EPA - fffWefl. 96F0.13
St*tc*
Pfoiect'O"
Solid W«tt«
xvEPA
DfRECTIVE NUMBER: 9650.13
TITLE: Streanlined InpLenentation of
LIST Corrective Action Requirements
APPROVAL DATE: 2
EFFECTIVE DATE: 'J.'23
ORIGINATING OFFICE: Office of Underground
QcFINAL ' stora?5"e Tanks-
D DRAFT
STATUS:
REFERENCE (Other documents): Technical Require
ments for Underground Storage Tanks: Release
Response and Corrective Action for UST Systems
Containing; Petroleum and Hazardous Substances
(40 CFR 250 Subpart F)
OS WE/? OS WE/? OSWE/i
E DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE
-------
lfrformaHo«i
_. _ J Contact I. . ,
David v&amne\t t % *,
.OS-410WF
Office
OUST
Telephone Cod*
703-303-8330
3, Title
Streamlined Implementation of LIST Corrective Action Requirements
4 Summary of Of tct;ve (wiclude One< Jtatement of purpose) The purpose of this directive is to ac
erate streamlining of the processes that implementing agencies use to
administer and oversee UST cleanups. It provides guidance and exampL
of how agencies, primarily state UST programs, can use the flexibilit
in the federal regulations to improve the efficiency and effectivenes
Of their programs and to make cleanups faster, rhpapar- *nrl mo>-o
5. Keywords
States. Reeions. Underground Storage Tanks. Corrective Action
5«7Does Tnn cwecuve Supersede Previous u»ecnve(«)7
DRAFT of Same Title circulated
b. Oo*s It Sopptement Previous Directives)?
o |xx| Yts What aVecJNe (number, ttfe) 9650.13
:or comment on August 24,1992.
fe» Whal dfrectJve (number.
?. Draft Level
A-SigrwdbyAAflDAA
I 1 8-SJo/i«dbyOfflc«C»rt«Wr r~"1c-ForReview4COUWMM | [ O-mDeveto;
8. Doeumtnt to b« dlttributtd to Statt» by Headquarter*?
'- n
This Kequ«at Me
-------
NOV 23 1392
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGeNCY.BESPONS
MEMORANDUM, °SWER Dire<=tive 9650.13
SUBJECT: Directive on Streamlining Corrective Actions for
Underground Storage Tank Releases *
FROM: Don R. Clay, Assistant Administrator^-^7>/T^7^ """""
TO: Regional Administrators f S
Regions I-X . L—-^
The purpose of the attached directive is to stimulate
continuing innovation in UST programs-, and -to help accelerate
efforts to streamline UST cleanups nationwide. It identifies
opportunities to implement Federal UST regulations in more
ie« and cost-effective ways. I am asking Regional UST
staffs and their managers to encourage all State UST programs to
consider these opportunities to streamline their regulations
policies and procedures. Wherever possible, the Agency should
assist state and local programs in implementing these or other
similar improvements.
The national UST program has made remarkable progress in
completing over 40,000 cleanups and in implementing prevention
programs, but most of the job is still ahead of us. I know that
all of you are keenly aware of the programmatic challenges posed
by the work ahead.
Each of you is also aware of the economic impacts our
regulations and programs are having on tank owners, particularly
those in small businesses and small communities. While we must
continue to strive to fulfill our environmental mandate, we must
also make every reasonable effort to reduce compliance costs and
minimize unnecessary economic hardships. Doing so will yield
environmental benefits by helping tank owners, operators,
implementing agencies, and State assurance funds stretch their
limited resources and clean up more releases.
We recognize that State and local UST programs are being
asked to take on thes® challenges with limited resources.
However, finding ways to make UST cleanups faster, cheaper and
more effective will benefit regulators, tank owners, and society
at large, as well as the environment. The pioneering efforts
States have made to streamline their programs are a fine
beginning, but more needs to be done.
Printed on Recycled Rapes
-------
OSWER Directive 9650.13
The successes the UST program has enjoyed to date are
largely due to the willingness of its many managers and staff to
innovate and take necessary risks. I hope this directive helps
all UST programs build on the efforts they have already made to
promote faster, cheaper and more effective cleanups.
