
                                       Memorandum. If the urgency of the  situation allows, the
                                       public will have an opportunity to comment on the removal
                                       action prior to the action.

                                           The NCP sets forth nine criteria for selecting Superfund
                                       remedial actions. The two most important are considered to
                                       be the following threshold criteria:

                                       •   Overall protection of human health and the  environment

                                       •   Compliance with (or waiver of) requirements of other
                                           Federal and State environmental laws

                                       Each remedy that is selected at a Superfund site must meet
                                       the two threshold criteria.

                                           Potential remedial actions are also evaluated according to
                                       the ftveprimary balancing criteria: Long-term effectiveness
                                       and permanence; toxicity, mobility, or volume of waste; short-
                                       term effectiveness;  implementability; and cost.  The last two
                                       criteria are the modifying criteria  of State acceptance and
                                       community acceptance.

                                           EPA selects its preferred alternative,  and releases to the
                                       public a proposed plan documenting why EPA believes that
                                       the  preferred alternative is capable of remediating the site.
                                       The public must then have ample opportunity to comment on
                                       all  preferred remedies  and  EPA must consider those
                                       comments in selecting the final remedy. EPA documents the
                                       selected remedy in  the Record of Decision (ROD).

                                           Congress expanded the role of communities in SARA.
                                       Consistent with this, the NCP requires EPA to consult with
                                       the public throughout cleanup. EPA must interview community
                                       groups at the start of a cleanup study to identify their concerns
                                       and  must  prepare   a   Community   Relations  Plan
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy      II-7

-------
SECTION H - SUPERFUND LEGISLATIVE AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
                                      that addresses those concerns. The public must have ample
                                      opportunity to comment on all proposed remedies and EPA
                                      must consider those comments in selecting the final remedy.

                                          The NCP also reinforces the enforcement authority of
                                      EPA and details procedures for documenting EPA costs and
                                      compiling an administrative record documenting the selection
                                      of a response action.

                                          The NCP defines a major role for States in all cleanup
                                      actions. Under the NCP, qualified States may act as lead
                                      agency for  many cleanup actions under  a cost-sharing
                                      agreement with EPA. Even when States support rather than
                                      lead the cleanup, they have a crucial role in identifying cleanup
                                      standards and commenting on proposed remedies.

                                          The actual process established by the NCP for handling
                                      hazardous substance problems is discussed further in Section
                                      HI: The Superfund Process.
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy     II-8

-------
                          SECTION III




                   THE SUPERFUND PROCESS







          OVERVIEW




          S    Continuous Enforcement Efforts /Public Participation




          SITE DISCOVERY




          PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT / SITE INSPECTION




          REMOVAL ACTIONS




          HAZARD RANKING SYSTEM / NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST




          REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION / FEASIBILITY STUDY




          RECORD OF DECISION - REMEDY SELECTION




          REMEDIAL DESIGN / REMEDIAL ACTION




          SITE COMPLETION/OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE




          CLOSEOUT / NPL DELETION
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
SECTION III    THE SUPERFUND PROCESS
OVERVIEW
Continuous Enforcement Efforts/
Public Participation
    As discussed in Section  II,  the  Superfund response
process is guided by the National Oil  and Hazardous
Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP). This plan
outlines several steps that EPA and other agencies  must
follow in responding to hazardous substance releases

    In brief, the process established by the NCP for handling
hazardous substance releases is as follows:

•   Identify places where a hazardous substance problem
    may exist

•   Do a preliminary evaluation to assess the degree of
    contamination

•   If the preliminary evaluation reveals there is an emergency
    requiring immediate action, take the immediate "removal"
    action to remove or stabilize the threat

•   If the preliminary evaluation reveals longer-term action
    may be required to respond to the contamination, begin
    "remedial" action evaluation process

•   If the evaluation process indicates that longer-term action
    may be necessary to respond to the contamination, then
    conduct an analysis of the specifics of the contamination
    (e.g., affected populations)  and  select,  design, and
    construct the remedy.

The critical steps in a Superfund response are illustrated in
Exhibit 1. Each separate step has a different  set  of key
players, and is essential to the ultimate goal of minimizing or
eliminating the threat of a hazardous substance release. This
section provides a general discussion of the major steps in the
Superfund process. Later sections of the manual discuss these
steps  in  greater detail  (e.g., Removal Actions, Remedial
Actions).

    At most stages of response, work can be done by a State
or  EPA using  the  Trust  Fund,  or by potentially
responsible  parties  (PRPs)  as  a    discovered,  PRPs
are  sought   and  if  found,   negotiations  result  of
enforcement  efforts.  As soon  as a  site is discovered,
PRPs   are    sought   and   if  found,   negotiations
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
SECTION m - THE STJPEKFUND PROCESS
                                      Exhibit 1
                               The Superfund Process
    Continuous
    Enforcement
      Efforts
             Continuous
                Public
             Participation
                     Continuous
                      Operation
                         and
                     Maintenance
                                            Site Discovery
                                      Preliminary Assessment (PA)/
                                          Site Inspection (SI)
                                     Hazard Ranking System (HRS)/
                                      National Priorities List (NPL)
                                       Remedial Investigation (Rl)/
                                          Feasibility Study (FS)
                                                i
   Remedy Selection/
Record of Decision (ROD)
                                        Remedial Design (RD)/
                                         Remedial Action (RA)
                                                1
                                           Site Completion
                                        Closeout / NPL Deletion
                                   Removal
                                    Action
                                  At Any Point,
                                 As Necessary
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy     III-2

-------
                                                         SECTION m - THE STJPERFUND PROCESS
SITE DISCOVERY
PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT/
SITE INSPECTION
may begin to have the PRPs pay for and/or conduct the
necessary  response  action.  Also,  community  relations
activities take place throughout the cleanup process to ensure
public participation in the decision-making process.

    In the early days of CERCLA, EPA anticipated the entire
scope of hazardous substance problems to be  much smaller
than we know it to be today. Few realized the size of the
problem until EPA began the process of site discovery and
site evaluation. Not hundreds, but thousands  of potentially
hazardous waste sites were discovered.

    EPA continues its effort to identify potentially hazardous
sites/ releases that might otherwise go unreported. Many site
discoveries result from information and reports from States,
communities, local authorities, businesses, and citizens. The
National Response Center has set up a 24-hour hotline to
receive information regarding potentially hazardous substance
releases.

    All  reports  of potential  sites   are  entered into  the
Superfund site inventory, a computerized data  base called
"CERCLIS" (Comprehensive  Environmental  Response,
Compensation, and Liability Information System).

    Once a site is identified, EPA or the State conducts a site
assessment, beginning with apreliminary assessment (PA)
to determine if the site poses a potential hazard and whether
further action is necessary. During this preliminary assessment,
officials begin by reviewing any available documents about the
site. In addition, there maybe  a site visit,  but sampling
generally does not occur at this time. If the PA reveals that the
site does not present a potential hazard, the site is designated
as  Site Evaluation Accomplished (SEA)  and considered
completed.

    If the PA reveals a contamination problem exists but does
not pose an immediate threat, EPA will perform  a more
extensive study called the site inspection (SI). Typically, the
SI involves a site visit and sample collection  to define and
further characterize the site's problems. If the site presents an
imminent threat, EPA may use Trust Fund monies to effect
immediate removal action.
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy      III-3

-------
SECTION m - THE STJPEKFUND PROCESS
REMOVAL ACTIONS
HAZARD RANKING SYSTEM/
NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST
    Often in conjunction with the site inspection, EPA makes
every effort to search for and identify PRPs. As discussed
earlier, one of the central premises of CERCLA is the notion
that the responsible party must pay. From the very start, EPA
uses its authority under CERCLA to settle with or compel
PRPs to pay for and/or conduct necessary response actions.

    A removal action is  a short-term action intended to
stabilize or clean  up an incident or site which poses  an
imminent threat to human health or the environment. Removal
actions may be conducted, for example, to clean up the spill
of hazardous materials when a truck or train overturns, to
keep the public from being exposed to hazardous substances,
or to protect a drinking water supply from contamination.
Typical removal actions include removing tanks or drums of
hazardous substances on the surface, installing fencing or
other security measures, and providing an alternate source of
drinking water to local residents. In the event of longer-term
cleanup requirements,  the  site  is referred to the remedial
program for further investigation and assessment.

    Because removal actions are generally intended to reduce
or eliminate imminent threats from contamination  and are
short-term actions, environmental problems such as area-
wide  contamination of  ground water are not normally
addressed. However, removal actions may reduce the cost of
longer-term cleanup by controlling  the migration of the
hazardous substance or by eliminating the source of the
additional contamination. Therefore  removal  actions may
occur at NPL and non-NPL sites.

    Removal actions are discussed in greater detail in Section
V: Removal Actions.

    Based on information obtained from the site inspection,
EPA uses the Hazard Ranking System (HRS) to evaluate
the  potential  relative  risks to  public  health  and  the
environment. The HRS is a numerically-based, scoring system
that uses information from the PA and SI to assign each site
a score ranging from 0 to 100. This score is based on:

    The likelihood that a site has released, or has the potential
    to release, contaminants into the environment

    The characteristics of the substance(s), i.e., toxicity and
    quantity
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy     III-4

-------
                                                        SECTION m - THE STJPERFUND PROCESS
                                          The people or sensitive environments affected by the
                                          release.
    Remedial  Responses
   Two main phases:

   •     RI/FS
         RD/RA
The  HRS score is used as  a  screening mechanism  to
determine whether the site should be considered for further
action under CERCLA. It does not determine if cleanup is
possible or worthwhile, nor the amount of cleanup needed.

    Sites with HRS scores of 28.50 or higher are considered
for placement on EPA's National Priorities List (NPL).
Sites on the NPL represent the priority hazardous substance
sites,  nationwide. These  sites are  eligible  for long-term
remedial actions financed through the Superfund program.

    Congress required EPA to create the NPL to identify the
most serious sites, focus its efforts on those sites, and take
into account the many other  sites in  need of attention when
deciding how  much Trust  Fund money  to spend on a
particular site. This ensured that Superfund monies were spent
on the most serious problems, and avoided exhausting the
Trust Fund on an individual site. The purpose  of the NPL is
to notify the public of sites that EPA decides may represent
a long-term threat to public health or the environment and
may need remedial action. Only sites  on the NPL are eligible
for long-term remedial response using Trust  Fund money.
However, removal actions and enforcement actions may be
taken at both NPL and non-NPL sites if there is a threat to
public health or the environment.

    The entire site assessment process, and its components,
are discussed in greater detail in Section VT: Site Assessment.

    Remedial responses are generally longer-term  actions
that eliminate or substantially reduce releases, or threatened
releases, of hazardous substances that pose a threat to human
health and the environment, but that are not immediately
threatening. Trust Fund-financed remedial responses  are
undertaken only at sites on the NPL.

    Remedial responses have two main phases: the remedial
investigation and feasibility study (RI/FS), and the remedial
design/remedial  action  (RD/RA).   During  the  RI/FS,
conditions  at  the  site are  studied, the  problem(s)  are
identified, and alternative methods to clean up  the site are
evaluated. The RI/FS is an interactive process that may take
two years or more to complete.
Word-Searchable version - Not a true copy     III-5

-------
SECTION m - THE STJPEKFUND PROCESS
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION/
FEASIBILITY STUDY
RECORD OF DECISION
REMEDY SELECTION
REMEDIAL DESIGN/
REMEDIAL ACTION
SITE COMPLETION/
OPERATION AND
MAINTENANCE
   During a remedial investigation (RI), EPA, the State,
or the PRP (with  EPA or State  oversight) collects and
analyzes information to determine the nature and extent of
contamination at the site. As information on the extent of
contamination becomes known, the feasibility study is begun.

   During the feasibility study (FS), specific alternative
remedies are  considered and evaluated by EPA  and the
public. These may include removal of hazardous substances
from  the  site  and moving  them  to  an  EPA-  or
State-approved,  licensed hazardous  waste  facility  for
treatment, containment, or destruction, safely containing the
waste on-site,  or destroying or treating the waste on-site
through incineration or other treatment technologies.

   Generally, a preferred remedy is ultimately identified from
the list of alternative remedies evaluated during the RI/ FS.
This  preferred remedy  is presented  to  the  public, for
comment, in a Proposed  Plan.  Once comments have been
received  and  evaluated,  a final remedy  is selected and
documented in a Record of Decision (ROD).

   In the  remedial  design and  action stage, the
recommended  cleanup is designed, then undertaken. The
design phase can take up to one year,  and, in some cases,
even longer. The time required to complete the remedy varies
according to the complexity of the remedy.

   As discussed earlier, EPA often conducts both removal
and remedial actions at NPL sites. Removal actions may be
required during a remedial action if an immediate threat is
discovered  during   the  course  of the remedial  work.

   Following remedial actions, steps must be followed to
ensure that the cleanup methods are working properly. Once
the remedy implemented isoperational and functional  and
meets  its designated environmental,  technical, legal  and
institutional requirements, it  will  be considered  a site
completion. Once  the  remedial  actions  are  completed
continuing  site operation and  maintenance (O&M)
activities are conducted to maintain  the effectiveness of the
remedy and to ensure that no new threat to human health or
the environment arises. The responsibility for O&M activities,
if any, are ultimately assumed by the States or the PRPs.
Word-Searchable version - Not a true copy     III-6

-------
                                                        SECTION m - THE STJPERFUND PROCESS
CLOSEOUT / NPL DELETION
However, EPA is responsible for actively reviewing O&M
activity and schedule throughout the life of the remedy.

    Once a response action has been completed, the site often
must be monitored, maintained, and ultimately closed out.

    Following removal actions, several things must be done to
prepare for site closeout. When planning for a site closeout,
EPA must ensure that all waste is properly disposed, that all
equipment  is  decontaminated  and  demobilized,  that
temporarily relocated citizens are returned to their homes, and
that response-related damages are remedied,  i.e.,  site is
restored. The actual completion date of a removal is defined
as the date when all previously specified work is completed
and the contractor, PRPs, and EPA representatives have
permanently demobilized.

    For remedial responses,  once a site is certified to be
complete, EPA submits its intention to delete the site from
the NPL by publishing a notice in the Federal Register.
However, it should be  noted that EPA cannot certify site
completion and  consider NPL deletion if the hazardous
substance is still located on-site, e.g., a containment remedy
was used. If the hazardous  substance remains on-site,  a
five-year review of the site must be conducted before the site
can be considered for NPL deletion.

    As a part of site closeout, a closeout report is prepared
to document that the State or PRP will ensure O&M activities
are  performed,  and   that   EPA  has   completed  its
responsibilities.
Word-Searchable version - Not a true copy    III-7

-------
                                SECTION IV

                       ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM


            OVERVIEW

            GOALS OF THE ENFORCEMENT

            STATUTORY FRAMEWORK

            -     CERCLA Enforcement Authority
            -     Other Statutory Enforcement Authority

            THE ENFORCEMENT PROCESS

            -     PRP Search and Identification
            -     Negotiations
                  Settlements and Settlement Tools
                  Oversight of PRP Work
            -     Cost Recovery

            KEY PLAYERS IN THE ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM

                  EPA
            -     Other Federal Agencies
                  States
                  Natural Resources Trustees
Word-Searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
SECTION IV      ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM
OVERVIEW
GOALS OF THE
ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM
    The basic principle of the  Superfund  enforcement
program  is to make the responsible party  pay for the
response activities needed to clean up sites. When Congress
passed CERCLA in  1980, it set as a guiding policy the
principle that those responsible for the hazardous substances
at a site should bear the burden of the cleanup. Consistent
with this principle, Congress enacted strong enforcement
provisions. These provisions were enhanced in 1986 with the
passage of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization
Act (SARA).

    CERCLA section 101(25) defines response activities to
include three different types of actions: removal, remedial, and
enforcement. Although enforcement activities are not cleanup
activities, they are included  in  the definition  of response
actions under Superfund. Enforcement includes the activities
EPA undertakes  to encourage or, if necessary, compel a
potentially responsible party (PRP) to clean up a site or to
recover costs of cleanup from potentially responsible parties.

    The enforcement program relies heavily upon the statutory
authority provided by CERCLA, particularly sections 104,
106, 107,  and 122. These CERCLA sections are discussed
in greater detail later in this section.
to:
    The two principal goals of the enforcement program are
                                         Obtain  cleanups  from  PRPs  through  voluntary
                                         settlement, unilateral orders, or litigation
                                         Oversee  PRP-conducted cleanups  to  ensure that
                                         remedies are protective of public health and environment
                                         and implemented in compliance with the terms of the
                                         settlement agreement.

                                         As a  part of this oversight, the enforcement program
                                      ensures that the studies or cleanup activities are performed
                                      correctly  and in accordance with the order or decree, the
                                      statute, the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
                                      Contingency Plan (NCP), and relevant guidance.
Word-Searchable version - Not a true copy    IV-1

-------
SECTION IV - ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM
STATUTORY FRAMEWORK
CERCLA Enforcement Authority
            CERCLA
     Enforcement Authority
        •   Section 104
        •   Section 106
        •   Section 107
        •   Section 122
   If PRP response is not voluntarily obtained or is not
adequate, EPA can either issue an order to compel the PRP
to conduct the cleanup., or conduct the necessary cleanup
itself and fund the cleanup with Federal Trust Fund monies. In
the latter situations where EPA has performed removal or
remedial  activities at the  site or incurred any enforcement
costs, the enforcement program's goal is to recover those
costs from the PRPs. Cost recovery actions are essential both
to replenish the Trust Fund and to deter other PRPs from
trying to avoid responsibility for performing response actions
themselves.

   The goals of the enforcement program apply to both
remedial and removal responses. The process is similar for
both responses, but many of the steps are abbreviated for
removals.

   CERCLA provides EPA with a strong foundation for
obtaining PRP cooperation in cleaning up contaminated sites.
The  enforcement authorities  provided by  CERCLA are
outlined below. In addition, other laws that  provide further
enforcement authorities are discussed.

   CERCLA, as amended by SARA, provides EPA with
the authority and necessary tools to  respond directly or to
compel PRPs to respond  to releases  or threatened releases
of hazardous substances. Also, CERCLA includes criminal
penalties, authorizes EPA to issue unilateral administrative
orders, and provides for settlement agreements. The sections
of CERCLA that provide EPA with enforcement authority
include sections 104, 106, 107, and 122.

   Section 104(e) of CERCLA gives EPA the authority to
issue information requests. The purposes of these information
requests include:

•  Gather information and evidence of PRP  liability
•  Gather information on financial viability of PRPs
•  Identify resistant PRPs early in the enforcement process.

EPA also can use the authority under section  104(e) to obtain
site access.

   Section 106 of CERCLA includes authority for EPA to
unilaterally order PRPs to implement site cleanups when there
is imminent and substantial endangerment presented by the
site.
Word-Searchable version - Not a true copy     IV-2

-------
                                                        SECTION IV - ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM
                                           Section 107(a) of CERCLA establishes authority for the
                                       recovery of all response action costs and recovery of all
                                       damages to natural resources. Section 107(e)(s) provides for
                                       the  recovery of up to three times EPA's response costs, if
                                       PRPs have failed to comply satisfactorily with a section 106
                                       unilateral administrative order.  EPA  may  recover  costs
                                       through a number of actions, including  demand letters,
                                       negotiations with PRPs, arbitration, administrative settlement,
                                       judicial settlement, and litigation.

                                           Section 122 of CERCLA provides settlement "tools" that
                                       may be used to encourage PRPs to negotiate a settlement for
                                       site cleanup. It is EPA's policy to allow the PRP to conduct
                                       the  response when the PRP:

                                           Can demonstrate it is technically qualified /capable of
                                           performing necessary activities in a timely manner

                                       •   Agrees  to conduct the response in accordance with the
                                           terms of the administrative order or consent decree

                                       •   Reimburses the Trust Fund for oversight costs incurred
                                           by EPA.

                                       Section 122 authorizes EPA to enter into agreements with
                                       PRPs that  allow the PRPs to conduct all or part of the
                                       response activities.

Other Statutory Enforcement              In addition to the authorities provided by CERCLA, EPA
Authority                              may use authorities provided by other environmental  laws.
                                       For example,  under the  Resource  Conservation   and
                                       Recovery  Act (RCRA), EPA  can order  owners   and
                                       operators  of  operating  hazardous  waste facilities   and
                                       hazardous waste facilities in the process of  closing to
                                       investigate any potential leaks and to clean up the facility if
                                       necessary. The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and
                                       its regulations can be used by EPA to impose conditions on
                                       the  handling of particularly  hazardous  substances, such as
                                       asbestos and  PCBs. In addition, in  some  cases where
                                       releases affect surface waters, the provisions of the Clean
                                       Water  Act (CWA), including amendments from the Oil
                                       Pollution Act (OP A), can be used to impose fines and require
                                       cleanup.
Word-Searchable version - Not a true copy    IV-3

-------
SECTION IV - ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM
THE ENFORCEMENT                  The overall  Superfund program involves an integrated
 PROCESS                            process of  bothenforcement  and  Trust Fund-financed
                                       activities aimed at achieving the overall goal of site cleanup. In
                                       general, EPA:

                                       •   Searches for and identifies PRPs who maybe liable for
                                          site response

                                       •   Attempts to negotiate agreements with the PRPs  to
                                          perform studies or cleanup

                                       •   Enters into settlements with the PRPs where possible

                                       •   Oversees the site work that the PRPs perform under the
                                          settlement.

                                       These steps are discussed below in greater detail.

                                          If the PRPs do not settle, EPA may do one or more of the
                                       following:

                                       •   Issue an administrative  order to compel the PRPs  to
                                          perform the cleanup

                                          Sue the PRPs to implement an administrative order,  or
                                          seek treble damages in a cost recovery action

                                          Conduct the cleanup, using Trust Fund monies, and later
                                          pursue cost recovery from the PRPs.

                                       The basic enforcement process is illustrated in Exhibit 2.
                                          Section 107(a) of CERCLA identifies four classes ofPRPs:

                                          Current facility owners and/or operators

                                          Past facility owners and operators at the time of disposal
                                          of a hazardous substance

                                          Person(s) who arranged  for treatment or disposal of
                                          hazardous substances (e.g., generators)

                                          Transporters of hazardous substances who selected the
                                          disposal site.
Word-Searchable version - Not a true copy     IV4

-------
                                                          SECTION IV - ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM
                                          Exhibit 2
                              The Basic Enforcement Process
                                           Issue
                                         General
                                       Notice Letters
                                                                       Issue
                                                                    Special Notice
                                                                       Letters
   Site
Discovery
Exchange
Information
                                                         PRP
                                                      Response/
                                                     EPA Oversight
 Negotiate
Settlement
                                Negotiations
                                Successful?
           RI/FS Negotiations
           with a 60-90 day
           Response Moratorium

           RD/RA Negotiations
           with a 60-120 day
           Response Moratorium
                            No
                        Issue
                    Administrative
                        Order
                                                                                  PRP
                                                                               Response/
                                                                             EPA Oversight I
                                                         Initiate Other
                                                         Enforcement
                                                           Options
                                                           •••••
                                                         Refer case to Department of Justice to enforce UAO
                                                         Seek Treble Damages
                                                         Use Trust Fund monies to clean up site and recover
                                                         costs from PRP(s)
Word-Searchable version - Not a true copy     IV-5

-------
SECTION IV - ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM
PRP Search and Identification
CERCLA imposes joint and several liability for all response
costs incurred at the site, that are not inconsistent with the
NCP, if a person falls within one of these four classes.

    EPA attempts to identify any parties that may be liable for
the release or threat of release of a hazardous substance at a
site as early as possible, ideally before a site is proposed for
listing on the NPL. This identification process is known as a
PRP search. The search seeks to identify the generators,
transporters, owners, and/or operators of a site. This may
involve  detailed  title  searches,  employee  interviews,
documentation reviews, interviews with site operators  and
transporters,  interviews  with neighboring industries,  site
visitsto document obvious evidence (e.g., labels onthebarrels
on site), etc. In addition, EPA generally  sends out section
104(e) information request letters to those whom EPA thinks
may have knowledge of operations at the site.

    PRPs that are identified by this process are notified of
their potential liability  via  a general notice  letter, and are
informed that they will have the opportunity to negotiate with
EPA to conduct  site cleanup.  Either before or with  this
notification, EPA also may include an information request to
determine the extent of PRP liability.

    If a party is identified as a PRP, CERCLA imposes strict
liability for all response costs incurred at the site that are not
inconsistent with the NCP. This means that legal responsibility
is imposed without regard to fault, and diligence generally is
no defense. When more than one PRP is  involved at a site
and the harm is indivisible (such as in the case of intermingled
drums, commingled wastes and contaminated soil or ground
water), the court may  impose joint and several liability
upon all parties involved at the site. If joint and several liability
is imposed on the PRPs, each PRP involved at the site is
individually liable  for the cost of the entire response action.
However, EPA's practice is to attempt to identify and notify
the universe of PRPs and to issue orders and litigate against
the largest manageable  number of parties.

    A PRP's liability is subject to the very limited defenses
listed in CERCLA section 107(b). A PRP  can avoid liability
only by proving that the release or threatened release was
caused solely by: (1) an act of God; or (2) an act of war; or,
(3) in certain narrow circumstances, a third party who was
not a
Word-Searchable version - Not a true copy     IV-6

-------
                                                         SECTION IV - ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM
Negotiations
                       PRPs
PRP  employee  and  who did  not have  a contractual
relationship with the PRP. In cases where the PRP raises the
defense that the release was caused solely by a third party,
the PRP will be excused from liability only if the PRP can
prove that he/she exercised due care and took precautions
against foreseeable acts or  omissions of these third parties.
Also, under section 101 (35) (A) of CERCLA, a person who
acquired property after the  hazardous substance  was
disposed or placed on the facility may raise the innocent
landowner defense. To assert this defense, the defendant must
prove that he/she acquired the property without knowing, or
having reason  to know, that  hazardous substances  were
disposed of in, on, or at the property. To establish that he/she
had no reason to know of such disposal, the PRP must have
undertaken all  appropriate inquiry at the time of acquisition.
A private party may also avoid liability by establishing that
he/she is a subsequent owner of the land who acquired the
site through bequest  or inheritance, and that  the  party
exercised  due care   and  took  precautions against the
foreseeable acts and omissions of the third party.

   When there is sufficient information to identify PRPs, EPA
normally issues a general notice letter to each PRP notifying
them  of their potential liability.  As soon as PRPs are
identified,  EPA begins exchanging information with them
concerning site conditions and other PRPs involved at the site.

   Based on information obtained during the PRP search and
information exchange process, EPA also may issue special
notice letters  to PRPs. The special notice letter begins  a
formal negotiation period and establishes a moratorium of 60
days on certain response and enforcement activities. During
the negotiation period, EPA and the PRPs try to reach an
agreement wherein the PRPs finance and conduct the work.
If within 60 days, PRPs make a "good-faith offer" to conduct
the response action, the moratorium may be extended to
provide additional time for reaching a final settlement. For
remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) negotiations,
the moratorium may be extended an additional 30 days; for
remedial design/remedial action (RD/RA) negotiations, it may
be extended an additional 60 days.

   In general, the purpose of these negotiations is to reach
agreement that the PRPs will perform the RI/FS or the RD/
RA and pay past costs  and oversight costs incurred by EPA.
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy      IV-7

-------
SECTION IV - ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM
Settlements and Settlement Tools
A settlement agreement may be signed if EPA is confident in
the PRP»s capabilities to conduct the response activities. With
most agreements, EPA is responsible for overseeing the work
ofPRPs.

   If no agreement is reached with the PRPs, EPA  can
either:

•  Issue a unilateral administrative order to  force liable,
   financially viable PRPs to conduct the response action
   (this occurs very infrequently for RI/FS activities), or

•  Use Trust Fund monies to perform the work and later
   seek to recover response costs incurred.

Generally, EPA will do the work at a site only when a
settlement cannot be reached or when the PRPs fail to
comply with an administrative or judicial order.

   If negotiations are successful, EPA and the PRPs sign a
legal document that sets forth the requirements for study or
cleanup. The type of settlement agreement differs with the
type of work required at the site. There are two general types
of settlement agreements,  administrative and  judicial.
Administrative settlements are authorized by CERCLA,
initiated  by EPA, and not required to go through court
approval. Even though they do not  require  initial court
approval, administrative settlements arejudicially enforceable.
Judicial settlements are filed by DOJ on behalf of EPA in
court.

   More  specifically,  the  administrative  and  judicial
documents that finalize settlements include the following:

•  Administrative Orders  on  Consent (AOCs)  —
   AOCs are binding agreements between EPA and PRPs.
   AOCs, to become effective, require the PRP's  and
   Regional Administrator's signature. Removals and RI/FS
   negotiations are usually resolved with AOCs.