Attachment
cc: Waste Management Division Directors,
Regions I-III, V-IX
Water Management Division Directors
Regions IV, X
Regional UST Branch Chiefs
Regional UST Program Managers
ORC UST Contacts
OSWER Office Directors
Herbert H. Tata
Richard Morgenstern
Raymond B. Ludwiszewski
Margaret. Schneider
-------
{
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
OP<=ICE OP
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY HESPONS.
NOV 30 1992
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Regional Implementation of the OSWER Directive on
Streamlining UST Correcive Acti
FROM: David Ziegale, Director
Office of Underground Storage Ta
TO: Regional UST Branch Chiefs
Regional Program Managers
Regional UST Program Staff
I wanted to take this opportunity to convey a few of my
thoughts and expectations along with the final version of this
important new directive. Specifically, I want to be as clear as
possible on how I would like you to implement the directive.
First, however, I want to thank each of you for the time you
spent reviewing the drafts and composing the thoughtful comments
that we received.
The directive meets several new objectives for our
streamlining work. First, it strongly affirms EPA's policy to
support streamlining, particularly in State program* where most
cleanups are managed. Second, it clearly explains the
flexibility in the federal rule and should eliminate some
perceived legal barriers to streamlining which don't really
exist. Finally, by describing how States have used and could use
this flexibility, the directive should provide programs with some
fresh ideas for streamlining, help managers to get support for
making changes within their organizations, and promote a more
active dialogue between regulators and other stakeholders on what
improvements might be possible in individual States.
The directive is based on my belief that we must renew our
commitment to innovation and improvement in the national UST
program so that we can meet the challenges we face in our
corrective action work* To succeed, virtually every implementing
agency will need to streamline its administrative and oversight
processes, remove barriers to the wider use of improved
technologies and, in many cases, revise policies or regulations
so that needed improvements can be made. Many States may need to
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
fundamentally change their approaches to corrective action, for
example, by finding effective alternatives to the many plans,
reports, inspection steps, and approvals that are now required,
particularly for oversight of simple cleanups. I understand that
these changes are rarely easy, and a written policy alone will
not bring about the necessary improvements. Managers and staff
in many programs will need EPA's active support and encouragement
to make them happen.
Each of you has a number of opportunities to advance our
goals for streamlining UST programs in your Region. In addition
to working with interested States on streamlining projects,
training, consultants days, and technology demonstrations, I
expect you to work directly and actively with each implementing
agency to:
o ensure that every appropriate program manager understands
the purpose and content of the directive
o understand your states' cleanup policies and procedures, and
how they compare to those outlined, in the directive
o identify program areas where bottlenecks can be eliminated
or where performance can be improved through streamlining
o negotiate grant and cooperative agreement workplans that
include needed improvement projects
o seek assistance from Headquarters teams and experts, when
they can help you and the States make critical improvements.
Successful streamlining will require sustained effort in
each program. But the time available to us for making an impact
is beginning to grow short. Almost one thousand releases are
confirmed each week. At that rate, most of the remaining
releases we expect to find, perhaps two hundred thousand of them,
will enter the corrective action processes administered by States
during the next three or four years. With or without additional
resources, the program will need many improvements and
efficiencies to address the growing number of release sites in a
timely manner.
In this fiscal year and next, I expect each Region to make
all reasonable efforts to begin and sustain corrective action
streamlining in every State, whether these projects are directly
supported by EPA or not. Regional offices must play a leadership
role to engage reluctant managers, and promote continuousr
improvement among those who have already begun streamlining.
Where Regional staff are implementing programs, on tribal lands
for instance, I expect you to lead by example — to develop and
use streamlined processes whenever possible.
-------
Streamlining will remain a priority for OUST, with your
support, it can be a model program for the Agency. I am looking
forward to following your progress, and I am committed to
providing you with all the support we can from Headquarters.
Attachment
cc: OUST Management Team
OUST Staff
Walt Kovalick (TIO)
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE 9650.13:
STREAMLINED IMPLEMENTATION OF
UST CORRECTIVE ACTION REQUIREMENTS
INTRODUCTION
To meet the challenges posed by a large regulated community.
a growing backlog of release sites, and limited resources,
underground storage tank (UST) programs at all levels of
government must find ways to deal with releases more quickly,
efficiently, and effectively. This directive describes
opportunities for improvement and streamlined implementation of
EPA's regulations on release response and corrective action for
underground storage tanks by using the flexibility that exists in
these rules. The purposes of this directive are to stimulate
continuing innovation in UST programs and to help accelerate
efforts to. streamline UST corrective actions nationwide.