•  Consent  Decrees (CDs) —  A CD is similar to an
   AOC, except that it is  a judicial action which must be
   filed in court, published  in the Federal Register for public
   comment, and approved by a judge before it becomes
   final. Like
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy     IV-8

-------
                                                       SECTION IV - ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM
                                          AOCs,  CDs  provide  information  on  the  site's
                                          background, name the parties bound by the decree,
                                          describe the roles and responsibilities of the bound
                                          parties, and  set forth performance standards that the
                                          remedy  must meet and stipulated penalties  for  not
                                          complying with those standards. CDs also detail financial
                                          agreements with regard to financial  assurances and
                                          reimbursement of costs, and address liability issues with
                                          respect to indemnification and insurance, covenants not to
                                          sue, and re-openers.  Whenever EPA enters  into  an
                                          agreement  where the PRPs are to perform the remedial
                                          actions, the agreement will be in the form of a consent
                                          decree. CDs are not the preferred mechanism for RI/FS
                                          or removal actions because administrative settlements
                                          maybe processed more quickly.

                                      If settlements are not achieved, there are several enforcement
                                      options available to EPA:

                                      •   Unilateral Administrative Orders (UAOs) — UAOs
                                          are most commonly  used to  order PRPs to  conduct
                                          cleanup  activities when negotiations fail.  UAOs are a
                                          powerful enforcement tool that EPA may use to help
                                          achieve PRP response. UAOs provide an  especially
                                          effective method of achieving timely  site cleanup. In
                                          removal situations where time is limited, UAOs may be
                                          issued  without  prior  negotiations. PRPs  may  face
                                          statutory penalties of $25,000 per day and costly litigation
                                          if they do not comply with the terms of a UAO. If the
                                          PRP is not cooperative, UAO issuance sets the stage for
                                          EPA to  recover up to three times its response costs,
                                          known as treble damages.

                                      •   Litigation/Judgments — If  a PRP refuses EPA or
                                          another PRP access  to the site,  pursuant  to  section
                                          104(e) EPA may seek a court order to obtain site access.
                                          Also, if EPA and the PRPs fail to reach an agreement that
                                          the PRPs will finance  or conduct the cleanup, EPA may
                                          use section  106 authorities to order PRP cleanup or
                                          section 107 to recover its response costs. To pursue a
                                          judicial action, EPA refers the case to DOJ for filing with
                                          the court. Lawsuits are generally used as a  last resort
                                          because they tend to be time consuming and costly. A
                                          judgment is a legally binding decision made by the court.
                                          It results from a section 104, 106, 107,  or 106 /107
                                          lawsuit.
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy      IV-9

-------
SECTION IV - ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM
                                          There are several important settlement tools that EPA
                                      may use to facilitate PRP settlements. These include:

                                      ••  Mixed Funding Settlements — These are settlements
                                          whereby EPA settles with fewer than all PRPs for less
                                          than 100 percent of the response costs, and where EPA
                                          agrees to use Trust Fund money for some or all of the
                                          short fall. EPA then later seeks to recover the costs of
                                          that portion of the cleanup it funded. Also under this type
                                          of settlement,  a PRP  can  agree  to a mixed work
                                          settlement where the PRP provides cleanup  services in
                                          lieu of funding.

                                      • •  De Minimis Settlements — These are final  settlements
                                          that have been determined to be: (1) only a minor portion
                                          of the total response costs at the site, and (2) practicable
                                          and in the public interest. These settlements are used if the
                                          hazardous substances contributed by the PRP are minimal
                                          in amount and toxicity, in comparison to other hazardous
                                          substances at the site. A de minimis settlement may be
                                          incorporated into a  global agreement with the major
                                          contributors and EPA.

                                      ••  Non-Binding   Allocations    of   Responsibility
                                          (NBARs)  — These are allocations of the costs of
                                          response among the PRPs,  at a facility. The NBAR
                                          allocation process is based primarily on the volume of
                                          hazardous substances contributed by the PRPs, although
                                          other factors, (e.g., toxicity and mobility of the hazardous
                                          substances,  and relative treatment costs) may  be
                                          considered.

                                      It is important to note that the objective of negotiations under
                                      EPA's settlement policy is to collect 100 percent of cleanup
                                      costs from PRPs or obtain  a commitment from them to
                                      perform the entire response action at the site. When there is
                                      a partial settlement, it is very important to litigate against
                                      non-settlers as soon as possible. In most cases, this is a cost
                                      recovery action.

Oversight of PRP Work                   The PRPs can begin work at the site once the AOC is
                                      signed or CD is entered  into Federal Court.  However,
                                      because of a time lag between when the court receives the
                                      CD for RD/RA and actually enters it as a final judgment, EPA
                                      encourages PRPs to begin the design activities for the remedy
                                      before the

Word-searchable version - Not a true copy     IV-10

-------
                                                        SECTION IV - ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM
Cost Recovery
KEY PLAYERS IN THE
ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM
 EPA
CD is entered. EPA closely monitors all work at the site. This
may include on-site examination of the PRPs  or  their
contractors, review of all reports, and parallel sampling and
analysis to ensure accuracy. CERCLA section 104 requires
the PRPs to pay  for  EPA's  RI/FS oversight  expenses
(including contractor support of EPA oversight efforts) as a
part of the settlement. In other contexts, EPA seeks to obtain
this reimbursement of oversight costs as a policy matter.

    If negotiations with the PRPs are not successful,  EPA
may choose to perform the work and seek to recover its
costs later. To recover its costs, EPA usually issues a demand
letter, and if the PRPs do not reimburse EPA's costs,  EPA
refers a judicial action to DOJ to pursue the PRPs. If a total
of $500,000 or  less in response  costs are incurred at a
facility, EPA may settle with the  PRPs directly using an
administrative order.  If more than a total of $500,000 in
response costs is incurred at a site, written approval of the
Attorney General  is required if EPA settles  the  case
administratively.

    The  Superfund enforcement program requires close
coordination between the many players in EPA, other Federal
agencies, and the States. While roles may vary among the
Regions,  they  generally  include  initiating  negotiations,
settlements, and cost recovery actions, and overseeing PRP
response actions.

   The On-Scene Coordinators (OSCs) and Remedial
Project Managers (RPMs) play the lead role in planning
and coordinating site removal, remediation and enforcement
activities. In addition to personnel from Federal agencies and
the States, other Regional staff (in particular, the Office of
Regional Counsel (ORC), staff from  the  Environmental
Services  Division,   and  Community   Relations),  and
Headquarters staff may  play active roles.

    Attorneys from ORC  act as the Region's primary  legal
advisors whenever an enforcement action  is being considered
at a site. They may take the lead in negotiations with PRPs,
review information exchanged between EPA and PRPs, assist
in obtaining site access, review the administrative record, and
act as the primary  communication link  between EPA and
DOJ if EPA litigates against the PRPs.
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy    IV-11

-------
SECTION IV - ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM
Other Federal Agencies
States
Natural Resource Trustees
    In  addition to EPA,  the  Department of Justice is
significantly involved in the Superfund enforcement program.
DOJ is involved in any enforcement action that must be filed
in court and serves as a resource in all negotiations that may
result in settlement. DOJ presents legal positions that explain
EPA's  goals  to the court, and usually provides the only
communication between EPA and the courts regarding site-
specific  litigation.  In   addition,  DOJ  is  the  official
representative of EPA in negotiations that take place while a
case is pending before a court. As noted earlier, the Attorney
General must also approve any claim that is negotiated and
settled, whether by consent decree or by administrative order
on consent, where the total response costs at the site exceed
$500,000.

    The  role  of  States  in the enforcement program is
substantial but varies depending on whether the State is the
lead or support agency at the particular site. If EPA has the
lead, it must notify the State of planned negotiations and
provide it with an opportunity to participate. Subject to the
provisions of CERCLA section 121 (f), States also have the
right to be a party to any settlement. States may also perform
oversight activities. If a State has the lead role at a site, it may
negotiate directly with the PRPs and issue orders under State
legal authority, and EPA assumes a support role.

    At any site where natural resources may have been
damaged, EPA must  coordinate with  the trustee of those
resources. The trustee may be a Federal agency, such as the
Department  of the Interior,   the National  Oceanic and
Atmospheric   Administration,   or  the  Department  of
Agriculture, or it may be a State agency  (designated by a
governor), or there may be both Federal and State trustees
for the site. EPA must notify  natural  resource trustees of
settlement negotiations with PRPs and allow trustees to
participate  in negotiations of matters within their domain.
Trustees are the  only entities authorized  to  give  PRPs
assurances that they will not  sue for damages to natural
resources in settlement agreements.
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy     IV-12

-------
                             SECTION V
                        REMOVAL ACTIONS
           OVERVIEW

           TYPES OF REMOVAL ACTIONS

           S     Emergency Removal Actions
           S     Time-Critical Removal Actions
           S     Non-Time-Critical Removal Actions

           CRITERIA FOR CONDUCTING A REMOVAL ACTION

           KEY PLAYERS

           S     EPA
           S     PRPs
           S     USCG
           S     Other Federal Agencies
           S     States
           S     Others

           STATUTORY LIMITS

           THE REMOVAL PROCESS

           S     Notification or Discovery
           S     Removal Site Evaluation
           S     Action Memorandum
           S     Response Action
           S     Site Closeout
           S     Post Removal Site Control
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
SECTION V    REMOVAL ACTIONS
OVERVIEW                             Removal  actions are generally  short-term  response
                                       actions taken to abate or mitigate imminent substantial threats
                                       to human health and the environment and are generally surface
                                       cleanups. Removal actions can  be  triggered by burning,
                                       leaking, explosion,  or other hazardous occurrences that
                                       cannot wait for remedial action. As a results of the short-term
                                       nature of these actions, CERCLA, as amended by SARA,
                                       sets $2 million and 12 month limits on Trust Fund-financed
                                       removal actions.

                                          Superfund removal actions have occurred in response to
                                       all of the following types of incidents:

                                          Critical threat at an active or  inactive production
                                          facility — any incident at ongoing or former operations
                                          that manufacture(d), recycle(d), handle(d), store(d), or
                                          transport(ed) hazardous substances or waste as a primary
                                          ingredient, product, or by-product of operations or any
                                          location  contaminated due  to  off-site  migration  of
                                          hazardous substances or wastes from such operations.

                                       •   Critical  threat at  an  active  or inactive  waste
                                          management facility — any incident at an ongoing or
                                          former, legal or illegal, operation or site whose primary
                                          purpose is (was) to handle,  exchange, transfer,  store,
                                          treat, or dispose of hazardous substances or wastes from
                                          such a facility or site.

                                       •   Midnight dump — any illegal dumping of hazardous
                                          substances or suspected hazardous substances into the
                                          air, land, water, or other element, whether accidental or
                                          deliberate.

                                       ••  Transportation-related — any release or potential
                                          release of hazardous substances due to a transportation
                                          situation,  accident, or malfunction.  (Local authorities
                                          usually respond  to hazardous releases resulting from
                                          transportation-related incidents. The Superfund program
                                          also has the authority to respond, if necessary, under the
                                          removal program to such emergencies.)
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy     V-l

-------
SECTION V - REMOVAL ACTIONS
TYPES OF REMOVAL
ACTIONS
•   Other — any release to the environment of hazardous
    substances that does not conform to one of the above
    categories and/or a release where the  source  of the
    contaminant is unknown.

Exhibit 3 illustrates the approximate distribution of removal
actions according to the above types of incidents.

    Each  removal   action is prompted  by the unique
circumstances of a release or potential release of hazardous
substances.  The  following removal actions are generally
appropriate in the situations described:

••  Fences, warning signs, or other security or site control
    precautions - where restricted access is required

••  Drainage controls (e.g., run-off or run-on diversion) —
    where  needed   to  reduce migration  of hazardous
    substances,  pollutants,  or  contaminants off-site or  to
    prevent precipitation or run-off from other sources (e.g.,
    flood waters, from entering the release area from other
    areas)

••  Stabilization  of berms,  dikes,  or impoundments,  or
    drainage or closing of lagoons  where needed to maintain
    the integrity of the containment structures

••  Placement of a cap on contaminated soils or sledges -
    where  needed   to  reduce migration  of hazardous
    substances or pollutants or contaminants into soil, ground
    or surface water, or air

••  Utilization of chemicals  and other materials  to retard the
    spread of the release or to mitigate its effects - where the
    use of such chemicals will reduce the  spread  of the
    release

••  Excavation,   consolidation,  or  removal   of  highly
    contaminated soils from drainage or other areas — where
    removal will  reduce the spread of or direct  contact with
    contamination

••  Removal of drums,  barrels, tanks,  or  other bulk
    containers that contain or may contain hazardous ignitable
    or explosive substances or pollutants or contaminants -
    where it will reduce the likelihood of spillage, leakage,
    and exposure to humans, animals, or the food chain
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy      V-2

-------
                                                       SECTION V - REMOVAL ACTIONS
                                    Exhibit 3
                       Removal Actions by Type of Incident
    Production
  Facilities - 30%
Waste Management
  Facilities-17%
                                                                Midnight Dumps -16%
                                                              Transportation
                                                              Related -<1%
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy     V-3

-------
SECTION V - REMOVAL ACTIONS
                                       •   Containment,  treatment, disposal,  or  incineration  of
                                           hazardous materials - where needed to reduce the
                                           likelihood of human, animal, or food chain exposure

                                       •   Provision of alternative water supply - where it will
                                           reduce the likelihood of exposure to contaminated water.

                                       If reported releases consist of oil,  the CERCLA petroleum
                                       exclusion forbids CERCLA response. The CWA. and the
                                       amendments in the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OP A) provide
                                       the authority  and funding for responses to oil spills into or
                                       threatening U.S. waters.
Emergency Removal Actions
Time- Critical Removal Actions
    EPA  categorizes removal  actions  in  three  ways,
emergency, time-critical, and non-time-critical, based on
the type of situation, the urgency and threat of the release or
potential release, and the subsequent time frame in which the
action must be initiated. Emergency and time-critical removals
are in response to releases requiring action within six months;
non-time-critical removals are in response  to releases
requiring action that can start later than six months.

    Emergency removal actions are necessary when there
is a release that requires on-site activities within hours of the
determination that  a removal action is appropriate.  Such
removal actions are likely to occur as a result of:

• •   Discovery of high concentrations of hazardous substances
    in human high  traffic  areas such as  residential areas,
    alleyways, and recreational areas.

•   Fire or explosion at production facilities and hazardous
    waste treatment, storage, or disposal sites

    Time-critical removal actions are those where the lead
agency  determines, based on the  site evaluation, that a
removal action is appropriate and must be initiated within six
months. Time-critical removal actions typically involve:

• •   Dangerous concentrations of acutely toxic substances
• •   Threat of rapid and/or wide off-site migration
• •   Likelihood of fire or explosion
• •   Acute threat to human health and/or environment.
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy      V4

-------
                                                               SECTION V - REMOVAL ACTIONS
Non-Time-Critical Removal
Actions
CRITERIA FOR
CONDUCTING A REMOVAL
ACTION
    Non-time-critical removal actions  are those where
the lead agency determines, based on the site evaluation, that
a removal action is appropriate but a planning period of more
than six months  is available before on-site activities must
begin. Non-time-critical removal actions typically involve:

••  A secure site
••  No nearby population center
••  Storage containers in stable condition
• •  A dangerous concentration of chronic toxic substances.

    Examples  of non-time-critical removal  actions may
include removal of stable drums discovered during a remedial
action, or excavation of low-level radioactive materials from
property with restricted access.

The National Oil  and  Hazardous   Substance Pollution
Contingency  Plan  (NCP) lists  the following factors to
consider in determining if a removal action is appropriate:

•   Actual or potential exposure  of hazardous substances to
    a human or animal food chain

•   Actual or potential contamination  of drinking water or
    sensitive ecosystems

•   Threat of fire or explosion

•   Hazardous substances in containers that pose a threat of
    release

•   Highly contaminated soils at the surface that may migrate

•   Weather conditions that may cause substances to migrate

•   An imminent and substantial  endangerment to public
    health,  welfare, or  the  environment  as  a result of
    pollutants or contaminants, i.e., substances not already
    defined by CERCLA as "hazardous"

•   Unavailability of  other  response  or  enforcement
    mechanisms.
Word-Searchable version - Not a true copy     V-5

-------
SECTION V - REMOVAL ACTIONS
KEY PLAYERS
The OSC uses the above criteria to determine if a removal
action is appropriate, then also considers the following criteria
for a proposed removal action:

•  If financed by the Trust Fund, the potential response
   action should  remain  within the  $2 million/12 month
   statutory limits on  removal  actions set by CERCLA
   (unless an exemption based on urgency or consistency
   with a remedial action to be taken can be requested on a
   case-by-case basis).

•  In general, sites or operable units with a signed Record of
   Decision (ROD) should not be cleaned up using removal
   authority.

•  Most removal  actions do not require extensive study or
   long-term response except, perhaps, non-time-critical
   removal actions.

EPA Regions have been  delegated authority to consider
exemptions  to the one-year limit.  EPA Headquarters,
however, considers exemptions to the dollar limit for removal
actions on a case-by-case basis.

   The Superfund removal program is not performed by
EPA  alone.  Many participants contribute to successful
removal actions and to the program's overall success. Other
participants may include:

•  Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs)
•  U.S. Coast Guard (USCG)
•  Other Federal Agencies
•  States
   Contractors
•  Citizens.
EPA
For most Trust Fund-financed, or CERCLA enforcement
sites, EPA ultimately ensures that removal actions comply
with all the requirements of the NCP, regardless of who
participates in or leads the response action. However, in
certain instances the USCG ultimately ensures that removal
actions comply with all the requirements of the NCP.

    EPA's Emergency Response Division (ERD), located at
EPA Headquarters  in Washington, D.C., is responsible for
planning and coordinating the Superfund removal program.
Word-Searchable version - Not a true copy     V-6

-------
                                                             SECTION V - REMOVAL ACTIONS
              OSCs
PRPs
USCG
Other Federal Agencies
Much of the authority for daily operations is delegated to
the  ten  EPA Regions.  OSCs  in  each Region  manage
individual removal actions and are authorized to expend Trust
Fund monies. Typically, they oversee contractors  or PRPs
who perform the actual cleanup work. OSCs may receive
assistance during the course of a removal action from several
specialized teams of experts within and outside of EPA. For
example, the Environmental Response Team (ERT), a
part of ERD, includes biologists, chemists, environmental
scientists, and engineers. These  experts provide technical
advice on all aspects of removal actions including sampling
and analysis,  site  safety,  cleanup  techniques, and  waste
disposal.

    PRPs may undertake removal  actions in response to
EPA's issuance of an administrative order. Before issuing an
administrative order, the OSC determines if PRPs or State /
local agencies are able and willing to respond. If they are not
able and willing and no one is responding, then a Trust Fund-
financed removal action is necessary.

    The  U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) representative serves
as the OSC for oil discharges and hazardous substance
releases in the coastal zone. The USCG OSC shall contact
the  EPA remedial project manager  (RPM)  as soon as it is
evident that the removal may require a follow-up  remedial
action.

    Other Federal agencies that participate in the removal
process include the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA), the Agency for Toxic Substances and  Disease
Registry (ATSDR), the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA),  and the National Oceanic  and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

    The Department of Defense (DoD) and the Department
of Energy (DOE) have been delegated response authority,
under Executive Order 12580, to conduct emergency  and
non-emergency removal actions with respect to releases or
threatened releases from their own facilities. DoD and DOE
must use their own resources to pay for any removal actions
they conduct. EPA OSCs are frequently  called  upon to
manage or assist at a DoD release which has the potential for
migrating off-site or was released from a military reservation.
All  other Federal agencies are authorized to conduct non-
emergency removal actions only.
Word-Searchable version - Not a true copy     V-7

-------
SECTION V - REMOVAL ACTIONS
States
Others
STATUTORY LIMITS
    A State may act as lead agency to carry out a Trust
Fund-financed  removal  action  through  a  cooperative
agreement (CA) if EPA determines that it is a non-time critical
removal and that this lead will result in the most efficient
method of threat mitigation.

    A wide variety of special forces and teams,  Federal
agency resources, contractor support services, State,  and
other resources are available to assist the OSC in the removal
process. The  services of each organization are explained in
the NCP and the Superfund Removal Procedures Manual.

    For emergency and time-critical removal actions, citizens
are provided  an opportunity to comment  on the proposed
action within 60 days of its initiation. They provide this input
during the public comment period when  EPA makes the
technical file that forms the basis for selecting the site remedy,
the Administrative Record, available for public review. EPA
responds to  this input  by providing information to the
community and considering the concerns and interests raised.
For non-time-critical removals, public comment is solicited
prior to selection of the removal action. For more information
regarding citizens' roles in the Superfund process, see Section
X: Community Relations /Public Participation.

    CERCLA, as amended by SARA, limits the cost and
duration of Trust Fund-financed removal actions to $2 million
and  12 months. The $2 million limit includes all obligations
from the Trust Fund associated with a particular site, except
for costs of studies or investigations that may be necessary or
appropriate to plan and direct response actions or to recover
costs thereof.  The 12-month limit is  calculated  in calendar
days from the date on-site removal work begins to the date
of demobilization. However, in special circumstances, such as
a continuing emergency or an action that will be consistent
with future remedial activity, removal actions may exceed
these limits.
                                          A request for an exemption to the statutory limits may be
                                       approved if it is determined that:

                                          Continued response actions are immediately required to
                                          prevent, limit, or mitigate an emergency, and

                                       •  There is an  immediate risk to public welfare or the
                                          environment, and
Word-Searchable version - Not a true copy     V-8

-------
                                                              SECTION V - REMOVAL ACTIONS
THE REMOVAL PROCESS
Notification or Discovery
Removal Site Evaluation
     Such assistance will not otherwise be provided on a
   timely basis, or

•  The removal process is otherwise appropriate and
   consistent with the remedial action to be taken. (This
   waiver of the statutory limits is generally used at NPL
   sites but may be considered on a site-by-site basis at
   non-NPL sites).

If a removal action must be conducted at a remedial site and
the remedial action has not yet been determined, the OSC
should attempt to select a removal  action that will be
appropriate and consistent with the most probable remedial
action(s) for that site.

   The removal process involves several phases including a
notification/discovery evaluation, remedy selection, response
action, and project closeout. Exhibit 4 provides an overview
of the removal process.

   EPA learns of hazardous waste problems through formal
and informal mechanisms, either through notification or by
discovery. CERCLA requires "the person in charge," who
discovers a release of a hazardous substance above a certain
threshold,  to report  the release to  the National Response
Center (NRC), a national clearinghouse that coordinates
responses to reports of hazardous substance releases. These
threshold levels, known as Reportable Quantities (RQs), vary
depending upon the specific  substance detected. Through
1991, EPA has established RQs for more than 700 hazardous
substances, which are listed in 40 CFR Part 302. Releases
are reported to the NRC by PRPs, the general public, State
and local authorities, and Federal agencies. The NRC, which
is staffed by the USCG and located in Washington, D.C.,
alerts the appropriate EPA Regional or USCG OSC.

   If the reported release appears to pose an imminent threat
to human health and the environment, the OSC begins a
removal site evaluation. The initial part of the evaluation is
based  on available information such  as written reports,
photographs, and interviews with witnesses. A site inspection
is performed if more detailed information is needed.
Word-Searchable version - Not a true copy     V-9

-------
SECTION V - REMOVAL ACTIONS
                                        Exhibit 4
                                 The Removal Process
                               Notification
                                   or
                                discovery
                                   i
                          Conduct Removal Site
                                Evaluation
   Continous
  Enforcement
      Effort
                                   I
  Assess Removal Site
   Evaluation results
against regulatory criteria
Does
  not
meet
criteria
 End response or refer
  to remedial or State
program (if appropriate)
                                   I
               Meets criteria
                          Prepare Action Memo
                           and obtain approval
                                   I
                             Initiate response
           Continuous
             Public
          Participation
                             Conduct cleanup
                             Action completed
                                           Post-removal
                                            site control
                                           (if necessary)
                                   i
                             Project closeout
 Word-Searchable version - Not a true copy    V-10

-------
                                                              SECTION V - REMOVAL ACTIONS
                                          During a removal site evaluation, the OSC considers the
                                       type of contaminant, concentration and form, action levels,
                                       and mitigation options. According to the NCP, the removal
                                       site evaluation includes, but is not limited to:

                                       •   Identification of the source and nature of the release or
                                          threat of releases

                                       •   Evaluation of the threat to public health

                                       •   Evaluation of the magnitude of the threat

                                       •   Evaluation of factors necessary to determine if a removal
                                          action is appropriate

                                       •   Determination if a non-Federal  party  is undertaking
                                          proper response.

                                       Depending on the characteristics  of the release and urgency
                                       of the situation, the evaluation may take only an hour or as
                                       long as several weeks.

                                          A PRP search is also initiated during the removal site
                                       evaluation to identify and compel legally responsible parties to
                                       take corrective action. Factors to consider when determining
                                       the potential for PRP involvement in the response include the
                                       urgency of the release, status of enforcement activities, and
                                       financial capability of the responsible party.

                                          Upon  completion of the removal  site  evaluation, the
                                       evaluation is reviewed to determine if action is necessary. If
                                       action is necessary, it is documented that the time frame for
                                       response is more appropriate for a removal action than for a
                                       remedial response. After determining that a removal action is
                                       necessary,  the  OSC  assesses  whether  the responsible
                                       party(s) or State can and will perform the necessary action.
                                       If the responsible parties are not identified during the PRP
                                       search, or they will not perform the necessary  actions or
                                       neither the PRP or  the State  can perform the necessary
                                       actions, then a Trust-Fund financed removal action may be
                                       undertaken.
Action Memorandum
    An Action  Memorandum  is the primary decision
document that substantiates the need for a removal action,
identifies  the proposed response, and explains the rationale
for the removal action. The Action Memorandum is the basis
Word-Searchable version - Not a true copy     V-l 1

-------
SECTION V - REMOVAL ACTIONS
Response Action
Site Closeout
Post Removal Site Control
for the actions described in an administrative order or a Trust
Fund-financed removal action. An Action Memorandum also
allocates funds for the response.

    The on-site response action is initiated once the Action
Memorandum has been prepared and signed. For Fund-lead
actions, EPA hires contractors and completes the actions in
the Action Memorandum. For State or enforcement-lead
action, EPA oversees the remedy to ensure that it is in
compliance  with  any   orders  or  agreements,  Action
Memorandum, and is protective of public health and  the
environment.

    At the conclusion of the removal action, certain site
closeout procedures must be performed. The  completion
date of the action must be determined to signify that the action
is complete, the threat is abated or mitigated, and that the
project  was completed  within 12 months or  within  the
timeframe approved in an exemption.

    A final OSC report shall be completed. The OSC report
records the situation as it developed, actions taken, resources
committed,  and problems encountered. The  final step is
ensuring that post removal site control measures  will be
maintained.

    Post removal site control refers to those activities that
are necessary to sustain the integrity of a removal action
following its conclusion. These activities, such as relighting gas
flares, replacing filters, and collecting leachate, are necessary
for assuring the continuing effectiveness of a removal action
after completion of the on-site removal activities  or after the
statutory limitations  are reached.  Generally,  State,  local
governments, or PRPs  assume  responsibility  for  these
activities.

    Removal actions  involve rapid response to eliminate,
minimize, or reduce the threat of a hazardous substance
release.  The  OSC is the key manager at a removal site and
directs response efforts and coordinates all other efforts at the
scene of a release or threatened release. The OSC directs
Fund-lead efforts and  reviews  work of other Agencies,
responsible parties, and contractors to assure compliance
with the NCP. The OSC also reviews all decision documents,
enforcement orders, and plans applicable to the response.
Word-Searchable version - Not a true copy     V-12

-------
                           SECTION VI

                        SITE ASSESSMENT


          OVERVIEW

          THE SITE ASSESSMENT PROCESS

           • •    Site Discovery
           • •    Preliminary Assessment
           • •    Site Inspection

          HAZARD RANKING SYSTEM

          NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST
Word-Searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
SECTION VI
   SITE ASSESSMENT
OVERVIEW
THE SITE ASSESSMENT
PROCESS
           Hazardous Site
         Evaluation Division
         Regions and States
  Contractors
Laboratories
   When Congress enacted CERCLA, it recognized that the
cost  of cleaning up  all hazardous substance releases or
potential releases nationwide would exceed the resources
available in the Trust Fund. Therefore, Congress directed
EPA, in section 105 of CERCLA, to include in the National
Oil and Hazardous  Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
(NCP) criteria for determining priorities among releases or
threatened releases throughout the United States for the
purpose  of taking response  action.  These criteria and
priorities are based upon relative risk or danger to human
health and the environment. To implement this mandate, EPA
developed a  scoring  system to identify priority sites for
cleanup using the Fund and a National Priorities List (NPL)
of sites to be cleaned up. The scoring system is  called the
Hazard Ranking System  (HRS).  The HRS assesses the
relative risk posed by sites. The HRS enables EPA to identify
the priority sites and allocate Trust Fund monies accordingly.

   Site assessment is the initial phase  of the Superfund
response program. It is the process by which EPA and the
States identify, evaluate, and rank hazardous waste sites. The
Hazardous  Site Evaluation  Division  (HSED), at EPA
Headquarters, is responsible for directing  Superfund's site
assessment program, while the EPA Regions and  the States
actually implement the program.

   The Regions work closely with the  contractors and
laboratories that perform site investigations and analyses. The
States also perform various site assessment activities, often
with funding provided through Cooperative Agreements with
EPA. The Regions must  ensure that Superfund program
objectives are met and that pertinent site information is
entered into the CERCLA Information System (CERCLIS).

   CERCLIS is an inventory of all potential sites brought to
EPA's  attention. CERCLIS contains information on both
potential and actual sites and the result of the site assessment
process. It serves as a historical data base for EPA to keep
track of EPA's work  at each site. CERCLIS incorporates
vital  program,  enforcement,  financial,  management, and
technical data regarding sites.
Word-Searchable version - Not a true copy     Vl-l

-------
SECTION VI - SITE ASSESSMENT
                                           Site assessment activities help identify and evaluate the
                                       most serious  hazardous  waste  sites  in  the nation.  These
                                       activities include the following five steps:

                                       1.   Site  Discovery — when EPA first learns  about
                                           hazardous substance  releases or potential releases

                                       2.   Preliminary Assessment — a  relatively low-cost
                                           review of existing site information to determine the need
                                           for further action

                                       3.   Site  Inspection — a  more in-depth assessment of
                                           on-site conditions and characteristics to determine if a site
                                           presents enough of a threat to qualify for the NPL

                                       4.   Hazard Ranking  System  (HRS) — a mathematical
                                           model applied to assess the relative risk posed by likely
                                           NPL sites

                                       5.   National Priorities List (NPL) — a list of sites that are
                                           eligible for Trust Fund-financed remedial action.

                                       The site assessment process is illustrated in Exhibit 5.

                                           At each stage of the site assessment process, sites are
                                       subject to one of several outcomes:

                                       •   Referral to the  removal  program  — If the site
                                           presents an  immediate danger to human health and the
                                           environment, it would  be  referred to the removal
                                           program. If a long-term threat remains at the site at the
                                           conclusion of the removal action, the site assessment
                                           process will  continue.

                                       •   Referral to the  State or another  environmental
                                           program—If the information gathering process indicates
                                           that the State or a more appropriate regulatory program
                                           is available to address the problems at a site, the site may
                                           be  referred  to  the State or that program for  further
                                           consideration. CERCLA response authorities are to be
                                           used as a "last resource."

                                       •   A decision for  no further action under CERCLA —
                                           If the assessments show no evidence of a hazardous
                                           substance present or if the site will not receive a HRS
                                           score   that   qualifies  for  NPL  consideration,  the
                                           investigation of the site may be discontinued or referred
                                           to the State.
Word-Searchable version - Not a true copy    Vl-2

-------
                                                     SECTION VI - SITE ASSESSMENT
                                  Exhibit 5
                         The Site Assessment Process
             1
           Site Evaluation
        Accomplished (SEA)
                                           Site Discovery
                                     Preliminary Assessment (PA)



Site Inspection (SI) 1
i

MRS Package 1
i
r
Proposal to NPL 1
                                                1
                                      Public Comments and EPA
                                       Response to Comments
                                                I
                                         Site Placed on NPL
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy     Vl-3

-------
SECTION VI - SITE ASSESSMENT
Site Discovery
Preliminary Assessment
•   Continuation in the site assessment program—If the
    site presents  evidence  of a hazardous  substance, it
    continues through the assessment process potentially
    leading to NPL placement and remedial action.

It is important to recognize that EPA does not perform these
site assessment activities alone. Many States have active site
assessment programs supported by the Regions.

    This  section discusses  in  greater detail  the guiding
principles, objectives, and operating procedures for the five
general steps in the site assessment process.

    EPA  discovers  hazardous substance  releases that
potentially warrant Superfund response through several types
of channels. These channels include:

•   State and local programs

    Other Federal programs (e.g., DoD or DOE)

•   Notification  under  CERCLA or  RCRA  reporting
    requirements

    Citizen complaints.

The majority of releases are discovered through State and
local programs.

    Once a site  has been discovered,  the  enforcement
process begins with a potentially responsible party (PRP)
search. During this search EPA  seeks to identify all  parties
who may be responsible for the release. As EPA identifies
PRPs,  EPA notifies the PRPs and requests information in
order to support site  assessment, identify other PRPs, and
support other possible future actions. PRP search activities
continue throughout the remedial process and generally begin
in earnest during the site inspection/NPL stage.

    The next step EPA takes after learning of a potential site
or release is to obtain and review all available reports and
documentation  about  the  site. This  step  is  called a
preliminary assessment (PA). Preliminary assessments are
evaluations of existing site-specific data designed to determine
whether  sites merit further action under CERCLA. EPA
collects background information  not only from its own files
but also
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy      VI4

-------
                                                                SECTION VI - SITE ASSESSMENT
                                       from State and local records and U.S. Geological Survey
                                       maps. During this assessment, EPA determines the size of the
                                       site, the types and quantities of substances most likely to have
                                       been  released,  the local  hydrological and meteorological
                                       conditions,  the  population at  risk, and  the  potential
                                       environmental impacts.

                                           The objectives of the PA are to:

                                       •   Eliminate from further  consideration under  CERCLA
                                           those sites that do not pose threats to human health and
                                           the environment

                                           Determine the potential need for response action

                                           Set priorities for site inspections

                                       •   Gather data for the HRS score.

                                       PAs are the only required, common step among all sites in
                                       CERCLIS. All sites must have a PA within one year of entry
                                       into CERCLIS.

                                           PAs consist of collecting data and determining whether
                                       there are hazardous substance that pose a threat to human
                                       health  and  the environment.  The  purpose of  PA  data
                                       collection is to gather as much readily available information as
                                       possible about a particular site. The lead agency  compiles
                                       Federal,  State, and  local  files;  private  well logs;  and
                                       geological, topographical, hydrological, and meteorological
                                       data. Additionally, the lead agency interviews Federal, State,
                                       and local personnel and examines other relevant records.

                                           After completing the PA, EPA prepares a PA report,  as
                                       required by the NCP. The report includes the potentially
                                       affected populations  at a  particular site, the site operating
                                       history,  sources  of  contamination,  and,  if  appropriate,
                                       hydrogeology and hydrology.

                                           Sites  can  be  eliminated  from further CERCLA
                                       consideration as a result of the PA, with a decision that the
                                       site evaluation is accomplished (SEA). SEA decision,
                                       following a PA, can be made if EPA concludes that there is
                                       no threat to human health or the environment. Also, a site will
                                       receive a SEA decision if there is no evidence of hazardous
                                       substances being present,  if the  site  has already been
                                       investigated and no threat was
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy      Vl-5

-------
SECTION VI - SITE ASSESSMENT
Site Inspection
found, or if the risk from the site is not sufficiant for inclusion
on the NPL. The PA sites that have received SEA decisions
are typically sites with few possibly affected populations
within close proximity of the site and where there is a low
likelihood of release  of  hazardous  substances  into the
environment. The SEA decision can be made at any stage in
the site  assessment process,  either  during  or after the
preliminary assessment. If later information indicates the site
may present a risk or potential risk, the SEA decision may be
reviewed, and if necessary, further work or even listing on the
NPL  may result. It should be noted that response actions
may,  and  often do, occur under State authority at sites that
have received SEA decisions, Also, a SEA decision does not
remove a  site from CERCLIS.

    EPA requires a site inspection (SI) if the preliminary
assessment  indicates a suspected or potential release  of
hazardous substances that may threaten human health or the
environment. Site inspections build upon and supplement the
information collected during the preliminary assessment. The
purposes of the site inspection are to:

•   Determine the potential need for a removal action

•   Determine whether further Superfund action is warranted
    as a result of a significant threat to human health or the
    environment

    Collect additional data regarding contamination and risks
    to further evaluate the release pursuant to the HRS and
    the RI/FS, as appropriate.

    During the SI, the lead agency collects and analyzes three
types  of information necessary to develop an HRS score:(l)
desktop data; (2) non-sampling data; and (3) sampling data.
Desktop data are available from accessible sources, such as
topographical maps,  well  logs,  and on-line data bases.
Bibliographic information too extensive to review during the
PA may also be used. Non-sampling data about a site and
its environment are gathered in the field on  a reconnaissance
trip.  Examples  of non-sampling  data collection include
gathering  the source  volumes  and  area measurements,
verifying  possibly affected resources (e.g., ground water,
surface water, air), and verifying observable and measurable
physical characteristics about the site. Information is gathered
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy      Vl-6

-------
                                                                SECTION VI - SITE ASSESSMENT
HAZARDOUS RANKING SYSTEM
regarding the types of soils on site, streams or rivers on or
near the site, number  of people in the area, weather
conditions,  and who owns, or operates the site.

    Sampling data are collected during a site visit. These
samples help to quantify what types of hazardous substances
are present at the site, how much of these substances has
been  released, and what potential  targets have been
contaminated. Samples of wastes, soil, surface water and
sediments, well water, and air are collected to determine what
hazardous substances are on the site. Samples are also taken
nearby to determine if and how far the substances may have
migrated away from the site.

    The  primary  objective of  this  inspection  of site
characteristics is to  collect information  to rank the site's
hazard potential, i.e., document an HRS score to the extent
required for a decision on whether the  site qualifies for the
NPL. The procedures performed during an SI vary somewhat
because of  differences  in  information  needs and site
characteristics. Often the initial SI is conducted to collect the
sampling data necessary  to  document  an  HRS  score.
However, if this SI does not produce enough data to prepare
an HRS score, a more extensive SI, called an expanded site
inspection (ESI),  may  be necessary to  gather  additional
sampling data. Both the SI and the ESI support  EPA's
decision concerning a response action that may be required
at a site. A site can receive a SEA decision at any point in the
process if it becomes apparent the site will not go onto the
NPL.

    CERCLA mandated that a screening mechanism be
established  to evaluate a site's relative risk and determine its
eligibility for the NPL. EPA,  in response, developed an
approach  to systematically score sites  that have been
discovered. This model is known as the Hazard Ranking
System (HRS). It enables EPA to identify the possible or
actual risks at each  site, assign numerical scores to those
risks, and compare the relative severity  of risks among sites
after a  site inspection is performed. A site must have a total
score of 28.50 or above to be proposed for the NPL. The
HRS is a screening tool, it is not a risk assessment.

    CERCLA mandates that the screening model take into
account, to the maximum extent possible:
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy      Vl-7

-------
SECTION VI - SITE ASSESSMENT
 Surface Water
   Migration
   Air
Migration
             Pathways of
              Exposure
 Ground water
   Migration
   Soil
Exposure
NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST
    The population at risk
•   The potential for drinking water contamination
•   The potential for direct human exposure
•   The potential for ecosystem impacts
•   Damages that may affect the human food chain
•   Health risks due to contamination of surface water or
    ground water
•   Actual or potential contamination of ambient air.

The HRS  examines  four pathways of  exposure:  (1)
groundwater migration; (2) surface water migration; (3) soil
exposure; and (4) air migration.

    The score is based on a calculation of factors within each
pathway. The factor categories are: likelihood of release,
waste characteristics, and targets (i.e., potentially affected
populations,  etc.). The information for the HRS is from the
PA, SI, and ESI, which are the steps EPA uses to develop
and refine the site information, As the site assessment process
proceeds and more data are collected, the accuracy of the
data increase. The information collected and EPA's decision
at each stage of the process determines the fate of a site, i.e.,
whether or not a site  will continue to be considered for
inclusion on  the NPL.  After the completion of the SI, the
Region conducts an evaluation to decide whether to prepare
an HRS package for a site and to propose a site for the NPL.
The HRS package contains the documentation that supports
the data for the score, e.g., worksheets, historical data, maps,
PA and SI reports.

    Once the HRS  package is  completed and has  been
reviewed in the Region, it is submitted to EPA Headquarters
for  a  quality assurance  (QA) review. Following the QA
review,  eligible  sites  are submitted  by the Region to
Headquarters for proposal to the NPL.

    The HRS score does not necessarily provide an indication
of the feasibility, desirability, or nature of the remedial action
that may be undertaken; the score is one of many factors used
to prioritize sites for remedial action.

    Hazardous waste sites must be included on the National
Priorities List (NPL) in order to be eligible for Trust Fund-
financed remedial action. EPA determines which sites to
include on the NPL by evaluating the relative risks of sites in
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy     Vl-8

-------
                                                               SECTION VI - SITE ASSESSMENT
                                       CERCLIS.  In assessing relative risks,  EPA implements
                                       section 300.425 of the NCP which specifies three ways sites
                                       may become eligible for the NPL:

                                          The site has an HRS score of at least 28.50

                                       •   Each State is given one opportunity to designate one site,
                                          which it considers its highest priority,  for the NPL

                                       •   The site meets all three of the following criteria:  (1) the
                                          Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry has
                                          issued a health advisory recommending that people be
                                          disassociated  from the hazardous substances  to avoid
                                          exposure; (2) EPA determines that the site represents a
                                          significant threat to human health or the environment; and
                                          (3) EPA determines that remedial action  is more cost-
                                          effective than removal action.

                                       Development of the NPL requires close cooperation  among
                                       EPA Headquarters, the Regions, and the State  agencies
                                       involved. Since the NPL is a rule, adding a site to the NPL
                                       must be accomplished through a rule-making  process. This
                                       process can be divided into three stages: the rule proposal
                                       stage, the public comment period, and the final rulemaking
                                       phase.

                                          The rule proposal stage begins when the Regions  submit
                                       HRS packages for a Headquarters quality assurance review.
                                       Those sites that still have an HRS score  of 28.50 or above
                                       after the QA process qualify for NPL listing.  The resulting
                                       proposed list is subject to internal review and approval by the
                                       Office of Management and Budget (OMB). After OMB
                                       approval, EPA publishes the proposed rule, including the list
                                       of sites, in the Federal Register.

                                          Next, the published proposed rule is subject to a  60-day
                                       public comment period. This comment  period allows the
                                       public to review information about the proposed sites and to
                                       comment  in writing on  specific  sites.  To  ensure  citizen
                                       involvement, EPA establishes a public docket for  each site
                                       that includes the HRS package and the site summary. These
                                       dockets are located  in  EPA Headquarters and  in the
                                       respective Regional Office. In addition to comments from the
                                       general public, EPA receives comments  from government
                                       agencies,  industries,  environmental  groups,  and trade
                                       associations.
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy     Vl-9

-------
SECTION VI - SITE ASSESSMENT
                                      EPA must respond in writing to all comments received during
                                      the public comment period, and these responses must be
                                      made  available to the public.  The responses  appear  in a
                                      support document issued at the time a final decision on sites
                                      appears in the Federal Register.

                                         It  is possible to have a site's score drop as a result of
                                      additional information received. If the score drops below
                                      28.50, the site would not be placed on the NPL. Many of
                                      these sites become the responsibility of the States. All sites,
                                      however, remain listed in CERCLIS.

                                         Once all of the public comments on a site have been
                                      addressed, EPA compiles a final rule along with a support
                                      document that includes all of the  comments received  and
                                      EPA's responses.  The final rule is then reviewed by OMB,
                                      signed by EPA's  Assistant Administrator of the Office of
                                      Solid Waste and Emergency Response, and published in the
                                      Federal Register. Through this process, sites become officially
                                      part of the NPL and, as  a result, qualify for CERCLA
                                      remedial action funds.

                                         CERCLA requires that the NPL be updated at least once
                                      a year. EPA schedules two NPL proposals a year and two
                                      NPL rules a year.
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy     Vl-10

-------
                             SECTION VII

                        REMEDIAL ACTIVITY
           OVERVIEW

           REMEDIAL PROCESS

           S     Who Takes the Lead?

           REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION

           S    Project Scoping
           S    Site Characterization
           S    Treatability Studies

           FEASIBILITY STUDY

           S    Development and Screening of Alternatives
           S    Detailed Analysis of Alternatives

           SELECTION OF REMEDY

           S    Proposed Plan
           S    Record of Decision

           REMEDIAL DESIGN

           REMEDIAL ACTION

           OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
SECTION VII
REMEDIAL ACTIVITY
OVERVIEW
                Once EPA places a site on the National Priorities List
             (NPL), it becomes eligible for Trust Fund-financed long-term
             remedial activity. For these priority hazardous substance sites,
             cleanup is a long, complex process that may take millions of
             dollars and many years to complete. Remedial actions at NPL
             sites are designed to provide permanent solutions to mitigate
             risk to human health and the environment from the release of
             hazardous substances to the maximum extent practicable.
             Remedial sites typically have multi-media contamination (soils,
             surface water, ground water)  by many different types  of
             chemicals. The sites,  which may encompass acres, or even
             miles, often must be broken up into several portions called
             "operable units" in order to address all of the problems at the
             site.
                                         Section 121  of CERCLA requires, to  the  extent
                                      practicable, that Superfund remedial actions comply with the
                                      methods, procedures, and criteria outlined in the National Oil
                                      and Hazardous  Substances Pollution Contingency  Plan
                                      (NCP). CERCLA also requires that remedial actions:

                                      • •  Protect human health and the environment

                                      •   Comply with Federal and State applicable or relevant and
                                         appropriate requirements (ARARs) unless exempted by
                                         a waiver

                                      •   Utilize  permanent solutions  and alternative treatment
                                         technologies to the maximum extent practicable

                                      ••  Be cost-effective

                                      ••  Include State and community participation.

                                      Also,  EPA promotes the  implementation of innovative
                                      technologies in responding to hazardous substance releases
                                      and waste sites.
THE REMEDIAL PROCESS
                The remedial process requires extensive data gathering
             and analysis to characterize scope of the problem and the
             potential threats to human health and the environment.
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy     Vll-l

-------
SECTION VH - REMEDIAL ACTIVITY
Who Takes the Lead?                      The Superfund program allows for EPA to conduct
                                       remedial activity,  or  EPA  to  enter into  site-specific
                                       agreements to allow other agencies and/or groups or parties
                                       to conduct remedial activity. The agency or group that plans,
                                       carries out, and/or finances the cleanup is known as the lead
                                       agency/group.  Agencies or groups that  assist  the lead
                                       agency by participating in the cleanup are known as support
                                       agencies/groups.

                                           There are three possible leads  for a remedial action,
                                       Fund-lead,  State-lead, or Enforcement-lead. In a Fund-lead,
                                       EPA  is the lead agency and assigns responsibility  for
                                       managing and conducting the work to either the Alternative
                                       Remedial Contracting Strategy (ARCS) contractors, U.S.
                                       Corps of Engineers (USAGE),  or the U.S.  Bureau of
                                       Reclamation (BuRec). A State, local agency, or Indian Tribe
                                       is the lead in a State-lead response. In an Enforcement-lead,
                                       responsible parties following court orders or settlement
                                       agreements are the lead.

                                           For Trust Fund-financed  remedial actions, CERCLA
                                       states that the State must first contribute 10 percent of the
                                       cleanup costs for sites that were privately owned or operated
                                       and 50 percent or more of costs for sites that were operated
                                       by the State. Once EPA, having consulted with the State,
                                       certifies that the remedy is working properly and has met the
                                       remedy's objectives,  the State finances and  carries out
                                       operation  and maintenance activities. However,  EPA is
                                       always ultimately responsible for the success of a response
                                       taken under CERCLA authorities, regardless of who has the
                                       lead role in the Superfund remedial activity.

                                           The remedial process includes steps to develop, design,
                                       and conduct a remedial  action. Remedial actions are long
                                       term actions that stop or substantially reduce  a release or
                                       threatened release, and are taken only at sites on the NPL.
                                       The remedial process is made up of the following six phases:

                                       ••  Remedial Investigation
                                       ••  Feasibility Study
                                       • •  Selection of Remedy
                                       ••  Remedial Design
                                       ••  Remedial Action
                                       • •  Operation and Maintenance.

                                       Each of these  six phases is shown in Exhibit 6 and discussed
                                       in greater detail below.
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy     VII-2

-------
                                           SECTION \H - REMEDIAL ACTIVITY
                      Exhibit 6
              The Remedial Process
          Remedial Investigation (Rl)
     An assessment of the nature and extent of contamination
       and the associated health and environmental risks
               Feasibility Study (FS)
Development and analysis of the range of cleanup alternatives for the
  site, according to the nine evaluation criteria; usually undertaken
                  concurrently with the Rl
               Selection of Remedy
 Selection of the remedial alternative for the site.  This step includes:

                   Proposed Plan

      Identifies a preferred remedial alternative for a Superfund
    site and explains why it is the preferred alternative, and allows
                    for public comment

             Record of Decision (ROD)

The official report documenting the background information on the site
     and describing the chosen remedy and why it was selected
               Remedial Design (RD)
        Preparation of technical plans and specifications
       for implementing the chosen remedial alternative
                        I
               Remedial Action (RA)
            Construction or other work necessary to
              implement the remedial alternative
                         f
        Operation & Maintenance (O&M)
     Activities conducted at a site after a response action occurs
    to ensure that the cleanup methods are working properly and
          to ensure site remedy continues to be effective
                         vn-3

-------
SECTION VH - REMEDIAL ACTIVITY
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
Project Scoping
    Once a site is placed on the NPL, the lead agency must
perform or oversee a remedial investigation (RI) to further
assess the site's problems. Similar to the initial site inspection
prior to listing on the NPL, this involves an examination of site
characteristics in order to better define the problem.

    The remedial  investigation,  however,  is much more
detailed and comprehensive than the initial site inspection. The
RI is designed to define the nature and extent of the problem
and to provide information needed to develop and evaluate
cleanup  alternatives. It determines the existence and nature of
any actual threat that may be posed to human health  or the
environment, and defines the extent of the threat posed to
human health or the environment by any contamination that is
found at a site.

    The remedial investigation can be broken out into three
main phases:

•   Project Scoping
    Site Characterization
•   Treatability Studies.

    Scoping is the initial planning phase of the RI and is
continued  and refined  as new information about  the  site
becomes available. During scoping,  the lead and support
agencies first identify the  type and optimal sequence of site
activities. Scoping involves the following seven steps:

1.  Conduct site  kickoff  meetings  — to begin site
    management planning, review and assign RI activities, and
    establish lines of communication among key personnel.

2.  Evaluate existing data—to characterize the site to the
    extent  necessary to support  subsequent  decisions.
    Existing data may include site data gathered during the
    NPL listing process and the search for PRPs, information
    from present or past  site owners, historical and aerial
    photographs, records of disposal practices and operating
    procedures, regional  geology and hydrology, land use
    information, and the location of sensitive environmental
    areas, supply wells, and surface water use on or near the
    site.
                                             VII-4

-------
                      SECTION \H - REMEDIAL ACTIVITY
3.  Conduct site visit  — to identify the site's physical
    characteristics   (e.g.,   waste  sources,   areas   of
    contamination, potential exposure pathways, and potential
    receptors at or near the site) through field notes and
    photographs, and note any changes or discrepancies from
    existing data.

4.  D evelop conceptual site model—to evaluate potential
    risks to human health and the environment and to assist in
    identifying and setting priorities for the activities to be
    conducted at the site.  The site model can be either a
    pictorial or computer-based graphic representation of site
    dynamics. It illustrates potential sources of contamination,
    types  of contaminants  and  affected media,  release
    mechanisms and potential contaminant pathways, and
    actual and potential human and environmental receptors.

5.  Identify preliminary  remediation goals and general
    response actions  — to establish specific goals for
    protecting human health and the  environment.  Once a
    conceptual  understanding  of the site is  obtained,
    preliminary  remediation  goals  are identified for each
    chemical and medium to be addressed. Then  general
    response  actions for each chemical and medium are
    developed. These general response actions may later be
    combined  or refined into  specific  remedial  action
    alternatives.  The  preliminary  remediation  goals  are
    modified as more information is developed concerning the
    site and the  general response actions.

6.  Initiate  identification  of potential  applicable or
    relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs)—
    to assist in identifying preliminary remediation goals and
    alternatives  and  providing  better  planning of  field
    activities. ARARs are identified and refined as a better
    understanding  is  gained  of site  conditions,   site
    contaminants, and remedial action alternatives.

7.  Identify  initial  data   needs  and  data quality
    objectives  — to determine the type and quality of the
    data needed for the intended use of the data (e.g., health
    and  safety  planning,  site  characterization, remedial
    alternatives evaluation,  or risk assessment). Once the data
    needs  are identified, the strategies for sampling and
    analysis are
     vn-5

-------
SECTION VH - REMEDIAL ACTIVITY
    /'Work Plan
       Sampling & Analysis Plan
         Health & Safety Plan
          Community Relations Plan
Site Characterization
    developed and the data quality objectives (DQOs) are
    established.  The  DQOs  specify  the  quality of  data
    required  during  the  different phases  of the RI  and
    Feasibility Study (FS).

The seven  steps  of  the  scoping  phase result  in   the
development of the Work Plan. The Work Plan documents
the decisions  and evaluations made  during  scoping  and
describes the tasks required to conduct the RI and FS.

    The work plan includes several other related project plans
that are derived  directly from information gathered  during
scoping.  These include the Sampling and Analysis Plan, the
Health and Safety Plan, and the Community Relations Plan.
The Sampling and Analysis Plan is prepared so that sample
collection activities  are  conducted  in accordance  with
technically acceptable protocols and that the data collected in
the field meet the DQOs established  during scoping.  The
Health and Safety  Plan identifies  potentially hazardous
operations   and  exposures   and prescribes  appropriate
protective measures  for  on-site workers,  the surrounding
community, and the environment. The Community Relations
Plan documents the issues of community  concern at a site
and describes the objectives of the community relations
activities and how these objectives will be met.

    The site characterization phase of the RI builds on
activities initiated during the scoping phase and includes
implementation of the project plans mentioned above. Field
data are collected and analyzed to determine the problems
posed by the site and to support the identification of potential
remedial actions. The following six activities are undertaken
during the site characterization phase:

1.  Conduct field  investigations  — to  define a site's
    physical characteristics and its sources, nature, and extent
    of the threat posed by the contamination.

2.  Perform sample analysis  — to analyze the samples
    gathered during the field investigation. The data are then
    evaluated and must be carefully managed to allow them
    to be used to support  remedy selection and any legal or
    cost recovery actions.
                                             vn-e

-------
                                                             SECTION \H - REMEDIAL ACTIVITY
Treatability Studies
3.  Define  nature  and extent  of threat  posed  by
    contamination — to determine the actual and potential
    magnitude of releases from the sources and the mobility
    and persistence of source contaminants. The various
    contaminant pathways (e.g., air, ground water, etc.) are
    identified and studied.

4.  Conduct  baseline  risk assessment for various
    exposure routes —  to identify and characterize the
    current and potential risks that the site poses to human
    health and the environment.

5.  Further identify ARARs — to use the new information
    about the site to  investigate and identify more specific
    ARARs.  Identification of ARARs is initiated during the
    scoping phase and  is  continued  throughout the  site
    characterization phase.

6.  Evaluate additional data needs — the data collected
    and compiled are evaluated to determine if: a) the DQOs
    have been met; b) the risks posedby the site have been
    adequately defined;  c) the need (or lack of need) for
    remedial action is documented; and d) the data necessary
    for the development and evaluation of remedial action
    alternatives have been obtained.

    Treatability  studies provide data to support remedy
selection and implementation. Treatability studies help to
support CERCLA's requirement that EPA select remedies
that "utilize permanent solutions and alternative  treatment
technologies  or resource  recovery  technologies  to  the
maximum extent  practicable." Treatability studies should be
performed as soon  as it becomes apparent that the available
informationis insufficient to support the selection of a potential
treatment technology.

    During the scoping process, a literature  survey is often
conducted to  gather information on various technologies that
might remediate the unacceptable risks. The literature survey
is designed  to  identify each  technology's applicability,
performance, implementability, relative costs, and operation
and maintenance requirements. If the considered technologies
have  not been  sufficiently  demonstrated  or  cannot  be
adequately evaluated on the basis of available information,
treatability studies are then performed.
                                             vn-7

-------
SECTION VH - REMEDIAL ACTIVITY
FEASIBILITY STUDY
Development and Screening of
Alternatives
    For a technology that has performance and cost data,
bench-scale  tests  are  usually   sufficient  to  evaluate
performance on new waste types. Pilot-scale tests may be
necessary if information needed to operate the technology at
full scale is limited, if there is a need to investigate secondary
effects of the process, or if the waste being tested is complex
or unique.