Streamlining means using total quality management
techniques, improved technologies, and innovative regulatory
approaches to make UST corrective actions faster, less costly,
and more effective. The benefits of aggressive streamlining
efforts include improved environmental protection and decreased
backlogs of cleanup sites as well as reduced corrective action
costs and adverse economic impacts. Supporting and encouraging
streamlining efforts at all levels of government involved with
the UST program has been and will continue to be the policy of
EPA.
In addition to developing streamlined administrative
procedures and encouraging wider use of improved technologies,
implementing agencies can make significant gains by taking
greater advantage of the flexibility in the federal regulations.
For example, phrases such as "... unless otherwise directed by
the implementing agency..." provide these agencies with
flexibility. This directive can help implementing agencies
develop alternative procedures and requirements that protect
human health and the environment and that, permit faster, more
effective, or less costly responses to releases.
Tha directive identifies opportunities to carry out federal
UST regulations (40 CFR 280 Subpart F) in more flexible,
efficient and cost-effective ways. It includes specific examples
of streamlined policies and procedures that permit faster, less
expensive and more effective responses than many of today's more
familiar approaches. In most cases these examples reflect
innovations that are already in use by some state and local
programs. Implementing agencies should not interpret the
examples to be requirements. The intent of the directive is to
stimulate improvement through streamlining, not to require
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE 9650.13
specific changes in all.UST programs. Although this directive is
based on the federal release response and corrective action
requirements, it is primarily intended to facilitate streamlining
in state, local, and territorial UST programs, particularly where
these programs are implementing the requirements of the federal
regulations, when states are implementing regulations that
differ significantly from the federal standards, some of the
examples given may not apply. However, streamlining has benefits
for all programs including approved state programs.
ORGANIZATION OF THIS DIRECTIVE
This directive is organized in the following sections:
o Background Of EPA/s Corrective Action Regulations
presents the principles that guided the development of
EPA's underground storage tank corrective action
standards;
o Developments Since September j.988 delineates some of
the challenges and opportunities facing underground
storage tank programs since the regulations were
published;
o Implementation At The State And Federal Levels
describes how UST program staff and managers should
implement this directive;
o Examples Of Streamlined Implementation lists corrective
action requirements and streamlined methods used to
implement the standards; and
o Conclusions summarizes the rationale and thrust of the
directive and gives examples of some of the gains in
productivity that are possible.
BACKGROUND OF EPA/S CORRECTIVE ACTION REGULATIONS
When EPA drafted! the UST technical standards in 1988, the
Agency used the following principles to guide the development of
the regulations.
o The program must be based on sound national standards
that protect human health and the environment.
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE 9650.13
o The program must be designed to be implemented at the
state and local level.
o The regulations must be simple and understandable so
that owners and operators are able to identify what
they must do to comply.
o The regulations must not inhibit new developments in
technology.
o The regulations must be flexible and, wherever
possible, accommodate small businesses with limited
resources for capital improvements.
o The regulations should, if. possible, build on current
industry practice to encourage voluntary compliance.
EPA used these principles to develop corrective action standards
that require owners and operators to stop continuing releases, to
mitigate fire and safety threats, and to plan and perform long
term remediation at appropriate sites. However, the rules allow
considerable flexibility in how the actions are to be carried
out.
Because they are more general, the state program approval
objectives (40 CFR.281) allow even more flexibility than the
technical standards in implementing a corrective action program.
The federal technical standards are more prescriptive and
detailed than the state program approval objectives because the
technical standards had to provide implementing agencies with
enough detail to allow them to carry out the technical standards
before state and local standards were developed and approved.
While the state program approval objectives are not the subject
of this directive, they are an indication of EPA's intention to
allow flexibility and encourage innovation in the implementation
of the program.
DEVELOPMENTS SINCE SEPTEMBER 1988
The UST Program has grown and evolved considerably since
September 1988 when the final rules took effect. Six major
developments have occurred that influence the implementation of
the corrective action standards.
o All states have developed corrective action programs
and are regulating corrective actions. Approximately
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE 9650.13
1,500 state* and local regulators are involved with the
UST program.
The number of sites with reported releases is growing
rapidly. As of July 1992, over 160,000 releases have
been reported; over 110,000 corrective actions have
been initiaited; and over 44,000 corrective actions have
been completed.
EPA and many states have gained significant experience
using total quality management techniques to make
improvements in their underground storage tank
programs. This systematic approach to understanding
work processes, managing programs, and improving
performance has proven value for all UST programs,
particularly in helping states speed up and improve the
oversight of their increasing cleanup caseloads. EPA
will continue to encourage and support this important
approach to program management.
A large number of states (43 as of June 1992) are
developing assurance funds to. help pay for
remediations. The state governments with operating
funds have dual roles: environmental agencies are
establishing minimum standards for corrective action to
protect human health and the environment, while State
Fund Administrators are attempting to control cleanup
costs in order to maximize the benefit to the public
from funds under their control.
A better understanding of the physical, chemical, and
biological aspects of contaminant migration and removal
has created new corrective action technologies and
strategies. New site assessment tools (including vapor
surveying, field analysis of soil and water .
contamination, and oxygen and carbon dioxide surveys)
allow many decisions about the extent and mobility of
contamination to be made in the field. Vacuum
extraction,, air sparging, and passive bioremediation
can now be employed without conducting time-consuming
feasibility studies. Using these new site assessment
and corrective action techniques, it is now possible to
complete many cleanups in the amount of time
traditionally allocated to the corrective action
planning process.
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE 9650.13
o Both industry and regulators have a clearer
understanding of the costs and benefits of various
corrective action options and are incorporating
improved approaches into standard practices, in fact,
the nationally recognized organization ASTM (formerly
known as the American Society for Testing and
Materials) is currently developing consensus standards
for site investigation and corrective action. The
American Petroleum Institute has revised and expanded
several of its recommended practices related to
corrective action. The National Fire Protection
Association has revised its recommended practices on
release investigation and emergency response.
IMPLEMENTATION AT THE STATE AND FEDERAL LEVELS
Federal UST program staff and managers, particularly in the
Regions, should actively encourage implementation of this
directive in the course of their routine work with states.
Consistent with OUST's goals of building state capabilities and
streamlining corrective action programs, providing direct support
for state streamlining efforts will remain a top priority for the
program, state program managers seeking streamlining support
from EPA should direct their requests to EPA's Regional UST
programs.
At a minimum, Regional UST program staff should make sure
that each of the state and territorial UST program managers
seriously consider the types of options presented. Regional
staffers can use their routine contacts with state staffers
during grant negotiations and oversight processes to encourage
states to implement this directive. One possible way to
encourage implementation of the directive is for regions to
negotiate with states to address appropriate improvement
opportunities identified in the directive as a task in their
cooperative agreement workplans. Regions can also encourage
states to investigate and develop additional improvements on
their own or in the context of EPA-sponsored streamlining
projects.
Although the main intent of the directive is to facilitate
the streamlining of state and local programs, any EPA staff
member who is implementing the federal rules, on tribal lands for
example, should make use of the procedures outlined in this.
directive wherever they are appropriate. This will have benefits
for the EPA staff—giving them direct experience with streamlined
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE 9650.13
processes and thereby helping them form the base for evaluating
and promoting the use of these procedures in states. Like state
staffers, these EPA staff should also work on their own processes
as much as possible to identify and act on other opportunities
for improvements.
As the corrective action programs in more states make
progress streamlining their processes, the long-term results
should be faster, more protective, and lower cost cleanups, as
well as reduced cleanup backlogs and lessened adverse economic
impacts. In the near term,, successes will be more modest.
Continuing efforts to streamline program administration and to
revise state policies, guidance, or regulations that encourage or
require streamlined response procedures will represent some
initial indicators of progress. An.existing indicator of
progress is the fact that one state using streamlined procedures
has already documented a major reduction in the average time
needed to complete cleanups performed there.. It takes time,
effort, and, in some cases, additional state authorities to
implement the approaches that are described in this directive in
state programs. Where requirements established under other
national programs, such as permitting air and water discharges,
delay UST cleanups, many improvements will require greater
cooperation among programs at the national level. EPA does not
expect state programs to undergo revolutionary changes
immediately, but it does promote the concept of continuous
improvement.