    Following the treatability tests, an evaluation  report is
prepared  that  analyzes   and interprets the  test  results
considering the  technology's effectiveness, implementability,
environmental impacts, and cost. This report is incorporated
into the overall RI report and is available for public review.

    EPA  develops alternatives  for remedial  action and
carefully compares the advantages and disadvantages of each
alternative. This analysis of alternatives is called a feasibility
study  (FS). In  an FS, options for  cleaning up the site are
considered, described, and evaluated against nine criteria.
The FS is comprised of two main phases:

•   Development and screening of alternatives

•   Detailed analysis of the alternatives.

It is important to note that, the FS is performed concurrently
with the RI. This is because the data collected in the RI
influences the development of remedial action alternatives in
the FS, which in turn affects the data needs  and  scope of
treatability studies and subsequent field studies.

    In the first phase of the FS, the general response actions,
which  meet the preliminary  remediation goals developed
during the RI scoping, are further developed and refined into
specific remedial action alternatives. The alternatives  may
range from treatment  of the principal threat to engineering
controls supplemented by institutional controls for low-level
contaminants and wastes for which treatment is impracticable.
This phase of the  FS  includes the  following  seven
components:

1.  Refine remediation goals — to refine the  preliminary
    remediation goals for protecting human health and the
    environment. The preliminary remediation goals, identified
    during project scoping, specify the  contaminants  and
    media of concern, the exposure routes and receptors, and
    the remediation levels for each chemical.
                                             vn-8

-------
                       SECTION \H - REMEDIAL ACTIVITY
2.  Develop general response actions — to refine and
    relate the  response  actions  to  basic  methods  of
    protection, such as treatment or containment. The general
    response actions were originally defined during project
    scoping for each medium of concern, and they now are
    refined. The volume or area to which general response
    action might be applied and the potential actions identified
    may be combined to form alternatives.

3.  Identify and screen appropriate technologies — to
    list and evaluate potentially applicable technologies and
    technological process options. These options include the
    specific alternative processes within each technology, i.e.,
    ion exchange or use of a soil-clay cap. The list is then
    reduced  by evaluating the process operations  with
    respect to technical implementability. Existing information
    on technologies and site characterization data are used to
    screen out options that cannot be effectively implemented
    at the site.

4.  Select representative process options — to simplify
    the  development and  evaluation  of remedial action
    alternatives. Based on the identification and screening of
    technologies, one representative  option is selected, if
    possible, for each technology type remaining after the
    screening. During remedial design, other process options
    may be  selected  if  they  are   found to  be  more
    advantageous.

5.  Reevaluate data needs — to add any data that may be
    needed  to  assess  potential process  limitations  or to
    establish remedial design criteria. Treatability studies are
    often needed when treatment is  identified as a viable
    alternative. These studies provide data on technologies
    and their effectiveness on a specific waste found at a site.

6.  Assemble  technologies  into   alternatives  —to
    combine the general  response  actions into  specific
    remedial action alternatives to meet all of the remediation.
    goals. For example, an alternative may call for incinerating
    the most highly contaminated soil from a portion of the
    site,  and for capping other less contaminated areas.
    Consideration is given to how general response actions
    can be integrated in the most efficient ways.
     vn-9

-------
SECTION VH - REMEDIAL ACTIVITY
                                        7.   Screen  alternatives, if required —  to focus the
                                            number of remedial action alternatives so that only the
                                            most viable alternatives will undergo a detailed analysis.
                                            If a large number of viable alternatives remains after the
                                            assembly of alternatives, this additional screening process
                                            is used. Three screening categories are used to reduce the
                                            number  of  alternatives:  a)  short-  and  long-term
                                            effectiveness and reductions achieved in toxicity, mobility,
                                            or volume; b) implementability including technical and
                                            administrative feasibility; and c) grossly excessive in cost.

                                        At the completion of this phase, the problems of the site have
                                        been investigated.  In addition the remediation goals are
                                        defined and the development and screening of remedial action
                                        alternatives has been completed. At this point, the remaining
                                        remedial action alternatives along with a no action alternative
                                        undergo a detailed analysis to identify the most effective
                                        option that best satisfies the statutory mandates.

Detailed Analysis of Alternatives           Once  the  cleanup alternatives have been assembled,
                                        screened, and defined, EPA evaluates them according to nine
                                        criteria. These evaluation criteria are the standards by which
                                        all  the  alternatives are assessed  and are the basis of the
                                        remedy selection process. They can be separated into three
                                        levels:  threshold, balancing,  and modifying. The first two
                                        criteria are known as threshold criteria because they are the
                                        minimum requirements that  each alternative must  meet in
                                        order to be eligible for selection as a remedy:

                                        1.   Overall protection  of human  health  and the
                                            environment — Addresses whether a remedy provides
                                            adequate protection of human health and the environment
                                            from unacceptable risks posed by hazardous substances,
                                            pollutants,  or contaminants present  at the  site  by
                                            eliminating, reducing,  or controlling exposures through
                                            treatment, engineering, or institutional controls.

                                        2.   Compliance  with   applicable  or  relevant  and
                                            appropriate requirements  (ARARs) — Addresses
                                            whether the alternative attains all ARARs under Federal
                                            environmental laws or State environment or facility-siting
                                            laws or provides the grounds for invoking one of the  six
                                            ARAR waivers stated in the NCP.
                                             vn-io

-------
                                                 SECTION \H - REMEDIAL ACTIVITY
Alternative
    Goal
After criteria 1 and 2 are applied, EPA considers evaluation
criteria 3 through 7. These next five criteria are known as the
balancing criteria. These criteria are factors with which
tradeoffs between alternatives are assessed so that the best
option will be chosen, given site-specific data and conditions:

3.  Long-term effectiveness and permanence — Refers
    to the ability of a remedy to maintain reliable protection of
    human  health  and the  environment over time,  once
    remedial action goals have been met. Permanence for this
    criterion is viewed  along a continuum, and an alternative
    can be described as offering a greater or lesser degree of
    permanence.

4.  Reduction of  toxicity,  mobility,  or  volume  —
    Assesses  the  relative  performance of  recycling or
    treatment technologies on the toxicity, mobility or volume
    of contaminants.

5.  Short-term effectiveness — Addresses the adverse
    impacts on human health and the environment that may be
    posed in the time it takes to implement the remedy and
    achieve the remediation goals.

6.  Implementability  —  Looks  at  the  technical  and
    administrative  feasibility of the remedy, including the
    availability of materials and services needed to implement
    each component of the option in question.

7.  Cost — Includes  estimated capital  and  operation and
    maintenance costs, and net present value of capital and
    operation and maintenance costs

The final two criteria are called modifying criteria because
new information or  comments  from  the  State  or the
community  may  modify  the  preferred remedial  action
alternative or  cause another alternative to be considered.
These last criteria are:

8.  State acceptance — Addresses the State's comments
    and concerns  for each potential remedy.  Indicates
    whether the  State concurs with the preferred or the
    selected remedy. This assessment may not be completed
    until comments on
                                vn-n

-------
SECTION VH - REMEDIAL ACTIVITY
SELECTION OF REMEDY
Proposed Plan
    the RI/FS are received, but it may be discussed to the
    extent possible in the Proposed Plan.

9.  Community acceptance  — Summarizes the public's
    general response to  the alternatives described in the
    Proposed Plan  or the FS.  This  assessment includes
    determining which of the alternatives interested persons in
    the  community  support, have reservations about, or
    oppose. This assessment may not be completed until
    comments on the Proposed Plan are received.

    The remedy selection process begins when EPA or the
lead agency identifies a preferred remedial action alternative
from among those evaluated in detail in the FS by the lead
agency,  in  consultation  with  the support agency. The
preferred action is presented to the public in a Proposed Plan,
issued for comment with the RI/FS. Upon receipt of public
comments on the Proposed Plan, the lead agency consults
with the support agency to determine if the preferred action
remains the most appropriate remedial action for the site. The
final remedy is selected and documented in a Record of
Decision (ROD). Although PRPs  may conduct the RI/FS
(except the risk assessment component), they may not select
the remedy or write the ROD. Only EPA, or in limited cases
the State, may do these things. The Proposed Plan and the
ROD are the two main components of the remedy selection
process.

    Section 117(a) of CERCLA requires preparation of a
Proposed Plan as part of the site remediation process. The
Proposed Plan is  a public participation  document that
addresses threat to human health and the environment and:

•   Highlights key aspects of the RI/FS

•   Provides a brief analysis of remedial action alternatives
    under consideration

•   Explains the rationale for the preferred alternative

•   Solicits public review and comment on all alternatives
    presented.

To solicit public comments, a notice and brief analysis of the
Proposed Plan are published in a major local newspaper of
general circulation. In addition, the Proposed Plan is made
available at an information repository near the site.
                                            vn-12

-------
                                                             SECTION \H - REMEDIAL ACTIVITY
Record of Decision
    The Proposed Plan can be written in a fact sheet format
or an expanded format. Since it is a public participation
document, the Proposed Plan outlines the procedures in order
to inform and educate  the  public. It starts with a general
introduction, site background, scope of the response action
and  summary of site risks. Each  of the remedial action
alternatives evaluated in the detailed analysis of the FS is
summarized, including how each contaminated medium will be
remedied, the estimated construction and operation and
maintenance costs, and the implementation  time  of each
alternative. The preferred alternative is identified, although it
is  pointed  out that  the selection of this  alternative  is
preliminary and could change in response to public comments
or other new information.  The nine evaluation criteria are
introduced and the preferred alternative is compared to the
other alternatives with respect to the criteria.  The Proposed
Plan concludes with a summary of the findings and a section
that explains how the public can become involved.

    The public is given the opportunity for a public meeting to
discuss issues related to the site and to submit oral and written
comments to EPA during the 30-day public comment period.
This comment period may be extended to  60-days upon
timely request. Following receipt of public comments and any
final comments from the support agency, the remedial action
is selected and the rationale is documented in the ROD.

    The Record of Decision is the final remedial action plan
for the site. The purpose of the ROD is to document the
remedy selected, provide a rationale for the selected remedy,
and establish performance standards or goals for the site or
the operable unit under consideration. The ROD provides a
plan for site design and remediation,  and documents the
extent of human health  or environmental risks posed by the
site or operable unit. It also serves as legal certification that
the remedy was selected in accordance with the requirements
of CERCLA and the NCP. The ROD is one of the most
important  documents in the  remedy  selection process,
because it documents all activities prior to  selection of a
remedy and  provides  a  conceptual  plan   for activities
subsequent to the ROD. The ROD contains  the following
three sections:

•   Declaration — The declaration is the formal statement
    that makes the ROD legal and binding. It is signed by the
    EPA Regional Administrator or Assistant Administrator
    of OSWER that identifies  the  selected remedy and
    indicates
                                            vn-is

-------
SECTION VH - REMEDIAL ACTIVITY
                                      that the selection was carried out in accordance with the
                                      statutory and  regulatory requirements  of the  Superfund
                                      program.

                                      •   Decision Summary — The decision summary provides
                                          an overview of the  problems and risks posed by the
                                          conditions at the site, the remedial action alternatives, and
                                          the analysis of those alternatives. The decision summary
                                          also explains the rationale for the selection and how the
                                          selected remedy satisfies statutory requirements  and
                                          performance goals.

                                      •   Responsiveness  Summary  —  The responsiveness
                                          summary addresses comments received from the public.
                                          This document provides the lead agency with information
                                          about community preferences regarding both the remedial
                                          alternatives and general comments about the  site. It also
                                          demonstrates  to  members of the  public  how  their
                                          comments were taken into account as an integral part of
                                          the decision making process.

                                          After  completion  of the ROD,  a notice  should be
                                      published that the ROD is final and available to the public in
                                      the Administrative Record before  commencing the remedial
                                      action. The ROD must document any significant changes from
                                      the proposed plan and responses to all significant comments
                                      that were received during the public comment period.  The
                                      ROD is signed after closure of the public comment period and
                                      once all significant comments or issues are addressed.

                                          If public comments result in changes to the remedy, the
                                      changes should be clearly documented in the section of the
                                      ROD describing significant changes from the Proposed Plan.
                                      If a fundamental change to the remedy is made between the
                                      Proposed Plan and the ROD (such as changing a treatment
                                      remedy to  a   containment  remedy),  then an amended
                                      Proposed Plan should be issued and a new public comment
                                      period must be opened.

                                          After the ROD is signed,  new information may come to
                                      light that may alter the effectiveness, extent, or implementation
                                      of the remedial action. Three types of changes may occur:
                                           vn-i4

-------
                                                            SECTION \H - REMEDIAL ACTIVITY
                                      •   Non-significant or minor
                                          Significant
                                      •   Fundamental.

                                          Non-significant changes are characterized as minor
                                      changes that do not overly affect the scope or the objective
                                      of the selected remedy. They should be noted in the post-
                                      decision document file, or maybe documented in an optional
                                      Remedial Design Fact Sheet.

                                          A significant change does not modify the overall remedy
                                      but could alter a component of the remedy. If a significant
                                      change to a component of the remedy is needed, then an
                                      Explanation of Significant  Differences (BSD)  must  be
                                      developed, approved, and released to the public.

                                          At the other end of the spectrum, a reconsideration of the
                                      hazardous waste management approach subsequent to the
                                      ROD is considered a fundamental change to the remedy and
                                      requires a ROD  Amendment.  When such  fundamental
                                      changes are made  to a remedy, a repetition  of the ROD
                                      process, including issuance of a revised Proposed Plan and a
                                      new public comment period, is necessary.

                                          A ROD amendment looks very similar to an initial ROD
                                      and should include a Responsiveness Summary; however, the
                                      introductory sections  (such as the site history, community
                                      relations, and site risks) do not need to be readdressed.
                                      Rather, the focus of the discussion should be on the rationale
                                      for the ROD Amendment, evaluating the alternatives in terms
                                      of the nine criteria, and provided assurances that the new
                                      proposed remedy satisfies the statutory requirements.

                                          The ROD does more than just document the remedy
                                      selected at one site. It  provides an accounting of what
                                      remedies have been selected given a set of conditions. EPA
                                      has developed  a detailed data base  of RODs,  called the
                                      Records of Decision System. (RODS). The RODS database
                                      serves  as  a central information  base to promote  national
                                      consistency between RODs. Sites with similar conditions may
                                      use related RODs to help select remedies.
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy     VH-15

-------
SECTION VH - REMEDIAL ACTIVITY
REMEDIAL DESIGN
    Once  the  course  of action  has been selected  and
approved, it is time to design the remedial action and carry it
out. The last phases of the remedial process are remedial
design (RD), remedial action  (RA), and operation  and
maintenance (O&M). In these phases, EPA oversees design
of the remedy, construction and  implementation of the
remedy, determination that the remedy is complete, and that
the State continues operation and maintenance, if required.

    Remedial design is an engineering phase in which
technical drawings and specifications are developed for the
selected remedy as documented in the ROD. In a Fund-lead,
EPA assigns RD  and  RA work to either the  Alternative
Remedial Contract Strategy (ARCS) contractors, the U.S.
Corps of Engineers (USAGE),  or the  U.S.  Bureau of
Reclamation (BuRec), depending on the type of remedy and
the estimated cost of the project. In a State-lead, State, local
agencies, or Indian  Tribes may manage the  design  and
construction of those Superfund actions for which they have
lead responsibility. Responsible parties may conduct RD/RA
activities following court orders or settlement agreements. The
RD phase includes the following five general components:

1.  Remedial design project plan— This entails assigning
    lead agency and support agency roles and responsibilities,
    selecting a  remedial design firm,  and  preparing the
    Statement of Work (SOW). When EPA is leading  a
    response action, a Superfund State Contract (SSC), that
    assures the transfer of cost-sharing funds, is entered into
    between a State or Indian Tribe and EPA. It can also be
    used to  specify  required State  involvement during a
    political subdivision-lead response. Also, EPA may sign
    an IAG with the  USAGE or BuRec for contractor
    procurement and oversight activities. In addition to a SSC
    and an IAG,  EPA may  also enter into a settlement
    agreement or use court orders to compel a  responsible
    party to complete the cleanup. If the State has lead
    responsibility, a Cooperative Agreement would be signed
    specifying EPA and State responsibilities.

    Following the determination of roles and responsibilities,
    an Architect Engineer (A/E) firm is selected to develop
    the remedial design along with other related design plans.
    A SOW also is developed. The SOW requires the A/E
    firm to design the remedy selected in the ROD and to
    develop  other plans such as an  O&M plan, quality
    assurance
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy     VH-16

-------
                                                              SECTION \H - REMEDIAL ACTIVITY
                                           project plan (QAPP), and a health and safety plan. The
                                           SOW  may also include a schedule and budget for the
                                           A/E firm to follow.

                                        2.  Develop, review, and approve design— This ensures
                                           that the design is progressing in a manner consistent with
                                           the ROD  and existing environmental and construction
                                           standards. EPA and the  State review all  of the design
                                           products.  The primary responsibility for design review
                                           and approval depends on who has the primary lead for
                                           the RD (e.g.., Federal, State, or PRP).

                                        3.  Obtain permits, approvals, and site access — This
                                           confirms that all the necessary documentation is included
                                           in the RD package. As in the review component, the lead
                                           design party is  responsible for  obtaining all  of the
                                           necessary permits and approvals for  off-site actions.
                                           On-site CERCLA activities do not require a permit.  In
                                           the case of site access, the State has responsibility for
                                           obtaining  site  access agreements for Federal-  and
                                           State-lead design,  while  the  responsible  party  is
                                           responsible for obtaining access  for Enforcement-lead
                                           design. All parties must be  informed when the necessary
                                           permits, approvals, and site access agreements such  as
                                           non-environmental construction  permits,  right-of-way
                                           approvals, and  environmental permits from facilities
                                           receiving materials taken off-site have been obtained.

                                        4.  Conduct community relations activities — This keeps
                                           the community informed of all ongoing activities at the
                                           site. Specifically, the community relations plan should be
                                           revised to reflect citizen concerns and involvement at this
                                           stage of the process and a public notice and updated fact
                                           sheet should be prepared at the  completion of the
                                           engineering design. Public meetings may be held to inform
                                           the public of the technical status, if necessary. The RPM,
                                           working with the Community Relations Coordinator,  is
                                           responsible for site community relations activities.

                                        5.  Develop  cost estimates  for construction — This
                                           develops  a  cost  estimate  for constructing  and
                                           implementing the remedial design. The  project  cost
                                           estimates  should be as  accurate and  as complete  as
                                           possible. However, the estimates become more refined as
                                           the design progresses from the ROD to the preliminary
                                           design to the final design.
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy    VH-17

-------
SECTION VH - REMEDIAL ACTIVITY
REMEDIAL ACTION
Following completion and final approval of the RD package,
the actual implementation of the remedial action begins.

   The remedial action process consists of executing a
cost-share agreement between EPA and  the State (unless
Enforcement-lead), procuring a cleanup contractor, ensuring
that the contractor implements the remedies according to the
RD,  and preparing the site for long-term monitoring and
maintenance. Specifically, the RA process can be divided into
the following three steps:

1. Remedial action  project  planning — This entails
   updating the SSC, CA, or IAG, procuring a contractor to
   implement the  design,  and  preparing the  SOW.
   Specifically, agreements between the State or other
   agencies may need to reflect changes in the remedy based
   on the  design or a change between EPA, State,  or
   Enforcement-lead.  A  contractor  to construct and
   implement the design must be procured, and finally a
   SOW requiring the contractor to follow the design and
   schedule from the remedial design phase is necessary.

2. Implement,  monitor,  and oversee action — This
   ensures that the remedy is constructed and compliance
   with legal, contractual, environmental, and health and
   safety requirements is verified. The contractor constructs
   the remedy in accordance with the remedial design plans.
   During the construction process, the lead and support
   agencies conduct periodic inspections and reviews to
   ensure the project is on time and within budget.

3. Complete pre-final  inspection, final inspection,
   closeout  and transition to O&M — This serves to
   ensure that the overall project is complete and consistent
   with all legal or contractual agreements. The  purpose of
   the pre-fmal inspection is to  determine whether the
   remedy has been constructed in accordance with physical
   plans and specifications. Some minor fine-tuning of the
   remedy maybe necessary at this point. After a pre-final
   inspection and approval of a preliminary operable unit
   Closeout Report, the operable unit maybe categorized in
   CERCLIS as  "construction complete."  An interim
   operable unit Closeout Report for long-term remedial
   actions, documents that a remedy is operational and
   functional. After the final operable unit Closeout Report
   is submitted, O&M activities should commence for that
   operable unit.
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy    vn-18

-------
                                                             SECTION \H - REMEDIAL ACTIVITY
                                          The site  Closeout Report,  produced  after the final
                                          inspection, documents how an implementable remedy(ies)
                                          satisfies  site  completion requirements.  After the site
                                          Closeout Report is submitted, all O&M activities should
                                          have  been  commenced.  O&M  activities  are those
                                          measures required to maintain the effectiveness of
                                          response actions. The process for deleting a site from the
                                          NPL is appropriate when EPA and the State agree that
                                          all necessary response measures have been taken (or
                                          none are necessary).

                                       A remedy becomes "operational and functional" either one
                                       year  after  construction is complete, or when EPA and the
                                       State determined jointly that the  remedy  is  functioning
                                       properly and is performing as designed. The date certified in
                                       the final inspection /certification report that the project is
                                       operational and functional and in accordance with the contract
                                       documents, is the date when O&M, the  last phase  of the
                                       remedial process, commences.

OPERATION &                          The State or PRP assumes responsibility for the operation
MAINTENANCE                     and  maintenance, which may  include  such activities as
                                       ground water and air monitoring, inspection and maintenance
                                       of the treatment equipment remaining on site, and maintenance
                                       of any security measures or institutional controls. Although the
                                       State or PRP is responsible for implementing O&M, EPA
                                       carefully monitors the site through 5-year  reviews to  ensure
                                       that the remedy  at each site remains  protective of human
                                       health and the environment.
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy     VH-19

-------
                          SECTION VIII


           STATE AND INDIAN TRIBAL INVOLVEMENT



          OVERVIEW

          STATUTORY AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

          S    CERCLA
          S    Definitions of Response roles
          S    State Assurances
          S    NCP and Subpart O

          MECHANISMS FOR PROMOTING INVOLVMENT

          STATE AND INDIAN TRIBAL ACCOMPLISHMENTS
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
SECTION VII
STATE AND INDIAN TRIBAL
INVOLVEMENT
OVERVIEW
                 Since the enactment of CERCLA, States have actively
              participated in the Superfund program, and the extent of their
              involvement has grown over time. CERCLA authorizes and
              encourages EPA to allow States and political subdivisions,
              such as  county  governments,  which have the necessary
              technical and management expertise, to act as lead agency for
              many of the cleanup efforts. CERCLA also requires EPA to
              coordinate with States when EPA leads the site response.

                 State involvement in  Superfund was strengthened and
              broadened when CERCLA was amended by SARA. SARA
              encourages State  involvement by specifying the points at
              which State participation  is required. SARA also  outlines
              minimum requirements for involving States in virtually every
              phase of Superfund  decision-making. As a result, States
              participate in enforcement, removal actions, site assessment,
              and remedial activities, including remedial investigations (RIs),
              feasibility studies (FSs), remedial designs (RDs), and remedial
              actions (RAs). Also, States are responsible for providing
              certain assurances, including sharing in the cost of designated
              cleanup activities  as a pre-condition to EPA spending Trust
              Fund monies for remedial actions; identifying State ARARs;
              and funding and conducting O&M at a site.

                 When States acts as the lead agency, EPA participates as
              a support agency but is ultimately responsible for the remedy
              selection and the efficiency of the cleanup.  SARA extends this
              EPA/State interaction to Indian Tribes, for most purposes.
              EPA must treat eligible Indian Tribal governments essentially
              the same as States. These Indian Tribes may either lead a
              response or provide support when EPA  leads the response
              activities. To be eligible for this role, an Indian Tribe must:

              •   Be Federally recognized

              •   Have a Tribal governing body that promotes health,
                 safety,  and welfare of the affected population and
                 protects the environment within a defined geographical
                 area

              •   Have jurisdiction over  a site  in CERCLIS,  or have
                 jurisdiction over a site that is proposed or listed on  the
                 National Priorities List (NPL), at which a Trust Fund-
                 financed response is contemplated
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy    VIII-1

-------
SECTION VIE - STATE AND INDIAN TRIBAL INVOLVEMENT
STATUTORY AND
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
CERCLA
Definitions of Response Roles
•  Have a financial management system capable of tracking
   Superfund expenses by site, activity, and operable unit, as
   applicable, according to object class,  as determined
   through an EPA "Pre-award Financial Systems Review."

The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) establishes criteria to
determine whether an Indian Tribe is Federally recognized
and publishes a list of these Tribes in the Federal Register
annually.

   Local governments also play an important role during a
Superfund cleanup. Localities may lead a response action and
often  provide  important public  safety services  during
emergencies. For these services, localities may receive some
financial  assistance   under  the  Local   Government
Reimbursement (LGR) program.  The LGR program  is
intended to ease the financial burden on local governments
from conducting temporary emergency services in response
to a  hazardous  substance  threat. The program offers
assistance of up to $25,000 per  response directly to local
governments.

   Congress and EPA have developed a comprehensive
framework of laws  and regulations to guide State, political
subdivision, and Indian Tribal involvement. CERCLA,  as
amended by SARA, created the original framework for State
and Indian Tribal involvement. In 1990, this framework was
completed with revisions to the National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Pollution  Contingency Plan  (NCP) and  with
EPA»s  development  of the  Superfund  Administrative
Regulation, 40 CFR Part 35, Subpart O.

   CERCLA authorizes the Federal government to assume
lead responsibility for hazardous substance response activities
at a site, or to transfer the necessary funds and management
responsibility to a State, to a political subdivision of a State,
or to a Federally-recognized Indian Tribe. The NCP is the
regulatory framework for Superfund response, regardless of
who is the lead agency.

   EPA and the State hold meetings to decide who will take
the lead responsibility for each site.

   For  a  Fund-lead response,  the  State, a political
subdivision thereof, or an Indian Tribe may function as a
support agency.  As  a support  agency, a  State, political
subdivision, or Indian
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy    VIII-2

-------
                                         SECTION Vm - STATE AND INDIAN TRIBAL INVOLVEMENT
                                       Tribe may hold some key responsibilities and perform specific
                                       parts of the cleanup, but does not take on the major portion
                                       of tasks for the response.

                                           For a State-lead response, EPA takes on a secondary
                                       role and functions as  the support agency. However, EPA
                                       must approve all response selection decisions. A State-lead
                                       response can mean one of three things:

                                       •   The State is overseeing a PRP cleanup

                                           The State is carrying out most aspects of the cleanup, but
                                           the response is Trust Fund-financed

                                       •   The State is given lead responsibility and  is financing the
                                           response.

                                           Also, a  political  subdivision  may  hold   primary
                                       responsibility for carrying out the response. In this case, the
                                       response is called apolitical subdivision-lead response For
                                       a political subdivision-lead  response, the State and EPA
                                       function as a support agency.

                                           Regardless of who has the lead role at a site, EPA still
                                       maintains responsibility for assuring the protectiveness of the
                                       remedy.  Also, EPA is  responsible for assuring that the
                                       remedy is in compliance with Federal and State environmental
                                       laws and regulations.

State Assurances                          There are five assurances a State must  make before a
                                       Trust Fund-financed remedial action may take place, whether
                                       EPA or  State-lead. CERCLA section  104  requires that a
                                       State must assure it will:

                                       •   Pay  for  part of  the cleanup costs —  A  State is
                                           required to  pay 10 percent of the costs of a remedial
                                           action if the site was privately operated at the time of the
                                           hazardous substance release. A State is required to pay
                                           50 percent or more of all cleanup costs if the State or
                                           locality operated the site when hazardous substances
                                           were disposed there. For example,  if a  State-operated
                                           municipal landfill is found leaking hazardous substances,
                                           the State would be required to provide at least half the
                                           cost  of a Trust  Fund- financed  response.  Political
                                           subdivisions may  provide the cost share, but the State
                                           must assure payment in case of default.

Word-searchable version - Not a true copy     VIII-3

-------
SECTION VIE - STATE AND INDIAN TRIBAL INVOLVEMENT
                                       •  Ensure  adequate  off-site  storage, disposal,  or
                                          treatment of hazardous substances removed from a
                                          site as a part of the remedy — The State must assure
                                          that off-site facilities are available for storage, disposal, or
                                          treatment.

                                       •  Assume  responsibility  for  all  Operations  and
                                          Maintenance (O&M) activities for a remedial action
                                          or removal — The State assumes ultimate responsibility
                                          for performing O&M of the selected remedy, even though
                                          a political subdivision  may manage the actual  O&M.
                                          These activities include activities  that are required to
                                          maintain the effectiveness of the remedy.