EXAMPLES OF STREAMLINED IMPLEMENTATION
This part of the directive is an analysis of some of the
release response and corrective action requirements of the
federal UST rules (40 CFR Part 280, Subpart F). For each example
the requirements of the federal rule are briefly summarized in
bold type, and one or more illustrations demonstrate how states
can take advantage of the flexibility in the rule to implement
streamlined response and oversight procedures. The examples are
not exhaustive; they do not cover every requirement of Subpart F,
nor do they cover all possible options for flexible application
of the regulations. They do illustrate a range of possibilities
that can be implemented to improve the performance of UST
programs.
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE 9650.13
Reporting Format
EPA requires owners and operators to supply information or
report results of several corrective action activities to the
implementing agancy. (The table at the end of this directive
lists these requirements and citations.) The requirements do not
specify the format of the information. The implementing agency
can use this flexibility to require or allow formats that make
this information transfer more efficient. Much of the
information that is required to make regulatory decisions or to
keep the regulator informed of progress at a site can be put into
standard forms and letters. In some cases, it may be more
efficient for the implementing agency to receive the information
by facsimile, modem, or computer disk instead of by mail or hand
delivery. Release-report forms are commonly used in state
programs nationwide. Standardized-tables and graphs for
corrective action progress reports are not commonly used, but
they could improve the quality of and ..reduce the time for the
progress reviews. The Texas Water Commission is testing an
automated corrective action tracking and expert advisor system
that accepts site data from computer disk files.
Combining Reports
EPA requires owners and operators to submit the reports
listed in Table A within specific time frames or at the direction
of the implementing agency. The implementing agency is free to
make reasonable adjustments in the reporting schedule, thereby
allowing reports to be combined. Combining reports is a
reasonable alternative when it enables agencies to accelerate the
cleanup process, reduce paperwork burdens, or improve the quality
of necessary paperwork while maintaining an appropriate system of
oversight.
Some states have combined reports to reduce the number of
reports they process and to improve the quality of information
they review. Arizona has combined the reports it requires on the
initial site characterization and investigation. Many states
allow owners to include information on free-product removal in
other reports (such as the site characterization report). New
information on characterization and removal progress is also
incorporated into other required documents (such as the
corrective action plan). Several states integrate the site
assessment plan with the corrective action plan to streamline the
process and improve the quality of the site assessment. For
these states it is easier to determine the adequacy of a site
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE 9650.13
assessment when it is reviewed for its ability to support a
proposed corrective action. The states that have adopted this
approach (Minnesota, for example) worked with site assessment
contractors for several years to develop clear guidance on site
assessment practices. These states have often found that
Consultants Days have helped them gather feedback on their
processes and communicate their requirements to contractors and
consultants.
Groundwater Classification.
Section 280.63, Initial Site Characterization, Subsection
(a), requires the owner/operator to submit data from available
sources and/or site investigations on groundwater uses unless
directed to do otherwise by the implementing agency. Some states
(e.g., Connecticut, Delaware, Kansas) have streamlined this
process by producing maps showing grbundwater use and
sensitivity. Their regulations covering remediation goals and
reporting requirements and .their guidance are keyed to the mapped
groundwater classification zones. These approaches help states
make quick, site-specific decisions and reduce reporting burdens
by using existing data (i.e., maps) that they can access very
quickly.
Initial Site Characterization Data Sourcea
Section 280.63, Initial Site Characterization, subsection
(a) requires owners and operators to assemble information about
the site and the nature of the release unless directed to do
otherwise by the implementing agency. The regulation describes
the general types of data to be reported, but does not list
specific data elements to be gathered, or specify how they should
be gathered. Also, the regulation does not require that the data
be gathered in a discrete step (i.e., sometimes data from other
steps may be used to satisfy this requirement). Data on the
nature and extent of contamination are often collected while
confirming- a release or abating immediate hazards. Often these
data are collected with field measurement techniques such as
headspace analysis (i.e., the polyethylene bag sampling system)
and soil vapor surveying. If used properly, these techniques can
help describe the nature of a release and estimate its quantity
without laboratory analysis. Cleanup can then begin without
waiting for results from these laboratory analyses.
8
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE 9650.13
Identifying Immediate Hazards
Section 280.63, Initial Sit* Characterization, Subsection
(b) directs owners and operators to submit the initial site
characterization information within 45 days of confirming a
release or another reasonable time period determined b; the
implementing agency. The time frame for submitting this
information may be longer if these data are to be submitted along
with additional data or reports at a later date; it could be
shorter for cases in which hydrologic conditions warrant rapid
response. New Mexico and Ohio use these data to support a
prioritization ranking that quickly identifies immediate hazards.
The data needed for ranking the site are well defined and easily
collected. New Mexico requires that this activity be completed
within 7 days. Where reporting requirements are relatively
simple, well defined, and clearly communicated, accelerated
reporting schedules can help eliminate delays, making cleanups
more effective.
Free-Product Removal
Section 280.64, Free-Product Removal, requires owners to
remove free product to the maximum extent practicable as
determined by the implementing agency, in achieving this, owners
and operators must minimize the spread of the contamination into
previously uncontaminated zones. Owners and operators also must
submit a free-product removal report within 45 days unless
directed to do otherwise by th« implementing agency. The
regulations provide substantial flexibility to implementing
agencies on procedures for removing free product. This
flexibility may be exercised when making decisions on:
o The criteria for determining the presence of free
product: and its extent,
o The methods for preventing its migration and for its
removal, and
o The necessity and content of any reports.
New Mexico limits initial free-product removal actions to
sites where the free-product accumulation is thicker than 1 inch.
When free product is less than 1-inch thick. New Mexico requires
that it be addressed as part of an overall groundwater corrective
action plan. The state determined that their subsoils which have
a high clay content tended to limit the migration of free
product. In addition, the state concluded that common free-
product removal techniques would not be highly effective at such
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE 9650.13
sites. Instead, these techniques sometimes made thorough
cleanups more difficult and expensive because they could smear
product through the subsurface, binding much of it to soil
particles. Therefore, at sites with less than an inch of free
product, the state decided that addressing free-product recovery
somewhat later, as part of a comprehensive corrective action
plan, was more practicable as well as more protective and cost
effective.
Field Measurements
Section 280.65, Investigation for Soil and Oroundvatar
Cleanup, requires owners and operators to conduct investigations
of, and submit information on, the release, the release site, and
the surrounding area possibly affected by the release under any
one of four conditions: (l) there is evidence that groundvater
wells have been affected; (2) recovery of free product is
necessary; (3) there is evidence that contaminated soils may be
in contact with groundvater; or (4) the implementing agency
requests an investigation, based on the potential effects of
contaminated soil or groundvater on nearby surface vater and
groundvater resources.
The regulations do not specify measurement techniques for
investigating the release and impacts from the release. Most
state programs currently require laboratory analyses for this
investigation, but field measurement methods are now available
that can improve the quality of the investigation and eliminate
delays caused by laboratory processing time. Field-measurement-
based investigations typically rely on a variety of measurement
methods including: field gas chromatography; the polyethylene bag
sampling system (Lab-in-a»Bag); the Hanby colorimetric method;
the Draeger extraction method; immunoassay photometric methods;
soil vapor analyses for hydrocarbon compounds, carbon dioxide,
and oxygen; and analysis for dissolved oxygen in groundwater.
Using field methods instead of laboratory analyses,
investigators can analyze more samples, more quickly, and at a
lower cost and then use the results to select additional sampling
points. In some cases, such as confirming a release, field
measurements may be sufficient. In other cases, such as
measuring progress toward cleanup goals as work proceeds,
additional laboratory analyses may be needed to confirm the
results from the field analyses. To use field measurement .
investigations, implementing agencies may have to produce or
10
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE 9650.13
revise rules or guidance, and ensure that consultants and
regulators are adequately trained.
Corrective Action Plans
Under Section 280.66, Corrective Action Plan, the
implementing agency may require owners and operators to submit
additional information or develop and submit corrective action
plans. If a corrective action plan is required, ovners and
operators are responsible for submitting a plan that provides for
adequate protection of human health and the environment as
determined by the implementing agency. The implementing agency
will approve the corrective action plan only after ensuring that
the implementation of the plan will adequately protect human
health, safety, and the environment. Upon approval of the
corrective action plan or as directed by the implementing agency,
owners and operators must implement the plan, including
modifications to the plan made by the implementing agency.