                                       •  Document State's commitment to accept interest in
                                          real  estate that may need to  be acquired for a
                                          Superfund response  —  If EPA determines that an
                                          interest in real estate  must be acquired in order to
                                          conduct a remedial response, EPA must first obtain the
                                          agreement of the State in which the interest is located, to
                                          acquire and hold the necessary interest as well as maintain
                                          any institutional controls established during cleanup. The
                                          State  must agree to accept transfer of the acquired
                                          interest on or before completion of the response action.

                                       •  Have capacity for disposal  or treatment of all
                                          hazardous wastes expected to be generated within
                                          the State during the next 20 years — This assurance
                                          consists of the State's capacity assurance  plan (CAP),
                                          which must  be  approved  by  EPA before  Trust
                                          Fund-financed remedial actions take place in the State.
                                          The CAP must be resubmitted for each group of wastes
                                          the State needs to treat  or dispose.  The plan must show
                                          that the State has the capacity to treat or dispose of the
                                          wastes generated within the State for the next 20 years.

                                          Federally recognized Indian Tribes are not required to
                                       provide these CERCLA assurances. In many cases, EPA
                                       provides  the  required  assurances for Indian Tribes.  If,
                                       however,  EPA determines that an interest in real estate must
                                       be acquired in order to conduct the site-specific response
                                       action, Indian Tribes are required to provide the real property
                                       assurance.

                                          The mechanisms for obtaining these assurances include
                                       Cooperative  Agreements  for State-lead  responses,  or
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy     VIII-4

-------
                                        SECTION Vm - STATE AND INDIAN TRIBAL INVOLVEMENT
NCP and Subpart O
MECHANISMSFOR
PROMOTING
INVOLVEMENT
Superfund  State  Contracts  for EPA-lead  or political
subdivision-lead responses. These mechanisms are explained
in greater detail below.

    The NCP and the Superfund Administrative Regulation,
40 CFR Part 35, Subpart O (• Subpart O») also contribute
to the  legislative and regulatory framework of State and
Indian  Tribal  involvement. Subpart F of the NCP, State
Involvement,  requires  EPA  to  solicit and  encourage
substantial and meaningful involvement by each State and
Indian  Tribe.  Subpart F  also  regulates EPA  and State
interaction  to  ensure   consistent  communication  and
coordination. Subpart O defines how EPA can transfer funds
for site response to States, political subdivisions, and Indian
Tribes  to  support  the  development  of their Superfund
programs' goals  and maintain  their ability to respond to
hazardous waste threats.

    EPA has defined four ways to involve States, Indian Tribes,
and political subdivisions in Superfund:

 !   Cooperative  Agreements (CAS)  — Cooperative
    Agreements transfer funds from EPA to States, political
    subdivisions,  or  Indian Tribes to  lead  site-specific
    responses or to cover the costs of their participation in
    EPA-lead or other CERCLA activities. Also, a CA is the
    legally-binding document to obtain required State cost
    shares and CERCLA section 104 assurances when a
    State or Indian Tribe leads a remedial action.

 !   Superfund State Contract (SSC) — An SSC is a joint,
    legally-binding agreement between a State or Indian Tribe
    and EPA that assures the transfer of cost-sharing funds
    when EPA is leading a Superfund  response action. The
    SSC documents that the State or Indian Tribe meets all
    required assurances under CERCLA. It also can be used
    to specify required State involvement during a political
    subdivision-lead response.

 !   Core Program Cooperative Agreements — EPA
    created Core Program  Cooperative Agreements  to
    provide administrative Superfund program support funds
    to  States  and Indian Tribes. Core  Program funding
    defrays the  cost  of essential  State  and  Indian
    Tribe activities  that cannot be  accounted for on  a
    site-specific basis,  but are  essential  to  an  active
    role  in  CERCLA  implementation.  For   example,
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy    VIII-5

-------
SECTION VIE - STATE AND INDIAN TRIBAL INVOLVEMENT
                                          States  and Indian Tribes have  used Core  Program
                                          Cooperative Agreements to pay for administrative and
                                          clerical   salaries,  computer  resources,   program
                                          management, recordkeeping, and training.

                                       •   Superfund Memoranda of Agreement (SMOAs) —
                                          EPA  developed  SMOAs to  define  the  working
                                          relationship between EPA and a State or Indian Tribe. A
                                          SMOA is an  optional,  non-binding document that
                                          specifies the procedures that EPA and a State or Indian
                                          Tribe will use to implement CERCLA and its guiding
                                          regulations. These procedures then serve as the basis for
                                          developing and coordinating a site-specific Cooperative
                                          Agreement or SSC.

                                       In addition to these four types of agreements defined in the
                                       NCP, there may be other site-specific agreements between
                                       a State and EPA. These agreements may  be established to
                                       define EPA and State roles where a State is given the lead but
                                       there is no Trust Fund-financing.

                                          CERCLA section 121 (f) (1) mandates that the State has
                                       the opportunity for "substantial and meaningful" involvement
                                       in the selection of remedial actions. The NCP  specifically
                                       addresses the State's role in remedy selection. For sites
                                       where Trust Fund monies or EPA enforcement  authority is
                                       used, EPA retains final remedy selection authority, but there
                                       is an opportunity for State concurrence, on remedy selection.
                                       For sites where States use their own enforcement authority
                                       and sources of funding other than the Trust Fund, and the
                                       State has been designated as the lead,  the State may select a
                                       remedy without EPA concurrence. However,  the State will
                                       still need EPA certification to delete the site from the NPL.

STATE AND INDIAN TRIBAL            During the first ten years of the Superfund  program, and
ACCOMPLISHMENTS                especially since the passage of SARA, States and,  more
                                       recently, Indian Tribal governments and political subdivisions,
                                       have assumed greater and greater responsibility for Superfund
                                       response. Since 1990, the number of State-lead removal,
                                       remedial,  and site  assessment  activities has increased
                                       significantly.

                                          The number of State-lead activities is greatest in the site
                                       assessment program. In the first ten years  of the Superfund
                                       program, States have completed nearly 60 percent of all PAs

Word-searchable version - Not a true copy     VIII-6

-------
                                         SECTION Vm - STATE AND INDIAN TRIBAL INVOLVEMENT
                                       conducted, and more than 32 percent of all Sis. Two Indian
                                       Tribal governments also have been awarded Cooperative
                                       Agreements to conduct site assessment activities.

                                           States have made an equally significant contribution to
                                       remedial activities at hazardous waste sites. And, the number
                                       of ongoing activities led by States has grown steadily over
                                       time.  This increase suggests  a strong State commitment
                                       toward long-term cleanup activities. In addition, four Indian
                                       Tribes have been awarded Cooperative  Agreements to
                                       conduct support activities during EPA-lead remedial response
                                       activities.

                                           Core Program funds have enhanced State and Indian
                                       Tribal Superfund capabilities. The Core Program began in FY
                                       87  with three  pilot States. As of 1991, 44  States, the
                                       Territory  of   Puerto  Rico,  and  three  Indian  Tribal
                                       governments are active in the program. The Core Program
                                       will assist each State, Territory, and Indian Tribal government
                                       in determining the long-term roles they will take in Superfund.
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy     VIII-7

-------
                            SECTION IX

                       FEDERAL FACILITIES

          OVERVIEW

          CERCLA REQUIREMENTS

          S     Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket
          S     National Priorities List
          S     Interagency Agreements

          FEDERAL AGENCY RESPONSE AUTHORITY UNDER CERCLA
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
SECTION IX
FEDERAL FACILITIES
OVERVIEW
            Office of
       Federal Facilities
      Enforcement (OFFE)
CERCLA REQUIREMENTS
              At EPA, the Office of Federal Facilities Enforcement
           (OFFE), within the Office of Enforcement, is responsible for
           ensuring that Federal  facilities  comply  with CERCLA
           requirements. The primary goals of OFFE are to assist EPA
           Regions to  reach and implement CERCLA  cleanup
           agreements at National Priorities List (NPL) sites on Federal
           facilities and to ensure compliance with hazardous substance
           laws  in a nationally consistent manner.  OFFE develops
           guidance and policy for Federal facility compliance, assists in
           resolving issues that  arise in negotiations  with  Federal
           facilities,  tracks   ongoing  negotiations,  and  supports
           enforcement actions.

              The Federal facilities that have been identified that require
           investigation and possible remediation under CERCLA range
           in size from hundreds of acres to tens of thousands of acres,
           and many  contain multiple contamination areas.  Federal
           facilities that require  investigation are those  that manage
           hazardous  substances or  may have potential hazardous
           substance problems.  The Departments of Defense (DoD),
           Interior (DOT), and Energy (DOE)  account for about 84
           percent of the Federal sites that require investigation.

              Hazardous substance contamination at Federal facilities
           may result from such activities as:

           •   Manufacturing, testing, loading, and packaging weapons
           •   Maintaining and repairing aircraft and vehicles
           •   Plating metal
           •   Producing, processing, and recovering nuclear materials.

           Types  of  hazardous   substances  disposed  of  include
           explosives, solvents and cleaning agents, paints, heavy metals,
           pesticides, waste oil, and various organics. At DOE facilities,
           disposal of high- and  low-level radioactive and  mixed
           hazardous and radioactive substances is a common problem.
           Past disposal practices at Federal facilities include disposal in
           unlined pits, drainage ditches, holding ponds, drying beds, and
           landfills; discharge on the ground; and burning.

              CERCLA devotes a special section to Federal facilities,
           section 120. Section 120(a) states that Federal departments,
           agencies, and instrumentalities are subject to CERCLA just
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy     IX-1

-------
SECTION IX - FEDERAL FACILITIES
Federal Agency Hazardous Waste
Compliance Docket
National Priorities List
like nongovernment entities, including CERCLA»s  liability
provisions. Pertinent guidelines, rules, regulations, and criteria
apply in the same manner and to the same extent, with the
exception of requirements pertaining to bonding, insurance,
and financial responsibility.

    Section 120 of CERCLA establishes special requirements
and timetables regarding Federal facilities. For example,
section 120(c) requires establishment by EPA of a Federal
Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket that lists
Federal facilities  that  have reported managing  hazardous
substances or releases of hazardous substances. Based on
information  submitted  under  CERCLA  and   other
environmental statutes, the docket identifies the universe of
Federal facilities to be evaluated for possible NPL listing. The
docket is updated biannually  and includes information on
releases of reportable quantities  of hazardous substances
under section 103 of CERCLA.

    The docket is available for public inspection at  EPA
Regional Offices.  Each  Regional  docket  contains  the
documents   submitted  under  the   reporting   provisions
described above,  and any relevant correspondence, for each
facility in that Region. A complete national index is maintained
at EPA Headquarters.

    Once a Federal facility is listed on the docket, CERCLA
requires that a preliminary assessment (PA) be  conducted
within 18 months. The statute requires EPA to ensure that a
PA is conducted. EPA requires the Federal agency to
complete a PA and, if necessary, a site inspection (SI) within
18 months. The  authority to conduct PAs is delegated to
Federal agencies  by Executive Order 12580.

    Following the PA and  SI,  EPA applies the Hazard
Ranking System  (HRS), where appropriate, to list Federal
facility sites on the NPL.  However, inclusion on the  NPL
does not mean Superfund monies are available for cleanup, as
is the case with nonfederal sites. Section 11 l(e) of CERCLA
specifies that the Trust Fund is not available for most remedial
actions at Federal facilities. Still, NPL  listing of Federal
facilities serves  the purpose  of  alerting  the public and
providing information concerning risks to public health or the
environment from the  site. In  addition, NPL listing assists
Federal agencies to set cleanup priorities, brings additional
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy     IX-2

-------
                                                             SECTION IX-FEDERAL FACILITIES
                                      statutory deadlines to bear on response actions, and gives
                                      EPA an important oversight role, including the authority to
                                      determine what the remedy will be.

                                          If a Federal facility is included on the NPL, CERCLA
                                      mandates that the  facility begin a remedial investigation/
                                      feasibility study  (RI/FS), in consultation with EPA and the
                                      State, within 6  months of listing. EPA and the State must
                                      publish an enforceable timetable and deadlines for RI/FS
                                      completion,  and  EPA  must  review the  RI/FS when
                                      completed.

Interagency Agreements                   Section 120 of CERCLA requires the Federal facility to
                                      enter into an interagency agreement (IAG) with EPA for
                                      the remedial action. The IAG provides the technical, legal and
                                      management framework under which  the response at the
                                      Federal facility is  conducted. The IAG specifies  who is
                                      responsible for what and when. The IAG lists the Federal
                                      facility's responsibilities as  lead agency. However, EPA
                                      retains authority over remedy selection.

                                          lAGs are enforceable through CERCLA's section 310
                                      citizen suit provision. In addition, section 122(1)  specifically
                                      authorizes imposition of civil penalties for failure or refusal to
                                      comply with an IAG

                                          According to CERCLA, the IAG is to be entered into
                                      within 180 days of EPA's review of the RI/FS. But many
                                      times the negotiations are conducted when the Federal facility
                                      is promulgated to the NPL.

                                          EPA policy, reflected in the model lAGs developed with
                                      DoD and DOE, is to enter into an IAG before, rather than
                                      after, the RI/FS is conducted. This provides for early input by
                                      EPA and the State into the RI/FS and remedy selection
                                      process. EPA policy is to try to have three-party lAGs, with
                                      the State joining EPA and the Federal facility as an active
                                      partner and signatory. However, if the State is not amenable
                                      to participating in the IAG, a two-party  IAG may be
                                      established between EPA and the Federal facility.

                                          CERCLA requires cleanup, defined as continuous on-site
                                      presence, to begin at  a Federal facility no  later than 15
                                      months after RI/FS completion. The RI/FS is complete when
                                      the Record of Decision (ROD) is signed. In their annual
                                      budget
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy     IX-3

-------
SECTION IX - FEDERAL FACILITIES
FEDERAL AGENCY
RESPONSE AUTHORITY
UNDER CERCLA
submissions, Federal  agencies must include a review of
alternative funding that might be used to provide for cleanup
costs. The annual budget submission also has to include a
statement on the hazards posed to public health and welfare,
and the environment, as well as the consequences of failure to
begin and complete remedial action. In addition, each Federal
agency participating in the CERCLA program must submit an
annual report to Congress.  This report must describe the
Federal agency's progress in such areas as reaching lAGs and
conducting RI/FSs and cleanups.

    Section  120  and Executive  Order  12580 delegates
CERCLA section 104 response authority to Federal agencies
for releases on their facilities or originating from their facilities.
Such response authority must be exercised in accordance
with section 120. This allows the EPA Administrator to make
the final  decision on  remedy selection  should EPA and a
Federal agency disagree. Under Executive Order 12580,
EPA is given the response authority under CERCLA for
emergency removals at Federal facilities owned or operated
by agencies other than DoD and DOE.

    Federal agencies have their own environmental programs.
DoD established the Installation Restoration Program (IRP)
in 1975. Under the IRP, each service operates a program to
identify and evaluate past waste disposal practices at DoD
facilities.  Studies  and  remediation   are  conducted  as
necessary. Section 211 of CERCLA governs management of
the IRP.

    DOE initiated an informal program in 1984 to identify,
evaluate,  and remediate hazardous substance contamination
at DOE facilities. DOE is  developing  a formal response
program.
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy     IX-4

-------
                             SECTION X

        COMMUNITY RELATIONS/PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

           OVERVIEW

           COMMUNITY RELATIONS REQUIREMENTS

           S    Community Relations Plan
           S    Information Repositories/Administrative Record
           S    Proposed Plan
           S    Public Comment Period
           S    Respond to Comments
           S    Remedial Design Fact Sheet

           OTHER REQUIREMENTS AND ACTIVITIES

           S    Technical Assistance Grants
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
SECTION X
COMMUNITY RELATIONS/
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
OVERVIEW
              The public is deeply concerned about, and often fearful of
          the potential impacts of hazardous substances on their health
          and safety. Many hazardous substance releases occur in
          populated areas, and the surrounding communities are often
          concerned about the effects these hazardous substances may
          have on their health and the health of their children.  The
          Superfund program recognizes the public's rights and interest
          in hazardous  waste  management,  and makes conscious
          attempts  to include  communities  in the  decision-making
          process.

              The action-oriented  nature of the Superfund program
          promotes  a comprehensive,  community relations program
          designed to promote communication among all  parties
          involved in, or affected by, the  Superfund process.  The
          overall goal of public participation is to build trust and
          credibility, and to keep emotions, human energy, and conflicts
          focused  on  substantive  issues  and  solutions.  Public
          participation provides an opportunity for all interested parties
          to become informed and involved, and to influence response
          action development and implementation. EPA has found that
          actively involved community members improve Superfund
          response  decisions.  An  involved  community  better
          understands the Superfund process and contributes valuable
          site information and history.

              The community relations initiative has grown and matured
          since Superfund's inception in 1980. From the beginning,
          EPA has recognized the importance of community input and
          involvement in the cleanup of hazardous waste sites. In the
          early days of the program, community relations activities
          generally occurred on an informal, site-specific  basis with no
          required activities. As the Superfund program evolved, EPA
          began to formulate community relations policy statements and
          develop guidance. The  1982 NCP required community
          relations activities for all remedial cleanups and for removals
          lasting more than 120 days. In 1986, SARA made community
          relations  a  legislated  requirement  and  in  1990,   the
          Management I Review of the Superfund Program (90-Day
          Study) made recommendations  to further improve  the
          community relations program.
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy     X-l

-------
SECTION X - COMMUNITY RELATIONS / PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
  EPA
                      Public
COMMUNITY RELATIONS
REQUIREMENTS
    Throughout the years, one aspect of the program has
been retained — EPA still  conducts community relations
activities on  a site-specific  basis.  Although  the  overall
program has many required activities, each activity is tailored
to  meet the  needs  of the specific community. These
community relations programs strive to address the most
important issues to the public, the level of concern, and the
economic and social structure of the community.

    In general, the Superfund community relations program is
designed to encourage communication with affected citizens
and public participation in the decision-making process. The
program has three main objectives:

•   Keep the public informed of planned or ongoing actions,
    the nature of the  environmental problem, the threats it
    may pose, the responses under consideration,  and the
    progress being made.

•   Give the public the opportunity to  comment on and
    provide input to technical decisions.

•   Focus and resolve conflict. Conflict may be unavoidable
    in some circumstances, but it can be constructive if it
    brings into the open alternative viewpoints.

This open communication better enables EPA to respond to
community concerns during each step of the cleanup process.

    EPA conducts over a dozen community relations activities
in conjunction with response action decisions (generally at
NPL sites). While similar, public participation activities may
vary during removal actions  and the remedial process, but
generally include the following major activities:

•   Site-specific Community Relations Plan (CRP)
•   Information Repositories /Administrative Record
•   Explanation of Planned Response Activities
•   Public Comment Periods
•   Response to Comments
•   Remedial Design Fact Sheet.

Each activity contributes to the community's involvement in
the Superfund process.
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy     X-2

-------
                                   SECTION X - COMMUNITY RELATIONS / PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Community Relations Plan
Information Repositories/
Administrative Record
    A site-specific Community Relations Plan (CRP) is the
foundation for EPA's community relations efforts during a site
cleanup. The CRP outlines  continued interaction with the
community based on past public interest and concerns. This
plan:

•   Lists various ways to  encourage  effective, two-way
    communication between  the community and EPA

•   Identifies locations for information repositories and public
    meetings

    Summarizes the conditions and history of a site, and
    provides a chronology of past community involvement.

To  develop a CRP EPA must conduct personal interviews
with individuals who represent the community, i.e., concerned
residents, State and local officials, business representatives,
educators, and representatives of environmental and other
community organizations.

    The CRP  synthesizes  the  regulatory,  technical, and
community interest aspects of a site. The CRP benefits both
EPA and the community by reflecting past events and current
concerns. Activities specifically designed  to  satisfy the
informational needs of both EPA and the community are also
outlined in the CRP. The CRP is both a tool and a measure
of EPA accountability to the community.

    Later in  the Superfund remedial cleanup process, EPA
revises the CRP to ensure that new community concerns and
questions are addressed. This revision is made after EPA has
selected a remedy based on community input, and before the
remedial design is under way.

    As a part of every CRP, EPA plans an information
repository. EPA is required to set up this file of information
related to the site in an accessible, convenient location in the
community,  typically a library  or town hall. Examples  of
documents in the information repository include  site work
plans, the CRP, the remedial investigation/feasibility study
(RI/FS), Health Assessment,  Proposed Plan,  sampling
reports, fact sheets, and other special reports developed for
the  site. EPA continually updates the repository and ensures
that the
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy     X-3

-------
SECTION X - COMMUNITY RELATIONS / PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Proposed Plan
facility housing the file has copying capabilities. EPA may
establish more than one information repository in the site
community. The number of repositories depends on the site
and  community circumstances, such  as size, population
distribution, and the nature and degree of community interest.

    In addition, at least one information repository in the
community must contain EPAs Administrative Record file
for the site.  The administrative record file consists of the
technical documents that form the basis for all decisions
concerning the site. It also is  an element in the  public
participation process, because it may be reviewed by the
public and contains all public comments on the proposed
response alternatives and EPAs response to those comments.

    Since the  administrative record contains  all  technical
documents and comments,  it is  the  primary document
available for judicial review when a site remedy is challenged.
An administrative record is required by law for all removal
and remedial actions taken under CERCLA authority. The
administrative  record  file is kept both at the  selected
information repository and in the Regional Office.

    During the remedial process, EPA prepares a Proposed
Plan, after the  RI/FS is completed and a  preferred cleanup
alternative has been recommended.  This plan summarizes:
                                           Environmental conditions at the site

                                           Alternative   cleanup  technologies
                                           addressing the contamination
                                       considered   for
                                           The remedy proposed to be selected by EPA

                                       •   EPAs reasons for preferring that remedy over the others.

                                       Because the  Proposed  Plan is a public participation
                                       document, EPA composes it for a lay audience. Typically, this
                                       is  done through a Proposed Plan fact sheet, which EPA
                                       distributes to individuals on its site mailing list and any other
                                       interested parties.  In addition, EPA publishes  a notice
                                       regarding the availability of the  Proposed Plan in  a local
                                       newspaper of general circulation. This notice summarizes the
                                       plan and announces the public comment period.
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy      X-4

-------
                                  SECTION X - COMMUNITY RELATIONS / PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Public Comment Period
Respond to Comments
   Before EPA selects the remedy in the remedial process,
EPA provides community members a  public comment
period and an opportunity for a public meeting to discuss the
plan. Citizens are entitled to a minimum of 30 days to review
and comment on the Proposed Plan and other potential
remedial alternatives. Comments to the plan may be made
orally or in writing. EPA is required to extend the comment
period, for a minimum of 30 additional days, upon receipt of
a timely request to do so.

   EPA routinely holds public meetings on Proposed Plans
to ensure that site community  members have  had an
opportunity to voice questions, opinions or concerns about a
proposed remedy. For removal actions, if time permits, public
comment periods and  meetings  are held on the action
memorandum  and  engineering  evaluation/cost analysis
(EE/CA)if available. Finally, as required by EPA Guidance
and the NCP, EPA hires court reporters for these public
meetings, to provide verbatim transcripts to document public
concerns and comments.  In some cases,  the public's
involvement has changed the course of Superfund projects.

   At the conclusion of the public comment period, EPA
prepares a summary of all questions and comments received
from the public and EPA's responses to these inquiries and
comments. This summary of inquiries and responses, entitled
the  Responsiveness  Summary, is included  in EPA's
Record of Decision (ROD) for the site. For removal actions,
a written response to significant  comments on  the action
memorandum and EE/CA is included in the administrative
record  file.  This summary should  be written in clear,
east-to-understand language, so that the public can  find
EPA's response to their comments.

   If EPA significantly changes its selected remedy as a
result of its review of the RI/FS and comments, and the
changes could not reasonably have been anticipated by the
commenters,  EPA publishes a  revised  Proposed   Plan
explaining the differences to the public before completing the
ROD. In such cases, EPA  extends or renews the public
comment period.  Then EPA  publishes a notice of the ROD.
The notice informs the public of the final decision  and the
availability of the  ROD for public review.
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy     X-5

-------
SECTION X - COMMUNITY RELATIONS / PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Remedial Design Fact Sheet
OTHER REQUIREMENTS AND
ACTIVITIES
    Upon selection of the remedial action remedy, EPA
prepares and distributes a remedial design fact sheet to the
local  community.  The  fact sheet  explains the technical
concepts in the remedial design, using non-technical terms
whenever possible.

    In addition to all of the above specific requirements, the
Administrative Procedure Act and  SARA impose public
participation requirements when EPA proposes to do any of
the following: delete sites  from  the NPL; add sites to the
NPL; or include a specific site  in a special research and
design  program  known  as  the   Superfund Innovative
Technology Evaluation (SITE) Program. If EPA proposes to
add or delete a site from the NPL, the Agency publishes a
notice in the Federal Register to inform the public and solicit
comments. In addition, EPA holds a public comment period
on proposals to add sites to the SITE program.

    Beyond specific requirements, EPA Regional  Offices
conduct a broad spectrum of activities at sites throughout the
RI/FS process. Depending upon the nature of the site and the
specific needs of the community, EPA activities may include
producing fact sheets, conducting school programs, operating
a telephone hot line, holding media briefings, updating key
local leaders, preparing videotape productions, and facilitating
the formation of local task forces.
Technical Assistance Grants
    To help communities understand the technical aspects of
hazardous wastes, EPA created the Technical Assistance
Grant (TAG) program. Established by Congress in 1986, the
TAG program helps ensure that affected individuals are well
informed about the conditions and activities at Superfund sites
in their communities. The program provides grants for groups
of individuals to hire independent technical advisors who can
help them understand technical information, findings, and
recommendations related to a site.
                                          The TAG program is intended to provide grants to groups
                                       for up to a three-year period.  When the period  is over,
                                       groups who have monies remaining (and work at the site is
                                       still underway) may apply for a continuation of the grant.
                                       However, because cleanup  of a hazardous waste site is
                                       complex and may take  longer than  three years,  groups
                                       sometimes spend their monies before cleanup is complete. If
                                       this is the case, groups  may apply  for  a  waiver, and if
                                       approved, receive an additional $50,000.
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy     X-6

-------
                                    SECTION X - COMMUNITY RELATIONS / PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
                                           Groups eligible to receive TAGs are groups of individuals
                                        who live near the site and whose health, economic well-being,
                                        or enjoyment of the environment is directly threatened. Such
                                        groups may be existing citizens'  associations, environmental
                                        or health advocacy or similar organizations, or coalitions of
                                        such groups formed to deal with community concerns about
                                        a hazardous waste site and its impact on the surrounding area.
                                        Grant funds may be used to hire technical advisors to increase
                                        citizen understanding of information that already exists about
                                        the site,  or that is developed during the  Superfund cleanup
                                        process.  Grant monies are  often used to pay  technical
                                        advisors to review  site-related documents, meet with the
                                        recipient  group to explain technical information, interpret
                                        technical information  for  the community,  and  travel to
                                        meetings and hearings related to the site.

                                           In conclusion,  Superfund participants  at  the Federal,
                                        State, and local levels acknowledge the importance of public
                                        participation in the Superfund program. Because it is such an
                                        integral part of all cleanup operations,  EPA is  constantly
                                        striving to improve its communications with the public.

                                           Over the past 10 years EPA has gained experience about
                                        the nature of public  involvement in hazardous waste issues
                                        and, in turn, about the most helpful approaches to public
                                        participation. EPA has learned, for example, that its decision-
                                        making ability is enhanced by actively soliciting comments and
                                        information from the public. Experience  has shown that the
                                        earlier EPA establishes  a working relationship with citizens
                                        near a site, the greater chance there is for trust and confidence
                                        to develop  between the parties. EPA also has found that
                                        communities often are able to provide valuable information on
                                        local history,  citizen   involvement,   and site conditions.
                                        Establishing a dialogue between EPA staff and citizens, allows
                                        both the public  and EPA access to important information, and
                                        enables EPA to respond to community needs.
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy     X-7

-------
                            SECTION XI

       MANAGEMENT AND TECHNICAL INFRASTRUCTURE


           OVERVIEW

           MANAGEMENT INFRASTRUCTURE

                Management Review of the Superfund Program/9 0-Day Study
                Long-Term Contracting Strategy
                Delivery of Analytical Services
                Superfund 30-Day Study
                Management Information Systems and Operating Guidelines

           SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL INFRASTRUCTURE

                Technical Information Systems
                Technology Development Programs

           PROGRAM-WIDE MEASUREMENT OF PROGRESS

                Measures of Progress
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
SECTION XI
MANAGEMENT AND TECHNICAL
INFRASTRUCTURE
OVERVIEW
MANAGEMENT
INFRASTRUCTURE
Management Review of the
Superfund Program/90 Day
Study
          The complexity and volume of Superfund activity requires a
       normal set of systems and procedures to manage the cleanup
       process,  measure program progress,  establish short-term and
       long-term goals, and encourage  the development and use of
       cleanup technologies.  To serve  this  purpose, the Superfund
       program  established a program  management and technical
       infrastructure. This infrastructure includes systems for planning and
       tracking  expenditures  at thousands of hazardous waste sites
       nationwide,  scientific and  engineering  support to provide
       state-of-the-art solutions to hazardous waste problems, and a
       program-wide measurement and improvement process.