Unlike other sections of the UST corrective action
regulations where owners and operators are required to conduct
certain cleanup and reporting steps if specific conditions exist
at their site, this section requires action by the owner only if
requested by the implementing agency. The implementing agency's
request for corrective action planning can be based on the
characteristics of specific sites (e.g., review of a site
assessment report) or based on a policy or set of criteria that
applies to a large number of sites (e.g., action levels,
hydrogeological conditions, or site conditions such as
contaminated groundwater). This flexibility allows the
implementing agency to target its review of corrective action
plans to sites at which oversight is needed most.
Implementing agencies may determine that review of site-
specific plans will not improve the timeliness or effectiveness
of the corrective action, for example, where releases pose little
threat to human health and the environment or where cleanup will
be relatively simple. In such cases, implementing agencies may
choose not to require submission of corrective action plans. As
an alternative, agencies may direct owners and operators to
proceed with cleanup according to an acceptable standardized
approach (e.g., in clear guidance, regulation, or a consensus
code) that serves as a plan. However, even in those
circumstances, owners and operators may still find a site-
specific plan necessary, for example, to meet reimbursement fund
11
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE 9650.13
requirements or to understand specifically what services he or
she will be purchasing.
Few states are currently taking full advantage of the
flexibility available in this section of the regulation; however
given the current workloads, this is an area with many
streamlining opportunities. Many states already use priority
ranking systems to determine which sites to address first. Some
of these same ranking systems can be used to determine the
required content of corrective action plans. Implementing these
approaches requires mutual respect and cooperation between the
implementing agency and the regulated community, coordination of
the policies of regulatory and funding agencies, and clear and
specific goals for protecting human health and the environment.
The scenarios that follow illustrate how the flexibility in
the rule can be used in four different sets of circumstances when
implementing agencies may or may not .require corrective action
plans or continued active remediation. '.
I? - The implementing agency wants to review a
corrective action Plan for additional cleanup, in this scenario,
the implementing agency defines the criteria for determining the
level of oversight requir«id. Sites that will generally require
the preparation and review of corrective action plans may
include: sites where the groundwater has been contaminated; sites
where the owner or operator plans to use a particular technology
(e.g., bioremediation) ; sites where the contractor has little
experience with the selected technology; or sites where National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) , reinjection, or
air discharge permits are required. Connecticut requires site-
specif ic corrective action plans for only those sites for which
it has issued a notice of violation for groundwater
contamination. As with other reports, the corrective action plan
can be combined with other reports, such as the surface water
discharge plan of the NPDES permit. In addition, states can
request simpler or more generic plans for certain types of
corrective actions (e.g., for sites where only soil is
contaminated).
Scenario 2: The implementing agency decides that further
corrective action is needed but that submission of a corrective
action plan is not warranted, in many situations (e.g., cleaning
up shallow soil contamination) , the need for oversight may be
minimal when adequate cleanup guidance documents exist and when
12
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE 9650.13
the cleanup contractors understand what the implementing agency
expects. If the responsible party is pursuing corrective action
and is making- adequate progress, the submission and review of a
corrective action plan by the implementing agency may not be
necessary, and may only slow down the cleanup process. However,
the responsible party needs to be able to demonstrate that the
corrective action is meeting specified performance goals (e.g.,
annual reduction in benzene, control of contaminant movement) on
a schedule set by the implementing agency.
Before it can begin to use this approach, the implementing
agency must first provide guidance on how it will determine if
cleanups are progressing adequately, how progress reports will be
formatted, and when reports will be due. Wisconsin reviews
corrective action plans for only those sites where drinking water
is threatened. For other sites, Wisconsin sends the responsible
parties detailed cleanup guidance and asks them to submit reports
when their corrective actions are complete. Many programs lack
the staff necessary to provide timely reviews of all the plans
and reports currently required. Therefore, this approach can be
more protective because it allows many cleanups to proceed at
sites where they would otherwise be stalled; awaiting approvals
of unnecessary site-specific documents.