          CERCLA, for the first time, required EPA to step beyond its
       traditional regulatory role and provided response authority to
       clean up hazardous waste sites.  As  a result, EPA  designed,
       developed, and put in place a network of policies, procedures
       and contracting mechanisms to achieve the ambitious goals of the
       program. This network is being continually refined to provide the
       policy, information management, and accounting tools necessary
       for effective program implementation. Several top-level studies of
       program operations have led the Superfund program to the
       management practices it follows today.

          In 1989, the EPA Administrator committed to undertake a
       comprehensive study of the Superfund program. That study is
       entitled the Management Review of the Superfund Program,
       and is known as the 90-Day Study. The review resulted in more
       than  50  recommendations  to  address   the  fundamental
       management challenges facing the program. These include:

       •   Reducing risks from a growing list of sites that present health,
          safety, and environmental problems

       •   Making defensible cleanup decisions, sometimes without
          complete knowledge of environmental and health risks

       •   Maximizing  the use  of treatment  technologies,  while
          recognizing  that many of the technologies are  new  and
          untested in the field

       •   Making efficient use of limited resources.
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy     XI-1

-------
SECTION XI - MANAGEMENT AND TECHNICAL INFRASTRUCTURE
        "90-Day Study"
T Strategic

~~ — -
Goals

tZZ~~ • — 	
The 90-Day Study  also outlined eight strategic goals for the
second decade of the Superfund program:

•  Control acute threats immediately — EPA will quickly
   evaluate and appropriately respond to ensure protection from
   immediate threats to people and the environment.

•  Emphasize  enforcement — EPA will use its authorities to
   encourage or compel PRPs to conduct site work.

•  Address  worst sites/worst problems  first — After
   resolving the immediate threat, EPA will begin remedial work
   to address the highest priority problems.

•  Monitor and maintain sites over the long-term — EPA
   will monitor Superfund sites over the long-term to ensure the
   remedy remains protective.

•  Develop and use new technologies — EPA will develop,
                    demonstrate, and use new or innovative
   technologies to achieve final  site cleanups,  to the maximum
   extent practical.

•  Improve  efficiency of program operations  — EPA will
   pursue a "one Superfund" approach to site cleanup activity
   and enforcement against polluters (i.e., the removal, remedial,
   and enforcement programs will work together as "one").

•  Encourage full public participation — EPA will increase
   the role  of  citizens  in  Superfund decision-making  and
   encourage clear and consistent two-way communication.

•  Foster cooperation with  other  Federal  and State
   agencies — EPA will work with State  agencies, natural
   resource trustees,  Indian Tribal governments, and other
   Federal agencies to  ensure  an  effective  and  cooperative
   relationship.

Acting on the recommendations outlined in the 90-Day Study, EPA
is making continual improvements to the Superfund program and
has achieved significant progress to address immediate threats,
move ahead on permanent remedies, apply "enforcement first"
principles, and encourage innovative technologies.
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy     Xl-2

-------
                                  SECTION XI - MANAGEMENT AND TECHNICAL INFRASTRUCTURE
Long-Term Contracting Strategy       Another significant accomplishment of the 90-Day Study is the
                                   development  of a Long-Term  Contracting  Strategy  for
                                   Superfund  field operations. EPA  analyzed  the long-term
                                   contracting needs of the program, and designed a portfolio of
                                   Superfund contracts to meet those needs over the second 10
                                   years of the program. The strategy was completed in September
                                   1990.

                                      The Long-Term Contracting Strategy is built on several key
                                   principles. The strategy: (1) supports an integrated "one program"
                                   approach to enforcement and site cleanup; (2) enhances the
                                   competitive environment by reducing the size of contracts and
                                   creating  more  opportunities  for small   and  disadvantaged
                                   businesses; and, (3) provides mechanisms for greater flexibility
                                   and improved oversight and cost management by giving the
                                   Regions full responsibility for the contracts.

                                      The principal components of the Long-Term Contracting
                                   Strategy are:

                                   •  Enforcement Contract Support — Enforcement Support
                                      Contracts will  provide  support for specific  enforcement
                                      related  activities (e.g., litigation support, PRP searches).
                                      These contracts will be competed and managed on a Regional
                                      basis. Enforcement  oversight activities will be moved  to
                                      remedial contracts.

                                   •  Regional Management Contract Support — Regional
                                      Management Contracts will provide support for administrative
                                      and information management activities in the Regions. These
                                      contracts will be competed and managed on a Regional basis.

                                   •  Removal Contract Support — Technical Assistance Team
                                      (TAT) Contracts provide  support  for removal technical
                                      assistance and will be competed and managed on a Regional
                                      basis. Time-critical removal and remedial response activities
                                      will be combined, competed, and managed on a Regional
                                      basis. Non-time-critical removal actions will be combined
                                      with remedial contracts and conducted by Response Action
                                      Contractors.
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy     Xl-3

-------
SECTION XI - MANAGEMENT AND TECHNICAL INFRASTRUCTURE
                                   •   Analytical Contract Support — Environmental Services
                                       Assistance  Team  Contracts  will  continue  to provide
                                       environmental services support and will be competed and
                                       managed on a Regional basis.

                                   •   Preremedial (Site Assessment) Contract Support  —
                                       TAT contracts will provide support for preremedial activities,
                                       which will combine dedicated team programs of preremedial
                                       support and removal technical  assistance into one integrated
                                       program. In the interim, Alternative Remedial Contracting
                                       Strategy (ARCS) contracts will provide preremedial support.

                                   •   Remedial Contract Support— Response Action Contracts
                                       provide support for all remedial  activities and will be managed
                                       on a Regional basis. Existing ARCS contracts will be used to
                                       perform  all  enforcement  oversight  activities,  conduct
                                       non-time-critical  removal  actions,  and provide  interim
                                       preremedial support.

                                       Site Specific Contracts — Site Specific Contracts provide
                                       support tailored to the needs of a specific site or types of
                                       sites, contaminants, or activities.

                                   •   Transportation  and Disposal Contract Support — A
                                       transportation and disposal broker will provide assistance to
                                       resolve technical  difficulties in making arrangements  for
                                       transportation and disposal of hazardous substances.

                                   The EPA Administrator commissioned a task force in June 1991
                                   to take a hard  look  at Superfund contracting. The task force
                                   identified several areas for improvement. EPA will: (1) establish
                                   a concrete goal of reducing program management costs to less
                                   than 20 percent of total contract costs; (2) take steps to terminate
                                   contractors that perform poorly; and (3) implement a program of
                                   timely audits  for all ARCS contractors.

Delivery of Analytical Services          In April  1991, EPA's  Office of Emergency  and Remedial
                                   Response (OERR) established ataskforceto develop a Superfund
                                   long-term strategy for the delivery  of analytical services (e.g.,
                                   lab analyses, data validation, QA plans) by September 1992. The
                                   project is focused on three primary areas:
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy     Xl-4

-------
                                   SECTION XI - MANAGEMENT AND TECHNICAL INFRASTRUCTURE
                                       The long-term programmatic needs for analytical services

                                   •   The  roles  and responsibilities  of private  parties,  EPA
                                       contractors, and EPA staff in addressing these needs

                                   •   The alternative delivery mechanisms for analytical services.

                                   The task force is  comprised of members from all ten EPA
                                   Regions, representing the Waste Management, Environmental
                                   Services, and Management  Divisions.  The  Headquarters
                                   participants include representatives from OERR, and the Offices
                                   of Waste Programs Enforcement (OWPE), Administration and
                                   Resources Management (OARM), Research and Development
                                   (ORD), and Regional Operations (ORO). A steering committee
                                   of eight senior representatives from the Regions and eight senior
                                   representatives from Headquarters oversees the project  and
                                   communicates issues and results to senior management.

Superfund 30-Day Study               In 1991, EPA conducted the Superfund 30-Day Study to
                                   find ways to invigorate the Superfund program and improve the
                                   pace of cleanups. The overall goal of this study was to reduce the
                                   current period of 7 to 10 years from site discovery to completion
                                   of remedial construction, by about 2 to 2.5 years. In this effort,
                                   EPA is doing the following:

                                   •   Setting aggressive cleanup targets
                                       Streamlining the Superfund process
                                   •   Elevating site-specific issues for timely resolution
                                   •   Accelerating private party cleanups
                                   •   Improving public awareness of Superfund successes
                                       Standardizing remedies and investigation procedures
                                   •   Prioritizing risk reduction.

                                   The Superfund program has a new position of National Superfund
                                   Director, charged with overseeing all Superfund procurements
                                   and budgeting and implementing measures to improve contracting
                                   and accelerate cleanups. This Director is supported by a 20 to 30
                                   person troubleshooting team designed to  serve as  a "strategic
                                   nerve center" for Superfund, providing an early warning system
                                   for identifying problems and solutions.
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy     Xl-5

-------
SECTION XI - MANAGEMENT AND TECHNICAL INFRASTRUCTURE
Management Information
Systems and Operating
Guidelines
c


CERCLIS


j i
•"I

SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL
INFRASTRUCTURE
    The continuous improvement  and analysis of Superfund
progress is complemented by ongoing improvements in formal
management information  systems, technology programs, and
accomplishments reporting.

    Superfund's management systems are designed to coordinate
the large sums of money and thousands of tasks involved with
simultaneously conducting and overseeing hundreds of projects
across the nation. The primary system is CERCLIS. This data
base tracks all reported sites as potential National Priorities List
(NPL) sites, the activity at those sites, and the funding related to
each site. Once a site is entered into CERCLIS, it remains there
regardless of the type of action taken. Ownership of the data in
CERCLIS  resides with  the  Regions and sponsorship  is the
responsibility of the Program Offices.  CERCLIS is available
on-line  at  Headquarters  and on  the Regional Local  Area
Network.

    EPA has formulated procedures to be followed by EPA staff
in Headquarters, the 10 Regional  EPA offices, other Federal
agencies, State  agencies, contractors, and private parties for
implementing the Superfund program and responding to questions
from the public. These procedures are explained in directives,
guidances, and fact sheets describing each step in the technically
complex process of identifying, investigating, and cleaning up sites.
These  Superfund documents are available to EPA staff through
the Superfund Document Information Center and to all others
through the National Technical Information Service (NTIS). In
addition, EPA maintains a toll-free hotline with staff available to
respond to Superfund related questions from EPA and the public
at 1-800-424-9346.

    Finding solutions to the problems associated with hazardous
substances  involves the combination of empirical results of field
sampling with theoretical models by hundreds of environmental
scientists.  These results  and models are  ever-changing and
constantly being updated. For example, the limits for detecting
contaminants in soil or water are constantly changing and the task
of  estimating the  degree to which  human health  and the
environment are  endangered  by  hazardous substances is
becoming increasingly  complex. Finally, there is a great deal of
uncertainty  about the engineering techniques and equipment used
in handling,
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy     Xl-6

-------
                                  SECTION XI - MANAGEMENT AND TECHNICAL INFRASTRUCTURE
Technical Information Systems
containing, treating, and disposing of hazardous substances. EPA
frequently develops guidance documents and supports numerous
research programs to address these problems.

   A number  of technical information systems have been
developed and  enhanced to support the  Superfund program.
These systems store up-to-date information on a wide range of
topics from  the potential risk imposed  by  chemicals  to  an
information clearinghouse  for performance data on treatment
technologies. Some of these new technical data systems are:
Technology Development
Programs
•  Alternative Treatment Technology Information Center
   (ATTIC) — a computer-based, key word search data base
   that will contain data and abstracts from EPA treatability
   studies, demonstrations and remedial actions,  and State
   activities.

•  Emergency Response Notification System (ERNS) —
   a computerized system to record and retrieve all notification
   related data from releases of hazardous substances, waste,
   oil, or other substances. This system maintains data on the
   frequency,  amounts,  and types of  substances  released
   regionally and nationally.

•  Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) - a system
   that stores EPA accepted lexicological information about a
   specific chemical.

IRIS and ERNS are available by on-line computer for remote
information retrieval. ATTIC is accessible by both telephone and
on-line computer.

   One of the maj or programs to address technology development
needs is the Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE)
program.  SITE provides the treatment technologies necessary to
address new contamination scenarios. The SITE program is really
three related programs: the Demonstration Program, the Emerging
Technologies Program, and the Measurement and Monitoring
Technologies Program.

   The Demonstration Program is  designed to generate
engineering and cost data on selected, innovative technologies.
The major focus of the SITE program has been on the
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy     Xl-7

-------
SECTION XI - MANAGEMENT AND TECHNICAL INFRASTRUCTURE
PROGRAM-WIDE
MEASUREMENT OF
PROGRESS
Measures of Progress
Demonstration Program. In this program, technology developers
are responsible for demonstrating their innovative systems at
selected sites, while EPA is responsible for sampling, analyzing,
and evaluating all test results. The information gathered during the
demonstrations is used in combination with other data as a basis
for selecting technologies appropriate for cleaning up Superfund
sites.

    The Emerging Technologies  Program provides 2-year
funding  to  developers of emerging  technologies to support
bench-scale and pilot testing of innovative treatment technologies.

    The Monitoring and Measurement Technologies Program
supports the  development and  demonstration of innovative
field-ready  technologies  that detect,  monitor,  or  measure
hazardous substances in the air, surface water, soil, subsurface,
waste materials, and biological tissues.

    The principles of Total  Quality Management (TQM)
are being  applied as a  means for  ensuring the continuing
evolution and development of the performance of Superfund. Steps
are being taken to: (1) clearly identify Superfund's customers and
their requirements; (2) produce error-free work; (3 Continuously
improve operations; and (4) effectively manage the workload by
preventing waste  and inefficiency. Evidence  of these steps
includes the creation of a Quality  Action Team to examine ways
to improve the quality of risk assessments for Superfund projects.
Superfund is always looking  for ways to improve the process
while reducing unnecessary paperwork.

    One of the real problems facing the Superfund program has
been measurement of program progress and communication of
program success to the public. Superfund has made many gains
in terms of protecting  human  health  and the environment.
However,  to  date,  little  attention  has been paid to  any
measurements other than the number of sites deleted from the
NPL. In the  first 10 years of the program, thousands of
unmeasured actions have been taken to protect people and the
environment from the hazards these sites pose. Some of these
actions  are  responses  to emergencies such as hazardous
substance spills, while others  are long term actions to clean up
contamination that may have accumulated for decades.
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy     Xl-8

-------
                                  SECTION XI - MANAGEMENT AND TECHNICAL INFRASTRUCTURE
                                          To measure the progress accomplished, EPA has now
                                       developed  several  environmental  indicators  of progress.
                                       These indicators relate to the overall goals of the Superfund
                                       program:

                                          Control of immediate threats to human health, welfare and
                                          the environment (make sites safer)

                                       •   Achievement of long-term site cleanup goals (make sites
                                          clean)

                                       •   Removal of contamination from the environment (treat
                                          hazardous waste).

                                       EPA uses these new indicators to demonstrate to the public,
                                       in understandable terms, the progress made by Superfund. In
                                       general, the measures indicate how many sites are free from
                                       immediate  threats  (i.e.,  safer), are  cleaner,  and have
                                       permanent  solutions.  Development of  these  means  of
                                       measuring progress is vital to determine the overall goals and
                                       accomplishments of the Superfund  program. A new model
                                       that incorporates alternative measures of progress is further
                                       discussed in Section XTV: Future Directions of the Superfund
                                       Program.
                                         To  obtain  further information  regarding  Superfund
                                         program priorities and objectives from fiscal year to fiscal
                                         year, refer  to  the Superfund Program Management
                                         Manual 1991, Vol. I, EPA/540/P-91/004A.
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy     Xl-9

-------
                       SECTION XII

APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS

       OVERVIEW

       DEFINITION OF ARARs

       S     Applicable Requirements
       S     Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
       S     "To Be Considered" Materials

       SCOPE OF ARARs

       S     ARARs and Remedial Actions
       S     ARARs and Removal Actions
       S     Substantive Requirements
       S     Administrative Requirements
       S     On-Site vs. Off-Site

       TYPES OF ARARs

       TIMING OF COMPLIANCE

       POINT OF COMPLIANCE

       ARAR WAIVERS

       S     Interim Measure
       S     Greater Risk to Health and the Environment
       S     Technical Impracticability
       S     Equivalent Standard of Performance
       S     Inconsistent Application of State Requirements
       S     Fund-Balancing

-------
 SECTION XI
APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND
APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS
OVERVIEW
          ARARs:
  Applicable or Relevant and
  Appropriate Requirements
DEFINITION OF ARARs
             Compliance  with  the applicable  or  relevant  and
          appropriate requirements (ARARs) of other environmental
          laws  is  a cornerstone  of CERCLA.  To avoid simply
          displacing the contamination at a site from one medium (i.e.,
          air, soil, water) into another, identification of ARARs is the
          major prerequisite for setting cleanup goals, selecting the
          remedy, and determining how to implement the remedy while
          assuring protection of human health and the environment.
          However, the diverse characteristics of CERCLA  sites
          preclude the development of prescribed ARARs, so that, by
          necessity,  identification of ARARs is  conducted on  a
          site-by-site basis.

             Congress provided a statutory basis for ARARs in
          SARA, which added section 121, "Cleanup Standards," to
          CERCLA. Section 121(d) mandates the degree of on-site
          cleanup that sites must achieve. According to this section,
          response actions conducted under sections 104 and 106 of
          CERCLA must at least attain (or justify a waiver of) all
          ARARs of other Federal environmental laws, more stringent
          State  environmental laws,  and  State facility-siting  laws.
          ARARs include:

          •   Any standard, requirement, criterion, or limitation under
             any Federal  environmental  law, such as the Toxic
             Substances Control Act (TSCA), the Safe Drinking
             Water Act (SOWA), the Clean Air Act (CAA), the
             Marine Protection,  Research,  and  Sanctuaries  Act
             (MPRSA),  and  the   Resource  Conservation   and
             Recovery Act (RCRA)

          •   Any promulgated standard, requirement, criterion, or
             limitation  under a State environmental or facility-siting
             law,  including  those  contained in  EPA-approved
             programs, that has been identified by the State to EPA in
             a timely manner.

          SARA modified the waivers listed in the 1985 National Oil
          and Hazardous  Substances Pollution Contingency  Plan
          (NCP) and established State standards as ARARs if they
          have  been promulgated, are enforceable, and are more
          stringent than similar Federal standards. In March 1990, EPA
          promulgated  revisions  to  the NCP that incorporate the
          ARARs provisions contained in SARA. For the purposes of
          section 121 (d), the
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy     Xll-l

-------
SECTION Xn - APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS

                                       term "State" includes the Territories and Possessions of the
                                       United States, as well as the Federally- recognized Indian
                                       Tribes.
Applicable Requirements
    ARARs consist of two sets of requirements, those that are
applicable  and those that  are  relevant and appropriate.
Applicable requirements are those substantive standards that
specifically address the situation at a CERCLA site; however,
an applicable requirement need not have been promulgated
specifically to apply to CERCLA sites. Decision-makers have
minimal discretion  in determining whether a requirement is
legally applicable;  if  an  objective  comparison of  the
jurisdictional  prerequisites  of  the  requirement to  the
circumstances at the site shows a direct correspondence, the
requirement is  applicable.  These prerequisites  consist of
identifying: (1) who is subject to the statute or regulation; (2)
what types of substances or activities fall under the authority
of the statute or regulation; (3) what is the time period for
which the statute or regulation is in effect; and, (4) what types
of activities does the statute or regulation require, limit, or
prohibit. If a requirement is not legally applicable, a decision-
maker must exercise considerable best professional judgment
to determine whether it is relevant and appropriate under the
circumstances of the release of contamination.
Relevant and Appropriate
Requirements
    The  second  set  of  requirements is relevant and
appropriate requirements. The procedure for determining
whether a  requirement is relevant  and  appropriate is  a
two-step  process.  First,  to  determine  relevance,  the
decision-maker must determine  whether the requirement
addresses problems or situations sufficiently similar to the
circumstances of the proposed response action. Second, for
appropriateness, the determination  must be made as to
whether the requirement would also be well-suited to the
conditions of the site. There are eight comparisons which must
be  made, where pertinent, in determining  relevance and
appropriateness when responding under CERCLA:

•   The respective purposes of the requirement and of the
    response action

•   The medium regulated or affected by the requirement and
    the medium contaminated or affected at the site

    The substances regulated by the  requirement and those
    found at the site
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy    XII-2

-------
                     SECTION Xn - APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS
"To Be Considered" Materials
(TBCS)
SCOPE OF ARARs
    The activities regulated by the  requirement  and the
    remedial action contemplated at the site

•   Any variances, waivers, or exemptions of the requirement
    and their availability for the circumstances at the site

•   The type of site regulated and affected by the release or
    action

    The type and size of the structure or facility regulated, and
    those affected by the release or contemplated by the
    action

•   Any consideration of use or potential use of affected
    resources, in the requirement and at the site.

Note that in some cases, only  a portion of a requirement
will be both relevant and appropriate. Once a requirement is
deemed relevant and appropriate, it must be attained (or
waived).  If  a requirement is  not  both  relevant and
appropriate, it is not an ARAR.

    Many Federal and State environmental and public health
agencies develop criteria, advisories, guidance, and proposed
standards  that are  not legally  enforceable but contain
information that would be helpful in carrying out, or in
determining the level of protectiveness of, selected remedies.
In other words, "to be considered" materials (TBCs) are
meant to complement the use of ARARs, not to compete with
or replace them.  Because TBCs are not  ARARs,  their
identification and use are not mandatory.

    In conjunction with the completion of the baseline risk
assessment, where no ARARs address a particular situation,
or the existing ARARs do not ensure sufficient protectiveness,
the TBC advisories, criteria, or guidelines should be used to
set cleanup targets. TBCs may be invaluable in deciding how
to carry out a particular remedy. Many ARARs have broad
performance criteria but do not provide specific instructions
for implementation. Often those  instructions are contained in
supplemental program guidance.

    ARARs are identified on a site-by-site basis for all on-site
response actions where CERCLA authority is the basis for
cleanup. The lead agency as well as the supporting agencies
must identify  and  communicate information about potential
ARARs to each other. For Trust Fund-financed CERCLA
sites
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy     Xll-3

-------
SECTION Xn - APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS
ARARs and Remedial Actions
ARARs and Removal Actions
and for those actions taken pursuant to CERCL A section 106
authority, EPA makes the final decision on ARARs. Cleanups
at all CERCLA sites, regardless of which agency has the lead,
must comply with (or waive) ARARs.

    It is important to recognize that CERCLA addresses two
types of response actions,  remedial  and removal. All
remedial actions taken under CERCLA must meet ARARs
at the completion of the action (or justify a waiver). Further,
the NCP requires remedies to attain or waive ARARs during
the course of a remedial action. Moreover, where an ARAR
requires a permit, CERCLA provides for the on-site work to
comply with only the substantive, but not the administrative,
requirements of the ARAR. Complying with ARARs both
during the implementation and upon completion of an action
helps the lead agency define the ways in which the activity can
be carried out in a manner that is protective of human health
and the environment.

    Although CERCLA specifies ARARs only for on-site
remedial actions, the NCP requires removal actions to attain
ARARs to the extent practicable, considering the urgency of
the situation at the site. Regulations under other environmental
and public health laws may help determine the appropriate
manner in which to proceed with a removal action. Removal
actions generally focus on the stabilization of a release or
threat of release and mitigation of near-term threats.

    EPA has   adopted  two  criteria  for  determining
practicability for removal sites:

       The urgency of the situation
       The scope of the removal action.

Where the conditions at a site constrain or preclude efforts to
identify and attain ARARs,  the documentation of these
conditions will be considered sufficient basis for justifying not
attaining all ARARs. For example, because of the urgency at
the site, an On-Scene Coordinator (OSC) may have to
undertake an immediate response to remove or stabilize
leaking drums near a residential area in order to prevent a fire
or explosion. Also, where a removal action is for a limited
purpose (e.g., to address a direct-contact threat), attainment
of soil cleanup ARARs that would require  a more extensive
response action may be beyond the scope of the removal
action, and, therefore, impracticable.
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy    XII-4

-------
                     SECTION Xn - APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS
Substantive Requirements
    Requirements are only ARARs when they pertain to the
specific action(s) undertaken on-site. For example, if the
removal  of  drums  also  included  excavating  highly
contaminated soil, the removal action would not have to meet
standards for other  media, if those standards  might be
ARARs for a final remedial action at the site.

    Just  as CERCLA addresses  two types of response
actions, it  also  addresses two classes  of requirements:
substantive and administrative.
Administrative Requirements
    Although a substantive requirement usually specifies a
level or standard of control, it could also provide performance
criteria  or  location restrictions.  In addition,   monitoring
requirements are considered substantive, for the purpose of
ascertaining  whether the levels and limitations set  in the
decision document have been attained.

    Remedies conducted entirely on-site must comply with
only the substantive provisions of requirements that are
ARARs. Also,  CERCLA section 121(e)(l)  specifically
exempts on-site actions from obtaining Federal, State, and
local permits, although the substantive provisions of permitting
programs that are ARARs must be met (or waived). This
permit exemption applies to all on-site CERCLA activities
both before  and after the remedy has been selected. The
exemption applies regardless of whether the lead agency is
EPA,  another Federal  agency, or a State, when the activity
(which could be an investigation or a section 106 action) is
conducted entirely on-site.

    Administrative  requirements   consist  ofthose
mechanisms  that   facilitate  the  implementation  of the
substantive requirements of statutes or regulations. In other
words, requirements that in and of themselves do not define
a level or standard of control are considered administrative
(e.g., approval by or consultation with administrative bodies,
application for permits, documentation, reporting, and record
keeping).  However,  EPA  recognizes  the  benefits   of
consultation, coordination, reporting, and other such practices
and strongly encourages decision-makers to engage in these
activities, as well.

    Exemption from administrative requirements for  on-site
actions promotes  expeditious response to protect human
health and the environment from actual and potential threats
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy     XII-5

-------
SECTION Xn - APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS

                                       at CERCLA sites.  Congress  recognized  that subjecting
                                       CERCLA decision-making to the myriad of overlapping and
                                       potentially disparate administrative requirements  of other
                                       Federal and State laws might significantly lengthen response
                                       time. Moreover, CERCLA has its  own set of procedures
                                       designed to promote the type of consultation and public
                                       review  generally achieved  during  the  permit application
                                       process. These procedures address the  remedy  selection
                                       process and also provide opportunities for systematic State
                                       and community involvement.
On-Site vs. Off-Site
TYPES OF ARARs
    As with actions and requirements, it is important to note
that CERCLA also addresses two types of cleanup locations,
on-site and off-site.  According to the  NCP, the term
"on-site" means the geographical (or, as the NCP calls it, the
"areal") extent of the contamination and all suitable areas in
very close proximity to the contamination that are necessary
for implementation of  the  response  action.   Using  this
definition,  EPA includes both the surface  area  and the air
above the site, as well as the hydrogeologic contamination
beneath the surface, including the ground water plume.

    This broad  definition of "on-site" provides EPA  with
flexibility in situations where implementation   necessitates
activities that are conducted 'bff-site," or outside of the
waste area itself and/or in areas not contiguous to the site.
Cleanup actions that fall within this definition must meet the
substantive but not the administrative requirements. On the
other hand, response actions carried out off-site are simply
subject  to  applicable  law,  including   administrative
requirements  and any specified procedures for obtaining
permits. For off-site actions,  no analysis  of relevant and
appropriate requirements is needed and no statutory ARARs
waivers are available.

    Any substantive environmental  (or State facility-siting)
requirement has the potential to be an ARAR.  Due to the
complexity of the universe of such requirements, EPA divides
ARARs into three categories to facilitate identification:

•   Chemical-specific ARARs usually are either health- or
    risk-based  numerical values   or methodologies  that
    establish the acceptable amount or concentration of a
    chemical that may remain in or be discharged to the
    environment.  Where  more  than  one  requirement
    addressing a contaminant is determined to be an ARAR,
    the requirement that should be used is the one that is the
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy     XII-6

-------
TIMING OF COMPLIANCE
POINTS OF COMPLIANCE
                     SECTION Xn - APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS

                                      most stringent. Note, however, that in some cases, a less
                                      stringent requirement is more well-suited to the circumstances
                                      at a site, such that a more stringent requirement will not be
                                      deemed  to be  relevant and  appropriate   under  the
                                      circumstances.
•   Location-specific ARARs  generally restrict certain
    activities or limit concentrations of hazardous substances
    solely because of geographical or land use concerns.
    Requirements  addressing  wetlands,  historic  places,
    floodplains,  or  sensitive ecosystems and  habitats are
    potential location-specific ARARs.

•   Action-specific ARARs usually are restrictions on the
    conduct of certain activities or the operation of certain
    technologies at a particular site. Regulations that dictate
    the design, construction, and operating characteristics of
    incinerators, air stripping units, or a landfill construction
    are examples of action-specific ARARs.

Some ARARs might not fit neatly into any one of these
categories while others may qualify for more than one. Even
if an ARAR does not fall into any such category, it may still be
an ARAR if it meets all the jurisdictional definitions for  a
requirement to be an ARAR.

    Although CERCLA stipulates only that ARARs must be
met at the  completion  of the remedial action, the  NCP
requires attainment of ARARs during remediation, as well.
During the course of the Remedial Design/Remedial Action
(RD/ RA), the lead agency is responsible for ensuring that all
Federal and State ARARs identified for the action are being
met, unless  a waiver has been invoked.

    CERCLA provides a number of waivers, including one for
interim actions, as long as the final action attains the waived
standard. If there is doubt about whether an ARAR can be
met during the remedial activity, but no doubt that it will be
met at  completion of  the  remedy,  this waiver  can  be
considered.

    Points of compliance for attaining precise remediation
levels are established on a site-specific basis. There are some
general policies for establishing points of compliance. For
ground water, remediation levels should generally be attained
throughout the contaminated plume, or beyond the edge of
the  waste management area when waste is left in place, as in
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy     XII-7

-------
SECTION Xn - APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS
ARAR WAIVERS
Interim Measure
Greater Risk to Health and the
Environment
a closed, capped landfill. EPA does acknowledge, however,
that in specific ground water cases, an alternative point of
compliance might be more protective of public health and the
environment. For air, the selected levels should be established
for the maximum exposed individual, considering reasonably
expected use of the site and surrounding area. For surface
waters, the selected levels should be attained at the point, or
points, where the release enters the surface waters.

   In certain instances, EPA may choose an on-site cleanup
method which does not meet an ARAR. CERCLA section
121 (d) provides that, under certain circumstances, an ARAR
may be waived. The six statutory waivers are:

•  Interim Measure
•  Greater Risk to Health and the Environment
   Technical Impracticability
•  Equivalent Standard of Performance
•  Inconsistent Application of State Requirements
•  Fund-Balancing.

These waivers can be used for both remedial and removal
actions,  but  they  apply only to  on-site activities and to
compliance with ARARs. A waiver must be invoked for each
ARAR that  the remedy will  not attain. Other statutory
requirements, such as the one mandating remedies that are
protective of human health and the environment, may not be
waived.

   The Interim Measure waiver is for a temporary action
that does not attain all ARARs,  but will be followed by
measures that will complete the cleanup and attain all ARARs.
The interim action  should neither exacerbate the problems at
the site  nor  interfere with the  final remedy. An Interim
Measure waiver may be useful when a final remedy is divided
into several smaller actions or operable units.

   The Greater Risk to Health and the Environment
waiver is for situations in which  compliance with an ARAR
would result in greater risk than noncompliance. Before
invoking this waiver, site decision-makers need to consider
the magnitude, duration, and reversibility of adverse impacts
resulting from compliance with such an ARAR, as compared
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy    XII-8

-------
Technical Impracticability
Equivalent Standard of
Performance
Inconsistent Application of
State Requirements
Fund-Balancing
with the protectiveness of a remedy that is not in compliance.
This waiver can only be invoked for ARARs that would cause
greater risk.

    The Technical Impracticability waiver maybe used
when compliance with an  ARAR is  infeasible from  an
engineering perspective. The term "impracticable" means an
unfavorable balance of engineering feasibility and reliability.
Because engineering is ultimately limited by costs, estimated
costs are a legitimate—but not the primary—consideration in
determining feasibility.

    The Equivalent  Standard of Performance waiver
maybe invoked when an ARAR can be equaled or exceeded
through an alternate cleanup method, which should achieve
contaminant  limitations  and demonstrate reliability and
effectiveness as a system. Although this permits flexibility in
choosing a cleanup technology, it must not  reduce  the
standard of performance or the required level of control.

    CERCLA allows the selection of a remedy that does not
comply with a State ARAR when that State has applied that
particular requirement inconsistently. The waiver is designed
to avoid unreasonable restrictions at CERCLA sites if those
State requirements have not been applied to non-CERCLA
sites. Because EPA presumes State standards are applied
consistently, the State does not have to document consistency
unless requested to do so. The invocation of this waiver may
be prompted by variably applied or inconsistently enforced
State  standards.  A single  example of the  State's having
chosen or approved a less stringent  standard than that
specified in the ARAR may be sufficient justification for the
waiver.

    A Fund-Balancing waiver  may be applied when  the
cost of attaining an ARAR for a solely Trust Fund-financed
action does not represent a reasonable balance between the
availability of Trust Fund monies  for remedies at other sites
and the degree of protection anticipated at the site. In other
words, the waiver may be invoked when meeting an ARAR
would entail such cost in relation  to the added degree of
protection or reduction of risk that  remedial action at other
sites might be jeopardized. However, as with all waivers, the
selected  remedy  still must comply with  the  statutory
requirement for protectiveness.
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy    XII-9

-------
                                           It  is EPA policy  to routinely consider,  though not
                                       necessarily to invoke, this waiver when the cost of attaining an
                                       ARAR is four times the national average cost of an operable
                                       unit. For example, the  threshold amount in  1991 was
                                       approximately $57.6 million. The waiver may be considered
                                       at funding levels below the threshold, as well.
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy    xn-10

-------
                          SECTION XIII


       CERCLA's RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER LEGISLATION



           OVERVIEW

           RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT (RCRA)

           S    How RCRA and CERCLA Overlap
           S    Imminent Hazards Under RCRA and CERCLA
           S    How RCRA and CERCLA Differ
           S    How RCRA Regulations Affect CERCLA Remedy Selection
           S    RCRA Corrective Action vs. CERCLA Response

           OIL POLLUTION ACT OF 1990 (OPA)

           S    How OPA and CERCLA Interact

           CLEAN WATER ACT (CWA)

           S    How the CWA and CERCLA Interact

           CLEAN AIR ACT (CAA)

           S    How the CAA and CERCLA Interact

           SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT (SDWA)

           S    How the SDWA and CERCLA Interact

           TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL ACT (TSCA)

           S    How TSCA and CERCLA Interact

           HAZARDOUS MATERIALS TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM
           SAFETY ACT OF 1990 (HMTUSA)

           S    How HMTUSA and CERCLA Interact
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
SECTION XIH
CERCLA's RELATIONSHIP TO
OTHER LEGISLATION
OVERVIEW
RESOURCE CONSERVATION
RECOVERY ACT
             EPA's  role  is  to  protect  human  health  and the
          environment. Many environmental laws have been enacted to
          address releases,  or threats of releases, of hazardous
          substances. An understanding of these laws is necessary to
          see where CERCLA, or the Superfund program, fits into the
          national environmental protection program established by
          Congress. Each environmental statute has its own particular
          focus, whether it is to control the level of pollutants introduced
          into a single environmental medium (i.e., air, soil, water) or to
          address a specific area of concern,  such  as pesticides or
          waste management.

             The legislation that serves as the basis for managing
          hazardous wastes can be divided into three  categories:

          •• The central statutory  authorities are  CERCLA and
             RCRA. The former authorizes  cleanup of releases of
             hazardous substances. The latter creates a management
             system for current and future hazardous and solid wastes,
             and authorizes cleanup at hazardous waste management
             facilities.

          •• Several statutes are media-specific and limit the amount
             of wastes introduced into the air, waterways, oceans, and
             drinking water.

          •• Other statutes directly  limit the production of chemical
             substances  and products that may  contribute to the
             nation's waste.

          The remainder of this section summarizes each statute and
          highlights its interaction with the Superfund program.

             The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act AND
          (RCRA), an amendment to the Solid Waste Disposal Act,
          was  enacted in  1976 to address  a problem of enormous
          magnitude—how to safely dispose of the huge volumes of
          hazardous and non-hazardous municipal and industrial waste
          generated nationwide and to ensure the prevention of future
          releases. The term "solid waste," by definition, includes
          traditional
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy    XIII-1

-------
SECTION XIH - CERCLA's RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER LEGISLATION
RCRA's Four Interrelated Programs
Subtitle D   Subtitle C   Subtitle I    Subtitle J
 Solid   Hazardous  Underground   Medical
 Waste     Waste   Storage Tank   Waste
Program   Program    Program     Program
non-hazardous wastes such as municipal refuse and liquid,
semi-solid, or gaseous material from industrial, commercial,
and mining operations, as well as hazardous waste.

    The goals set by RCRA are:

•  To protect human health and the environment

•   To reduce waste, and  conserve energy and  natural
    resources

•   To reduce or eliminate the generation of hazardous waste
    as expeditiously as possible.

RCRA originally provided regulatory authority to address
hazardous waste management, but had limited authority to
require cleanup. CERCLA was enacted in 1980 to  fill the
apparent gap in RCRA and the Clean Water Act authority for
remedying past mismanagement of hazardous substances.

    The 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments
(HSWA) significantly expanded the  scope and requirements
of RCRA. Regulations have been developed and continue to
be expanded based on the HSWA provisions, e.g., Land
Disposal Restrictions. In addition, HSWA expanded EPA's
authorities to  address  releases of hazardous  waste  or
hazardous constituents through "corrective actions" or cleanup
of wastes released from RCRA hazardous waste facilities.
Furthermore,  a new  program for regulating  underground
storage tanks was developed under RCRA Subtitle I.

    RCRA   establishes  four  distinct,  yet  interrelated,
regulatory programs:

•   The Subtitle D Solid Waste Management Program
    sets national standards for the management of solid waste
    (e.g., municipal solid waste landfills)

•   The  Subtitle  C  Hazardous  Waste  Management
   Program sets  national standards for hazardous waste
    management,  provides  for  oversight  of  State
    implementation of RCRA, and includes corrective action
    authorities to address releases to the environment

•   The  Subtitle  I Underground Storage  Tank  (LIST)
   Program is  designed  to protect ground water from
    leaking underground storage tanks
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy    XIII-2

-------
                                SECTION XIH - CERCLA's RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER LEGISLATION
How RCRA and CERCLA
Overlap
•   The Subtitle J Medical Waste Program establishes a
    two-year demonstration program to track medical waste
    from generation to disposal.

CERCLA is most impacted by RCRA Subtitle C. The RCRA
Subtitle C standards for managing hazardous waste affect
many CERCLA response  decisions, such as which off-site
disposal facility to use or which regulatory requirements to
consider in implementing on-site response actions.

    RCRA and CERCLA follow roughly parallel procedures
in responding to releases.  In  both, the first step  after
discovery of a release is an examination of available data to
see if an emergency action is warranted. Both programs allow
for short-term measures to abate the immediate adverse
effects of a release. In RCRA, short-term measures may
occur after the investigations. Investigations and formal study
of  long-term  cleanup  options  are conducted once  an
emergency has been addressed. When these analyses are
completed, both provide the basis for the formal selection of
a remedy.

    RCRA regulatory requirements are potentially applicable
or  relevant  and  appropriate requirements  (ARARs) for
CERCLA response actions. Thus, many CERCLA response
actions must meet the applicable or relevant and appropriate
RCRA requirements for on-site actions, unless a waiver is
justified under the circumstances. For example, the RCRA
Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs),  established  under
HSWA, maybe applicable to a CERCLA response action
involving the placement of hazardous waste in a land disposal
unit. In order to determine their applicability, EPA has issued
a series of Superfund LDR Guides (LDR Guides 1 -8). These
guides summarize the major components of the LDRs, such
as treatment standards and minimum technical requirements
in respect to CERCLA response actions.

    In accordance with CERCLA  section 121(d)(3)  all
wastes shipped off-site for treatment, storage, or disposal
must be sent to facilities that have been determined by EPA
to be "acceptable." In order to be acceptable, a facility cannot
have any relevant violations of applicable Federal or State
requirements such as RCRA or TSCA and cannot have any
relevant releases.
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy    XIII-3

-------
SECTION XIH - CERCLA's RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER LEGISLATION
Imminent Hazards Under RCRA
andCERCLA
How RCRA and CERCLA Differ
How RCRA Regulations Affect
CERCLA Remedy Selection
   Both CERCLA and RCRA contain provisions that allow
EPA to require persons contributing to an imminent hazard
to take the necessary actions to clean up releases. Under
CERCLA section 106, EPA has the authority to abate an
imminent  or  substantial  danger to  public health or the
environment that results from a hazardous substance release.
The authority  under RCRA section 7003 is essentially the
same, except  that RCRA's  imminent hazard provision
addresses non-hazardous as well as hazardous solid waste
releases. In an enforcement action, the CERCLA and RCRA
imminent hazard provisions may be used in tandem.

   RCRA and CERCLA have the common goal to protect
human health and the environment from the dangers of
hazardous waste. However, as illustrated in Exhibit 7, these
statutes  address the  hazardous waste problem from two
fundamentally different approaches:

•  RCRA has a largely regulatory approach.  RCRA
   regulates the management of wastes from the moment of
   generation until  final disposal, and  provides  some
   corrective action  authority for investigating and cleaning
   up contamination at or from RCRA Subtitle C facilities.

•  CERCLA  has  a  response   approach.  CERCLA
   authorizes cleanup  actions whenever there has been a
   breakdown in the  waste management system (i.e., a
   threatening release  of a hazardous substance occurs).
   Also, CERCLA  addresses the problems of hazardous
   waste  encountered at  inactive or abandoned  sites or
   those  resulting  from  spills that require emergency
   response.

   In assessing cleanup remedies, EPA takes into account the
long-term uncertainties associated with land disposal, long-
term maintenance costs, and other considerations.

   CERCLA  requires  that on-site remedies attain any
substantive requirements, standards, criteria,  or limitations
under Federal or more stringent State environmental laws,
including RCRA, that are determined to be ARARs (unless
site-specific waivers  are obtained). Furthermore, the NCP
provides that removal  actions attain  ARARs  whenever
practicable. This means,  for example, that whenever a
remedial action involves  on-site  treatment, storage,  or
disposal of hazardous waste, the action must meet RCRA's
technical standards for treatment, storage, or disposal. EPA
interprets
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy    XIII-4

-------
                           SECTION XIH - CERCLA's RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER LEGISLATION
                                  Exhibit 7
            RCRA and CERCLA: Different Approaches to a Common Goal
                         Protection of Human Health and
                       the Environment from the Release of
                             Hazardous Substances
                RCRA

      Regulatory Program Ensuring
      Safe Management of
      Hazardous Waste and Non-
      Hazardous Waste Including
      Corrective Action Program to
      Investigate and Clean up
      Contamination From Subtitle
      C Facilities
         CERCLA

Response Program to Clean
up Hazardous Substance
Releases
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy    XIII-5

-------
SECTION XIH - CERCLA's RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER LEGISLATION
                                      CERCLA to mean that Superfund sites are not required to
                                      comply with administrative requirements (e.g., recordkeeping
                                      and permits), but that RCRA technical requirements may
                                      apply  as  ARARs.  The  National  Oil  and Hazardous
                                      Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), the blueprint
                                      for the Superfund program, details the application of ARARs
                                      to Superfund remedial actions cited in section 300.435(b)(2).

                                         As  noted   earlier,   once   hazardous   substances,
                                      contaminants, or pollutants are transported from a Superfund
                                      site, they are subject to CERCLA's off-site requirement that
                                      they go to a facility that EPA has determined acceptable to
                                      receive CERCLA wastes. CERCLA wastes that are RCRA
                                      hazardous wastes must go to a Subtitle C facility acceptable
                                      under the CERCLA off-site policy. Each Regional office has
                                      an off-site contact who makes the acceptability determination
                                      prior to each offsite shipment of CERCLA wastes.

                                         Finally, as of October 1989, EPA may not take or fund
                                      remedial actions in a State unless the State ensures the
                                      availability  of hazardous  waste treatment and disposal
                                      capacity. This hazardous waste capacity must be adequate to
                                      manage the wastes generated in the State for a period of 20
                                      years  and  for facilities that are in compliance with RCRA
                                      Subtitle C  requirements.

RCRA Corrective Actions vs.              RCRA authorizes EPA to require corrective action (usually
CERCLA Response                   under an enforcement order or as part of a permit action)
                                      whenever there is, or has been, a release of hazardous waste
                                      or constituents. Further, RCRA allows  EPA to require
                                      corrective action beyond the facility boundary. EPA interprets
                                      the term "corrective action" to cover the full range of possible
                                      actions, from investigations, studies, and interim measures to
                                      full cleanups. Anyone who violates the corrective action order
                                      can be fined up to $25,000 per day of noncompliance and
                                      runs the risk of having their  operating permit suspended or
                                      revoked.

                                         The general distinction between RCRA and CERCLA is
                                      as follows:   RCRA  focuses on waste management  and
                                      corrective  action, while  CERCLA  focuses  on cleanup
                                      activities. However, the two programs overlap. For example,
                                      RCRA standards are considered ARARs and  are central to
                                      selecting remedies under CERCLA. Moreover, the RCRA
                                      corrective action and the CERCLA response action programs
                                      use parallel (but not identical) procedures.

Word-searchable version - Not a true copy     XIII-6

-------
                                 SECTION XIH - CERCLA's RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER LEGISLATION
OIL POLLUTION ACT OF 1990
        OPA Provisions
    Expanded Federal Role
    Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund
    Contingency Planning
    Increased Liability and Civil Penalties
    Double Hulls
    Research and Development
    The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA) amends section
311 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). Section 311 prohibits
the discharge  of oil and certain hazardous  substances in
quantities that  may be harmful to public health or welfare
(OPA revised this  to  include  the  environment). OPA
established the Oil  Spill Liability Trust Fund to pay for
Federal responses to oil spills. Section 311 also authorizes the
Oil Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures (SPCC)
program.

    OPA is a comprehensive statute designed to: (1) expand
the Federal role in response activities; (2) increase trust funds
available for cleanup costs and other damages; (3) improve
preparedness and response capabilities of Federal agencies
and owners or operators of vessels and facilities; (4) ensure
that responsible parties pay for damages from spills that do
occur (subject to liability limits); (5) increase vessel safety
through requirements for double hulls; and (6)  establish an
expanded oil pollution research and development effort.

    Some  of the most significant provisions of OPA include
the following:

•   Expanded Federal Role  in Response — Under
    revised section  311(c) of  the  CWA,  the  Federal
    government is required  to direct responses to releases
    that pose a  substantial  threat to  the public health or
    welfare, and has the discretion to direct responses to any
    discharges threatening public health or welfare.

•   Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund — OPA creates a new
    $ 1 billion trust fund that is available for cleanup costs and
    other damages. The USCG administers the fund, which
    is used to pay for removal costs and damages resulting
    from an oil discharge. Fund  monies are  supplied by a
    five-cent per-barrel fee on oil.

•   Contingency Planning — New section 311(j) of the
    CWA requires  EPA and the USCG to enhance  the
    existing National Response System by designating Area
    Committees to develop Area Contingency Plans to help
    ensure among other things the removal of a worst-case
    spill from a vessel or facility in or near the area covered
    by each area plan. Also, OPA added a new requirement
    in CWA  section 311(j) that owners or operators of
    individual vessels and facilities (except onshore facilities
    that are not expected to cause substantial environmental
    harm from
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy    XIII-7

-------
SECTION XIH - CERCLA's RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER LEGISLATION
                                           oil discharges) prepare response plans for worst-case oil
                                           and hazardous substances discharges. The statute also
                                           requires amendments to the NCP, including development
                                           of a Fish and Wildlife Plan.
How OPA and CERCLA Interact
•   Increased Liability for Spills — OPA increases the
    liability of tanker  owners and operators,  responsible
    parties at onshore facilities and deepwater ports, and
    holders of leases or permits for offshore facilities in the
    event of a spill. OPA broadens liability to cover not only
    removal costs and natural resource damages, but also the
    provision of spill-related health and safety services by
    State  and local governments and losses  of private
    property, revenues, subsistence use and profits.

•   Double  Hulls — Under OPA,  newly  constructed
    tankers over certain size limits must have double hulls or
    other  double  containment systems.  Existing tankers
    without double hulls are to be phased out by size, age,
    and design beginning in 1995.  Tankers over certain size
    limits without double hulls are banned after 2015.

•   Research and Development — OPA mandates the
    establishment of an interagency committee to coordinate
    efforts to improve oil spill response technology.

    Primary Federal responsibility for implementing OPA
rests with the United States Coast Guard (USCG) and EPA.
The USCG is responsible for administering  the trust fund,
responding to coastal spills, reviewing contingency plans for
vessels and transportation-related facilities, and coordinating
research   and  development  efforts  along  with  other
requirements.  EPA's   responsibilities  include   reviewing
contingency plans for certain onshore facilities, responding to
discharges occuring in the inland zone, and revising the NCP.

    As with the Superfund program, the NCP serves as the
regulatory blueprint that guides Federal response to oil spills.

    OPA  amends the CWA and includes a number of
provisions regarding the prevention, control, and response to
spills or threats of spills into U.S. waters from oil and CWA
hazardous substances. The NCP provides the framework for
CERCLA and CWA section 311 responses. CWA section
311
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy     XIII-8

-------
                                  SECTION XIH - CERCLA's RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER LEGISLATION
CLEAN WATER ACT
requires facilities storing oil and CWA hazardous substances
to develop contingency plans,  and to penalize facilities for
non-compliance.  CWA  section  311(b)  authorizes more
stringent penalties for unauthorized spills of  oil  and/or
hazardous substances and violations ofthe regulations. OPA
provides that liability includes  the cost of the response and
damages to natural resources, property, and subsistence use
of natural resources. These provisions  are independent of
CERCLA.

    The Clean Water Act (CWA) was enacted to regulate
and  cleanup polluted waters  in  the United  States. It is
designed to ensure that the nation's waters are safe to the
public and support fish and other aquatic life. Specifically, the
CWA  is designed to restore  and maintain the chemical,
physical, and biological integrity ofthe nation's waters.

    The CWA was one of the major environmental laws
passed by Congress in the 1970s.  It provides EPA with two
types of authority:

•   Regulatory — to prevent and  control discharges of
    pollutants into waters ofthe U.S.

•   Response — to respond to releases of pollutants  into
    waters ofthe U.S. Prior to  CERCLA, EPA and USCG
    worked under the CWA to clean up releases of oil and
    hazardous substances into  the navigable waters  of the
    U.S.

The previous section on the OPA describes the authorities
and provisions of CWA section 311.  This  section describes
some ofthe major authorities  and provisions ofthe other
sections ofthe CWA.

    The CWA requires that all direct discharges to surface
water comply with technology-based discharge standards.
These standards require the use of best practicable control
technology  (BPCT)  for conventional  pollutants (e.g.,
suspended  solids,  fecal  coliform) and best  available
technology economically achievable (BAT) for toxic (e.g.,
benzene, chloroform) and non-conventional (e.g., ammonia,
nitrogen, total solids) pollutants. EPA has published effluent
guidelines  for  specific  categories  of industries.  These
guidelines are translated into specific effluent requirements in
discharge permits.
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy    XIII-9

-------
SECTION XIH - CERCLA's RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER LEGISLATION
How the CWA and CERCLA
Interact
    The CWA requires a permit for any discharge into the
nation's waterways. For waste water, only two discharge
options are allowed:

•   Direct discharge  into surface  water pursuant to a
    National  Pollution Discharge   Elimination  System
    (NPDES) permit

•   Indirect discharge., which means that the waste water is
    first sent to a publicly owned treatment works (POTW),
    and then after treatment by the POTW, discharged into
    surface water pursuant to an NPDES permit.

The NPDES permit is granted on a case-by-case basis and
the terms  of the permit depend on a number of variables.
Essentially, the  NPDES  permit limits  the   permissible
concentration of toxic constituents or conventional pollutants
in effluents discharged to a waterway.

    If the indirect discharge option is chosen, the generator of
the waste  water cannot simply transfer the pollutants to a
POTW. Rather, the waste water must satisfy applicable
pretreatment standards, where they exist.

    Section 304 of the CWA directs EPA to publish water
quality criteria for specific  pollutants. EPA develops two
types of criteria: one for the protection of human health and
another for protection of aquatic life. EPA has published a
total of 82 water quality criteria. These criteria  are non-
enforceable guidelines  used by  States to set water quality
standards for  surface water. Section 303 requires States to
develop water quality  standards, based on Federal water
quality criteria, to protect existing or attainable uses (e.g.,
recreation, water supply) of surface waters.

    The CWA-designated hazardous substances are
incorporated into   the  CERCLA definition of hazardous
substances.  The  CWA  section   has  authority  for
responding to discharges of oil into the waters of the U.S..
The CWA section 311 and CERCLA have similar response
authorities for responding to discharges of CWA hazardous
substances released into U.S. waters. In addition, CERCLA
provides response authority for responding to discharges of
other hazardous substances, pollutants, and contaminants into
the environment.  The  NCP,  the blueprint for managing
responses
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy    XIII-10

-------
                                 SECTION XIH - CERCLA's RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER LEGISLATION
CLEAN AIR ACT
to releases, governs both CWA and CERCLA responses.
The  previous section on OPA provides a more detailed
discussion of how CWA section 311 and CERCLA interact.

   On-site CERCLA responses must comply with or waive
substantive requirements of Federal and State environmental
laws that are determined to be ARARs. CWA and  State
discharge and water quality standards may be  ARARs for
onsite remedial actions at Superfund sites. The application of
CWA and State ARARs is determined on a case-by-case
basis. CERCLA responses conducted entirely on-site do not
require CWA permits.

   The  Clean Air Act  (CAA)  was  the first major
environmental law passed by  Congress.  The  CAA was
enacted to limit the emission of pollutants into the atmosphere
to protect human health and the environment from the effects
of airborne pollution. The CAA authorizes EPA to achieve
this objective by setting air quality standards and regulating
emissions of pollutants into the air. EPA has  established
emission standards  for mobile  (e.g., automobiles)  and
stationary (e.g.,  factories) sources  of  pollutant emission.
These are implemented through  Federal,  State, and local
programs.

   For six pollutants, EPA has established National Ambient
Air Quality  Standards (NAAQS). Regulation  of these six
pollutants affords the public some protection from toxic air
pollutants. Primary responsibility for meeting the requirements
of the CAA rests with  States,  who  must submit  State
Implementation Plans (SIPs) to achieve and maintain the
NAAQS. Pursuant to the SIP, new or modified stationary
sources of  air  emissions must undergo  pre-construction
review to determine whether the facility will interfere with
attainment or maintenance of NAAQS. In addition, in  some
areas that  do  not  attain NAAQS, SIPs must contain
regulatory strategies  to control  emissions from  existing
stationary sources. SIPs, not NAAQS, are potential ARARs.
Of chief concern to Superfund are the requirements that apply
to sources of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and other
toxic air pollutants (e.g., heavy metals).

Section 112 of the CAA directs EPA to identify hazardous
air pollutants and to establish emission standards for
sources that emit the pollutants. These standards, known as
National
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy    XIII-11

-------
SECTION XIH - CERCLA's RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER LEGISLATION
How the CAA and CERCLA
Interact
Emission  Standards  for  Hazardous  Air   Pollutants
(NESHAPS), apply to new as well  as existing sources.
Additionally, under section  112(r),  the accidental release
provisions of the  CAA,  facilities are required to provide
information on the ways they manage risk posed by certain
substances listed by EPA and indicate what they are doing to
minimize risk to the community from those chemicals.

    The CAA and CERCLA interact in the following two
 ways:

    The CAA  hazardous air pollutants  are included  as
    CERCLA hazardous substances

•   CAA emissions limitations provide substantive standards
    for CERCLA  responses.

CERCLA provides Federal response  authority to address
releases of air pollutants that threaten  human health or the
environment. CAA requirements may apply to CERCLA
responses.

    The accidental release provisions of CAA requires the
establishment of a list of at least 100 regulated substances and
thresholds under section 112.  Sixteen of these substances
were identified in the CAA for inclusion on the list. The rest
of the list maybe drawn from, but not necessarily limited to,
the  list of extremely hazardous substances under SARA Title
III.

    CAA hazardous air pollutants,  identified under section
112, are CERCLA hazardous substances by definition. Other
CAA air pollutants, identified under sections 109 and 111,
are  not covered by the CERCLA definition of hazardous
substances but may be covered by the CERCLA definition of
"pollutant or contaminant."