When state cleanup reimbursement funds are involved, the
responsible party may be required to show that the chosen
corrective action method is cost-effective and that the
contractor's fees are appropriate.
Another possible approach for these sites is to substitute
an exposure or risk assessment for the corrective action plan
documenting that site-specific conditions do not warrant further
cleanup. Deed restrictions or other types of notices to inform
future property owners of the existence of residual contamination
can be incorporated into the corrective action to ensure that
contamination left at the sites does not become a threat to human
health and the environment because of a change in land use.
Scenario 3. The implementing agency requires monitoring but
no additional corrective action. At many sites the migration of
contamination is unlikely; however, the contamination could move
and become a threat to human health and the environment. This
uncertainty can be reduced by monitoring the levels of
contamination for a period of time to demonstrate that the
contamination is not moving or increasing and is not a
significant threat. A monitoring-only alternative may be
13
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE 9650.13
appropriate for UST sites where: t;he groundwater is deep and the
contamination is confined to shallow soil, yet a concern exists
as to potential exposure; the groundwater is not suitable now or
in the foreseeable future for drinking; or the yield of the
aquifer is so low that pumping groundwater for public or domestic
uses is highly unlikely. In these situations, monitoring for
some period of time will help demonstrate that the contamination
will not impact human health or the environment. Minnesota
allows this option, and Ohio has proposed a rule change that
would allow it under some circumstances.
Scenario 4. The implementing agency does not require
additional corrective action. An UST removal or closure report
may be enough to document that human health and the environment
are protected if the contamination was excavated during tank
closure. An exposure or risk assessment can be used to
demonstrate that no further action is needed to protect human
health and the environment. In addition, no further action is
appropriate if the contamination does not exceed action levels
established by the implementing agency. Illinois and other
states have incorporated this policy into their programs.
CONCLUSIONS
To meet our mandate for protecting human health and the
environment from hundreds of thousands of releases requiring
corrective action, more state and local agencies need to embrace
regulatory innovations, improved technologies, and streamlined
administrative processes. This directive identifies several
opportunities for streamlined implementation of the federal
release response and corrective action regulations based on their
flexibility. Each option will not be appropriate for all
programs; however, many other opportunities for streamlining
exist that are not explicitly mentioned in this directive.
A few programs that have worked aggressively at streamlining
for several years have made some dramatic improvements. Their
experience proves that cleanups can be started and completed much
more rapidly. They also have demonstrated that it is possible to
provide effective oversight at a large number of sites while
reducing red tape and paperwork. Finally, many states have
reaped significant benefits from communicating and working more
effectively with their "suppliers and customers"--contractors,
consultants, tank owners, and operators. However, even in the
most advanced programs, additional improvements (e.g., cost
14
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE 9650.13
reductions) are possible and necessary in order to meet the
programs' goals with the resources that are likely to be
available.
This directive, in itself, will not be adequate to stimulate
the needed innovations and improvements. It is essential for
both Headquarters and Regional UST program offices to promote
streamlining aggressively and to lead by example, using
streamlined approaches whenever possible. However, the success
of the program depends primarily on the states and other
implementing agencies. EPA will provide all possible support to
help them meet the many challenges posed by the large number of
UST corrective actions.
15
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE 9650.13
Section of
Regulation
280.61(a)
280.62(b)
280.63(b)
280.64(d)
280.65(a)
Reporting Requirements in the Federal Release Response
and corrective Action Regulations
Report
Initial Response
Initial Abatement
Initial Site
Characterization
Free-Product Removal
Investigation for Soil
and Groundwatsr Cleanup
Submittal Schedule
Within 24 hours of release
confirmation or within another
reasonable time period determined by
the implementing agency
Within 20 days of release
confirmation or within another
reasonable time period determined by
the implementing agency
Within 45 days of release
confirmation or another reasonable
time period determined by the
implementing agency
Within 45 days of confirming a release
unless directed to do otherwise by the
implementing agency
Report as soon as practicable or in
accordance with a schedule set by the
implementing agency
280.66(a)
280.66(c)
Corrective Action Plan
Results Monitoring and
Evaluation
As required by the implementing
agency after the Initial Site
Characterization report
As directed by the implementing
agency
16
-------
------- |