    CAA emissions limitations provide substantive standards
for  CERCLA responses in two ways.  CAA  emissions
limitations provide triggers for Superfund action (i.e., if
baseline conditions (pre-cleanup) exceed air standards,  action
may be warranted). And, these limitations provide cleanup
standards to attain in addressing unremediated conditions, and
emission standards for certain cleanup technologies
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy    XIII-12

-------
                                 SECTION XIH - CERCLA's RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER LEGISLATION
SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT
employed. CAA emission standards may be ARARs for
onsite response actions at Superfund sites. The application
of CAA  standards as ARARs  is determined  on a
case-by-case basis.

   CERCLA responses need not comply with  CAA
permit requirements.

   The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) was enacted
in 1974 to protect human health by protecting the quality of
the nation's drinking water supply. It protects drinking water
sources by regulating facilities or systems that inject fluids into
the ground, and protects public drinking water consumers by
regulating the quality of water distributed by public water
systems.  These goals  are  achieved by  authorizing the
establishment of:

• • Drinking water standards
• • A permit program for the underground inj ection of wastes
• • Resource planning programs.

Both surface and underground public drinking water sources
are thereby protected by the SDWA.

   The SDWA imposes requirements on persons who own
or operate a system which has at least 15 service connections
or 25 consumers,  and provides piped water for human
consumption.  The  regulations  which  implement   these
requirements are entitled the National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations (NPDWR). All water suppliers must periodically
sample the water delivered to users and record  and  report
their findings to EPA or the State, whichever is appropriate.

   The Underground Injection  Control  (UIC) program
protects  underground  sources  of drinking water  from
contamination by injection of waters or wastes into injection
wells. A permit program limits substances that may be
injected and how they may be injected.

   EPA currently administers  the  SDWA public  water
system program in only two states, Indiana and Wyoming. In
all other  states, EPA oversees State implementation, but
retains independent enforcement authority.
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy    XIII-13

-------
SECTION XIH - CERCLA's RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER LEGISLATION
How the SDWA and CERCLA
Interact
TOXIC SUBSTANCES
CONTROL ACT
   Provisions  of  the  SDWA apply to CERCLA site
discharges  to  public drinking water  sources.  SDWA
provisions such as Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs)
may be applicable to CERCLA cleanup of water that may be
used for drinking.

   The Toxic Substances  Control Act  (TSCA),  signed
into law in October 1976, provides EPA with broad authority
to regulate  chemicals and  chemical  substances whose
manufacture, processing,  distribution in commerce, use or
disposal may present an unreasonable risk of injury to health
or the environment. TSCA was enacted  to keep harmful
chemicals out of the environment and to fill the gaps in existing
environmental laws in the areas of toxic substances.

   TSCA deals with all chemical substances planned for
production, produced, imported, or exported from the
country.  TSCA  applies  primarily  to  manufacturers,
distributors, processors, and importers of chemicals. TSCA
provides authorities to control the manufacture and sale of
certain chemical substances. These authorities include

•  Testing of chemicals currently in commercial production
   or use
                                          Pre-market screening and regulatory tracking of new
                                          chemical products

                                         Controlling unreasonable  risks once a chemical
                                          substance is determined to have an adverse effect on
                                          health or the environment. These powers include:

                                          •   Prohibiting the manufacture or certain uses of the
                                             chemical

                                          •   Requiring labeling with specific markings or
                                             warnings

                                          • •  Limiting volume of production or concentration

                                          • •  Requiring recordkeeping about production

                                          • •  Requiring replacement or re-purchase of products

                                          • •  Controlling disposal methods.
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy    XIII-14

-------
                                SECTION XIH - CERCLA's RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER LEGISLATION
How TSCA and CERCLA Interact
TOXIC SUBSTANCES
CONTROL ACT
How HMTUS and CERCLA
Interact
The only exceptions to these authorities are pesticides (which
are regulated under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and
Rodenticide  Act), tobacco or tobacco products, source
material by-products or special nuclear material (as defined
by the Atomic Energy Act), and food, food additives, drugs,
and cosmetics (regulated under the Food, Drug and Cosmetic
Act).

   TSCA   and CERCLA commonly interact if
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) are involved in a CERCLA
response. PCB disposal regulations under TSCA may apply,
as ARARs, at Superfund sites. PCBs are the only chemical
identified by Congress by name for  direct regulation under
TSCA. TSCA regulations of  other chemicals may  also
present possible ARARs, depending on the type of hazardous
substances at a Superfund site.

   The Hazardous Materials Transportation Uniform Safety
Act of 1990 (HMTUSA), section 117, evolved from the
emergency preparedness  proposal  developed by DOT,
FEMA, EPA, DOL,  and DOE, and presented to the
Congress during the legislative process to reauthorize the
Hazardous Materials Transportation Act  of  1975. The
requirements of the HMTUSA were designed to allow the
federal government or provide national direction and guidance
to enhance hazardous  materials emergency preparedness
activities  at  the  State and local  levels.  This will  be
accomplished by  ensuring comprehensive, integrated, and
coordinated  planning,  training, and  technical assistance
programs.  Section  117,  "Public  Sector  Training  and
Planning," was specifically crafted to build upon and enhance
the existing framework and working relationships established
within CERCLA/Superfund for the National Response Team
(NRT), Regional Response Teams (RRTs), and the Title HI
State Emergency Response Commission.

   HMTUSA builds on existing programs and relationships
and, in fact, specifically requires grant money to be submitted
to LEPCs as established under SARA Title HI. Specifically,
HMTUSA provides for:
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy    XIII-15

-------
SECTION XIH - CERCLA's RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER LEGISLATION
                                       (1) Planning grants ($5 million per year from 1993 through
                                           1998) to develop, improve, and implement SARA Title
                                           m local emergency response plans and to determine the
                                           need for  regional  hazardous  materials  emergency
                                           response teams.

                                           States will receive these grants by agreeing to submit at
                                       least 75% of their planning grants money directly to LEPCs
                                       to develop, improve, and implement their emergency plans.

                                       (2) Training grants ($7.8 million per year from 1993 through
                                           1998) for delivery of training to public sector employees
                                           in hazardous materials response. This grant could be used
                                           for hazardous material waste and emergency response
                                           and other training activities, However, in order to qualify
                                           for the training grants, States/Tribes must certify they are
                                           in compliance with section 301 and 303 of SARA Title
                                           III.
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy    XIII-16

-------
                        SECTION XIV




      FUTURE DIRECTIONS OF THE SUPERFUND PROGRAM






          OVERVIEW




          SUPERFUND ACCELERATED CLEANUP MODEL
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
SECTION XIV
FUTURE DIRECTIONS OF THE
SUPERFUND PROGRAM
OVERVIEW
              During the first ten years of the Superfund program, EPA
          successfully developed a program that brought the United
          States to  a new level of understanding about hazardous
          substances and how they can be treated.  The Superfund
          program is comprehensive, yet flexible and innovative. Its
          missionis both immediate and long-range. Its focus is specific
          enough to handle individual site cleanups with precision, yet
          broad enough to encourage advances in a relatively new
          scientific and technical field.

              Superfund already has resulted in permanent solutions to
          many hazardous waste problems. However, after the first 10
          years of experience, it is apparent to Superfund program
          participants that the program faces a workload stretching well
          into the next century. The hazardous waste problem in the
          United States remains large, complex, and long-term.

              EPA is looking ahead to proj ect a program for the future.
          Long-term planning is important because, for example, EPA
          estimates indicate that the cleanup of sites on the NPL, as of
          1991, is expected to cost an additional $19 billion beyond the
          amount already obligated. Also, EPA expects the number of
          NPL sites to grow from 1,200 to 2,000 by the end of the
          century.

              "Superfund  2000"  represents  EPA's  strategy  for
          responding to long-term needs. As part of this concept, EPA
          is conducting studies of the possible universe of sites to be
          cleaned up by Superfund or other parties. One study involves
          the development of a liability model to help estimate possible
          future cleanup costs  under different scenarios. EPA also is
          looking at past  remedy selection decisions and evaluating
          patterns that may indicate  future useful  technologies. In
          addition,  opportunities for greater program integration,
          particularly  between  the   Superfund   and   Resource
          Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) programs,  are
          being assessed.

              In keeping with EPA's goal  of increasing multimedia
          enforcement efforts, EPA is examining the future role of
          responsible parties and State and local governments in the
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy     XIV-1

-------
SECTION XIV - FUTURE DIRECTIONS OF THE SUPERFUND PROGRAM
                                      Superfund program. All these studies and activities will ensure
                                      that an integrated, practical,  viable,  and results-oriented
                                      Superfund program will continue to evolve.

SUPERFUND ACCELERATED          In February of 1992, the EPA Administrator signed a
CLEANUP MODEL                  plan  aimed  at  moving  sites  more  quickly  through the
                                      Superfund process to cleanup and  redefining  the  way
                                      progress is measured. This new plan, called the Superfund
                                      Accelerated Cleanup  Model (SACM), is designed to
                                      include substantial, prioritized risk reduction in shorter time
                                      frames  and  better   communication  of  program
                                      accomplishments to the public.

                                         As outlined in this  manual,  the  current  system for
                                      Superfund cleanups is based on two discrete programs —
                                      removal and remedial. Under SACM, this distinction would
                                      be retained, but EPA would view both removal and remedial
                                      actions as Superfund actions. Rather than viewing these two
                                      entities as separate programs, they are viewed as separate
                                      legal authorities with different, but complementary, application
                                      at Superfund sites.

                                         An integral part of SACM is  the  combined  site
                                      assessment. The single  site assessment function would
                                      address, in a coordinated fashion, requirements for removal
                                      assessments, preliminary assessments /  site  inspections
                                      (PA/SIs), remedial investigations/feasibility studies (RI/FSs),
                                      and risk assessments. Discovered sites could be screened
                                      once and, if they are considered to have  a serious level of
                                      contamination, go directly to the remedial investigation and
                                      risk assessment phases of cleanup. Such a change could cut
                                      the current process by several years.

                                         During the assessment process, a Regional Decision
                                      Team would decide to  place a site on either an "Early
                                      Action List" or a "Long Term Remediation List" or
                                      both. Early Actions are  short-term,  quickly implemented
                                      cleanups that would be completed in three to five years. Early
                                      Actions  will   include  time-critical  and  non-time-critical
                                      removal activities, as well as remedial  actions, and  will be
                                      designed to address all short-term threats to public health and
                                      safety. Under SACM, such actions would be combined
                                      immediately  with  public  participation  and  expedited
                                      enforcement  actions. Long Term Remediation  sites would
                                      only include sites requiring cleanup over  many years (e.g.,
                                      ground water restoration, sites involving property acquisition,
                                      long-term   operation   and  maintenance,


Word-searchable version - Not a true copy    XIV-2

-------
SECTION XIV - FUTURE DIRECTIONS OF THE SUPERFUND PROGRAM
                                       or  mining  sites,  extended  incineration projects,  and
                                       wetlands/estuaries).

                                           SACM introduces the concept of Regional Decision
                                       Teams that would combine the cross-programmatic skills and
                                       experience of On-Scene  Coordinators, Remedial  Project
                                       Managers, Office of Regional Counsel attorneys, site and risk
                                       assessors,  and Community Relations Coordinators.  As
                                       explained  above, the Regional Decision Team would be
                                       responsible for expediting sites onto the Early Action List and
                                       scoring  long-term restoration actions for inclusion on the
                                       NPL.

                                           A key obj ective of SACM is to count the totality of risk
                                       reduction rather than focus on NPL  site deletions. This
                                       would  be a  fundamentally new way for the  Superfund
                                       program to measure its success, and would show the public
                                       how Superfund is achieving appropriate cleanup at a large
                                       number of sites.

                                           Regional pilot tests are underway. The model is being
                                       further  refined, and  EPA  is  developing protocols  and
                                       guidance that will expedite the implementation of SACM. The
                                       steps for the new Superfund process are illustrated in Exhibit
                                           EPA is proud of its hard-won accomplishments in the
                                       Superfund  program,  and  will   continue  to  use new
                                       management and technological approaches to  significantly
                                       improve human health and the environment, accelerate the
                                       pace of cleanup, expand its efficiency and activity, improve
                                       the quality of the program  over time, and build  public
                                       confidence. There are no miracle cures for the hazardous
                                       waste problem, but EPA has a clear strategy for meeting this
                                       challenge.
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy     XIV-3

-------
SECTION XIV - FUTURE DIRECTIONS OF THE SUPERFUND PROGRAM
                                    Exhibit 8
                                The SACM Process
                                                                      I
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy    XIV4

-------
                   APPENDIX A

           RESOURCE FOR SUPERFUND
            PROGRAM PUBLICATIONS
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                                    APPENDIX A
           RESOURCE FOR SUPERFUND PROGRAM PUBLICATIONS

                                                                       S52T
                                                                 Compendium of Superfund
                                                                 Program Publications
           Compendium of Superfund Program
                   Publications - 1992
                       EPA/OERR

                   EPA/540/8-91/014
                  Publication 9200.7-02B
                     November 1991

       The Compendium is the single most complete source of
information produced by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) on Superfund. The publications and computerized data listed
in the Compendium come from many program offices. Chief among
them  is  the  Office of  Emergency and  Remedial  Response
(OERR). Other EPA offices which produced documents listed in the Compendium include the:

       •      Technology Innovation Office (TIO)

       •      Office of Waste Programs Enforcement (OWPE)

             Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS)

             Office of Research and Development (ORD).
The Superfund program has endeavored to place the entire historical collection, as well as all new
documents, in the Compendium. Documents related to enforcement of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) are also included, because many enforcement actions combine aspects of RCRA
and Superfund.

       The Compendium includes the following information in each abstract:

       •      Document title

             Publication date

       •      Icon showing the type of document (e.g. fact sheet, directive, publication, or computer
             material)

             Originating office

       •      Document length

       •      Brief summary of document contents
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy     A-l

-------
              Agency control numbers

              NTIS order number

              NTIS price code.
For those unfamiliar with the Superfund program, wherever possible, plain English has been substituted for
program jargon and acronyms. Also, the Compendium includes a subject index, title index, and numerical
indexes. For users with Superfund expertise, the summaries in the abstracts section have been organized
under 10 large categories and further organized into specific subcategories.

       The Compendium may be obtained free of charge from the National Technical Information Service
(NTIS): 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161; (703) 487-4650.
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy     A-2

-------
                     APPENDIX B




           EPA ORGANIZATIONAL CHARTS
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                                                                APPENDIX B
                                               EPA ORGANIZATIONAL CHART
              Staff Offices:
              Administrative Law Judges
              Civil Rights
              Small & Disadvantage^ Business Utilization
              Science Advisory Board
              Executive Support
              Office of Cooperative Environmental Management
         _L
Assistant Administrator
 for Administration and
Resources Management
              Assistant
           Administrator for
             Enforcement
                          General
                          Counsel
                                                                                 Regional Operations and
                                                                                  State/Local Relations
                                                                              Congressional and Legislative
                                                                                        Affairs
                                                                            Communications and Public Affairs
                                   Assistant
                                Administrator for
                               Policy, Planning and
                                   Evaluation
                                               Assistant
                                           Administrator for
                                             International
                                               Activities
                                                          Inspector
                                                           General
       Olfica of the
       ComptroHar
         Office of
      Administration
    Office of Information
        Resources
       Management
      Office of Human
        Resources
       Management
   Office of Administration
        & Resource
   Management RTP.NC
   Office of Administration
       & Resource
       Management
      Cincinnati, OH
             Office of Criminal
               Enforcement
            Office of Compliance
            Analysis and Program
                Operations
               Office of CM
               Enforcement
              Office of Federal
                 Activities
           National Enforcement
           Investigations Center
            (NEIC) Denver. CO
              Office of Federal
                 Facilities
               Enforcement
                         Air and Radiation
                             Division
                      Grants, Contracts and
                      General Law Division
                         Inspector General
                             Division
                          Pesticides and
                        Toxic Substances
                            Division
                         Solid Waste and
                           Emergency
                        Response Division
                          Water Division
          Assistant Administrator
                 for Water
Assistant Administrator
for Solid Waste and
Emergency Response

«-
_
•~~
**.
**+*«


Office of Emergency
and Remedial
Response (Superfund)

Office of Solid
Waste

Office of Waste
Programs Enforcement
Office of Underground
Storage Tanks
Chemical Emergency ;
Preparedness and
Prevention Office

Technology
Innovation Office
Superfund
                                          Revitalization Team
                                                     Assistant
                                                  Administrator for
                                                  Air and Radiation
                                                                       Office of Program
                                                                         Management
                                                                         Operations
                                                                        Office of Policy
                                                                      Analysis and Review
                                                                     Office of Atmospheric
                                                                        and Indoor Air
                                                                          Programs
                                                                      Office of Air Quality
                                                                         Planning and
                                                                      Standards RTP, NC
                                                                       Office of Mobile
                                                                          Sources
                                                                      Office of Radiation
                                                                          Programs
Assistant Administrator
for Research and
Development
—
—
—
— «
—


Office of Research
Program
Management

Office of Technology
Transfer and
Regulatory Support
Office of Exploratory
Research
Ollicfl of Environmental
Engineering and Technology
Demonstialion
Office of Health
Research

Office of Environmental
Processes and Effects
Research
Office of Health and
Environmental
Assessment
Office of Modeling.
Monitorinq Systems
                                                                                                                            and Quality Assurance
   Region I
    Boston
Region II
New York
 Region III
Philadelphia
Region IV
 Atlanta
Region V
Chicago
Region VI
 Dallas
 Region VII
Kansas City
Region VIII
  Denver
  Region IX
San Francisco
Region X
 Seattle
    Word-searchable version - Not a true copy         B-l

-------
      OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE (OSWER)
                           ORGANIZATIONAL CHART

Qtaff nfftroe-

Resource Management and Information Staff
Policy Analysis and Regulatory Management Staff














Administrator
for Solid Waste and
Ernerciency Response










Chemical Emsroency Preparedness & Prevention Office





Superfund Revitalization Team

             Office of
           Emergency and
          Remedial Response I
 Office of
Solid Waste
  Office of
Underground
Storage Tanks
  Off ice of
Waste Programs
 Enforcement
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy     B-2

-------
          OFFICE OF EMERGENCY AND REMEDIAL RESPONSE
                ORGANIZATIONAL CHART AND ROLES





Office of
Program
Management
• Conduct cross-
cutting
contract and
policy analysis


• Administer Head-
quarters policy,
technical, and
support contracts


• Perform strategic
planning


• Develop and
administer systems


• Automated Data
Processing (ADP)


• Perform budget and
forecasting activities


• Support and review
regional contractual
practices


• Prepare, implement
and evaluate quality
objectives





































Director
Deputy


Hazardous
Site
Evaluation
Division
• Prepare strategy
and guidance for
site discovery,
inventory, and
inspections



• Prepare guidance
for PA/SI
activities
and Federal site
evaluations



• Manage site
discovery activities



• Manage the
CERCLIS inventory
process





• Coordinate ATSDR
petitions with HHS



• Develop analytical
protocols, MRS
policies,
policies

• Develop
and


NPL


assess-
ment guidance and
evaluation policies
and procedures for
managing health
risks
• Manage

the

PA
petition process





































Director




























Hazardous Site
Control
Division
• Manage the Super-
fund remedial
program



• Coordinate Regions'
work



• Develop
technica


policy and
guidance
on all aspects of the
remedial


• Maintain
program

liaison with
outside organiza-
tions representing
State governments
and Indian Tribes

































































Emergency
Response
Division
• Coordinate the
national
program for
dealing with oil
spills and releases
of hazardous
substances


• Develop the policies
and guidance for
removal

actions

• Organize the
resources,
contracts,
and management
support the Regions
need to conduct
removal

actions

• Provide on-scene
technical assistance
and training to
Regional removal
response personnel




















Word-searchable version - Not a true copy    B-3

-------
                    APPENDIX C




        EPA REGIONAL OFFICE DIRECTORY
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                                    APPENDIX C
                      EPA REGIONAL OFFICE DIRECTORY
 Region 1
 Environment Protection Agency
 John F. Kennedy Federal Building
 One Congress Street
 Boston, MA 02203
 (617) 565-3420
Region 6
Environment Protection Agency
First Interstate Bank Tower at Fountain Place
1445 Ross Avenue, 12th Floor, Suite 1200
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
(214)655-6444
 Environmental Services Division
 60 Westview Street
 Lexington, MA 02173
 (617) 860-4300

 Region 2
 Environmental Protection Agency
 Jacob K. Javitz Federal Building
 26 Federal Plaza
 New York, NY 10278
 (212)264-2657
 Environmental Service Division
 2890 Woodbridge Avenue
 Raritan Depot Building 10
 Edison, NJ 08837-3679
 (908)321-6754
 Region 3
 Environmental Protection Agency
 841 Chestnut Building
 Philadelphia, PA 19107
 (215)597-9800
 Region 4
 Environmental Protection Agency
 345 Courtland Street, N.E.
 Atlanta, GA 30365
 (404) 347-4727
 Region 5
 Environmental Protection Agency
 77 West Jackson Boulevard
 Chicago, IL 60604
 (312)886-9851
Environmental Service Division
Houston Branch Office
10625 Fallstone Road
Houston, TX 7099
(713) 983-2200
 Region 7
Environmental Protection Agency
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS 66101
(913)551-7000

Environmental Services Division
25 Funston Road
Kansas City, KS 66115
(913)551-5000

Region 8
Environmental Protection Agency
999 18th  Street, Suite 500
Denver, CO 80202-2405
(303)293-1603
Region 9
Environmental Protection Agency
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415)744-1305
Region 10
Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
(206)553-4973
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy      C-l

-------
                                States by EPA Region
                                                                               Boston
                                                                                'ork
Region
Region
4 -
10 -
9 -
6 -
9 -
8 -
1 -
3 -
3 -
4 -
4 -
9 -
10 -
5 _
5 _
7 _
7 -
ij, —
6 -
1 -
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
3
1
5
5
4
7
8
7
9
1
2
6
2
4
8
5
6
10
3
1
                                   Maryland
                                   Massachusetts
                                   Michigan
                                   Minnesota
                                   Mississippi
                                   Missouri
                                   Montana
                                   Nebraska
                                   Nevada
                                   New Hampshire
                                   New Jersey
                                   New Mexico
                                   New York
                                   North Carolina
                                   North Dakota
                                   Ohio
                                   Oklahoma
                                   Oregon
                                   Pennsylvania
                                   Rhode Island
Region

 4
 8
 4
 6
 8
 I
 3
10
 3
 5
 8
 9
 9
 2
 2
                                   South Carolina
                                   South Dakota
                                   Tennessee
                                   Texas
                                   Utah
                                   Vermont
                                   Virginia
                                   Washington
                                   West Virginia
                                   Wisconsin
                                   Wyoming
                                   American Samoa
                                   Guam
                                   Puerto Rico
                                   Virgin Islands
  Word-searchable version - Not a true copy     C-2

-------
                     APPENDIX D




    CERCLA/SUPERFUND PROGRAM ACRONYMS
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy

-------
                                    APPENDIX D
                  CERCLA/SUPERFUND PROGRAM ACRONYMS
AA          Assistant Administrator




AO          Administrative Order




AOC        Administrative Order on Consent




ARAR       Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement




ARCS       Alternative Remedial Contracting Strategy




ATSDR      Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry




ATTIC       Alternative Treatment Technology Information Center




BAT        Best Available Technology




BCT        Best Control Technology




CA          Cooperative Agreement




CAA        Clean Air Act




CD          Consent Decree




CED        CERCLA Enforcement Division




CEPP        Chemical Emergency Preparedness Program




CERCLA    Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act




CERCLIS    Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System




CERI        Center for Environmental Research Information




CLP         (National) Contract Laboratory Program




CR          Community Relations




CRC        Community Relations Coordinator




CRP        Community Relations Plan
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy     D-l

-------
CWA
Clean Water Act
DO          Delivery Order




DQO        Data Quality Objective




EPA         Environmental Protection Agency




EPCRA     Emergency Preparedness and Community Right-to-Know Act




ERCS       Emergency Response Cleanup Services




ERD        Emergency Response Division




ERNS       Emergency Response Notification System




ERT        Emergency Response Team
ESAT       Environmental Services Assistance Team
ESD         Explanation of Significant Differences




FEMA      Federal Emergency Management Agency




FIFRA      Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, Insecticide, and Rodenticide Act




FIT         Field Investigation Team




FS           Feasibility Study
FWPCA     Federal Water Pollution Control Act
HHS          (Department of) Health and Human Services




HRS          Hazard Ranking System
HSCD       Hazardous Site Control Division
HSED       Hazardous Site Evaluation Division
HSWA      Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments
IAG          Interagency Agreement




IRIS          Integrated Risk Information System
LDR        Land Disposal Restrictions
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy     D-2

-------
LEPC
Local Emergency Planning Committee
LGR         Local Government Reimbursement
LSI          Listing Site Investigation




LUST        Leaking Underground Storage Tank
MCL         Maximum Contaminant Level
MCLG       Maximum Contaminant Level Goals
MO A         Memorandum of Agreement




MOTJ         Memorandum of Understanding




MSDS        Material Safety Data Sheets




NAAQS      National Ambient Air Quality Standards




NAWQC     National Ambient Water Quality Criteria




NCP          National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan




NESHAPs     National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants




NPDES       National Pollution Discharge Elimination System




NPDWR     National Primary Drinking Water Regulations
NPL         National Priorities List
NRC        National Response Center




NRT        National Response Team
NTIS        National Technical Information Service
O&M        Operations and Maintenance




OARM       Office of Administration and Resources Management
OE           Office of Enforcement
OERR       Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
OGC         Office of General Counsel
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy      D-3

-------
OIRM
Office of Information Resources Management
OPA




ORC




ORD




ORO




OSC




OSW
Oil Pollution Act of 1990
Office of Regional Counsel




Office of Research and Development




Office of Regional Operations
On-Scene Coordinator
Office of Solid Waste
OSWER     Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
OU          Operable Unit




OWPE       Office of Waste Programs Enforcement




OSHA       Occupational Safety and Health Administration




PA          Preliminary Assessment




PA/Si        Preliminary Assessment/Site Inspection




PCB         Polychlorinated Biphenyl
POLREP    Pollution Report
POTW       Publicly-Owned Treatment Works




PP           Proposed Plan




PRP         Potentially Responsible Party




QA          Quality Assurance




QA/QC      Quality Assurance/Quality Control




QAPP       Quality Assurance Project Plan
R&D        Research and Development
RA          Remedial Action
RA          Regional Administrator
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy     D-4

-------
RAC        Response Action Contractor




RC          Regional Counsel




RCRA       Resource Conservation and Recovery Act




RD          Remedial Design




REAP       Regional Enforcement Activities Plan




RI          Remedial Investigation




RI/FS        Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study




RMCL      Recommended Maximum Contaminant Levels




ROD        Records of Decision




RODS       Records of Decision System




RP          Responsible Party




RPM        Remedial Project Manager




RPO        Regional Project Officer




RQ          Reportable Quantity




RRC        Regional Response Center




RRT        Regional Response Team




RSE        Removal Site Evaluation




SACM       Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model




SAP         Sampling and Analysis Plan




SARA       Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986




SCAP        Superfund Comprehensive Accomplishments Plan




SDWA       Safe Drinking Water Act




SEA        Site Evaluation Accomplished




SERC       State Emergency Response Commission





Word-searchable version - Not a true copy     D-5

-------
SI            Site Inspection




SIP           State Implementation Plan




SITE         Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (Program)




SITS         Site Investigation Tracking System




SMOA       Superfund Memorandum of Agreement




SOW         Statement of Work




SPCC        Spill Prevention Control Countermeasures




SSC          Superfund State Contract




SSI           Screening Site Investigation




TAG         Technical Assistance Grant




TAT         Technical Assistance Team




TCLP        Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure




TQM         Total Quality Management




TSCA        Toxic Substance Control Act




TSD         Treatment, Storage,  and Disposal




UAO         Unilateral Administrative Order




UIC          Underground Injection Control




USCG        U. S. Coast Guard




UST         Underground Storage Tank




VE           Value Engineering




VOC         Volatile Organic Compound




WA          Work Assignment
Word-searchable version - Not a true copy     D-6

-------
G Section I - Introduction to the Superfund Program
G Section II - Superfund Regulatory Framework
G Section III - Superfund Process
G Section IV - Enforcement Program
G Section V - Removal Actions
G Section VI - Site Assessment
G Section VII - Remedial Actions
G Section VIM - State and Indian Tribal Involvement
G Section IX - Federal Facilities
G Section X - Community Relations/Public Participation
G Section XI - Management and Technical Infrastructure
G Section XII - Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
G Section XIII - CERCL's Relationship to Other Legislation
G Section XIV - Future Directions of the Superfund Program

-------