United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency Response
Washington, DC 20460
9202.1-24
PB95-963203
EPA 540-R-94-069
February 1995
Superfund
&EPA Superfund Administrative
Improvements Closeout Report
June 23,1993 - September 30,1994
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
9202.1-24
PB95-963203
EPA 540-R-94-069
February 1995
Superfund Administrative
Improvements Closeout Report
June 23,1993 - September 30,1994
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460
-------
If you wish to obtain additional copies
of this document, contact:
National Technical Information Service (NTIS)
U.S. Department of Commerce
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
(703) 487-4650
-------
Contents
Introduction 1
Executive Summary 2
Acronym List 7
Initiative 1: Greater Use of Allocation Tools 9
Savage Municipal Water Supply Well- Region 1 12
Bofors Nobel, Inc. -Regions... 14
Initiative 2: Foster More Settlements with Small Volume Waste Contributors 16
Solvent Recovery Service of New England-Region 1 19
American Chemical Services, Inc. - Region 5 21
Initiative! Greater Fairness for Owners at Superfund Sites 23
Publicker Industries, Inc. -Regions 25
Initiative 4: Evaluate Mixed Funding Policy 27
Bypass 601 Ground Water Contamination - Region 4 30
Jacksonville Municipal Landfill/Rogers Road Municipal Landfill - Region 6 32
Initiatives: Streamline and Expedite the Cleanup Process 34
BFI-Rockingham Landfill Site - Region 1 37
Indian Bend Wash South Site-Region 9 39
Initiatives: Develop Soil Screening Levels 41
Initiative?: Implement an Environmental Justice Strategy for Superfund Sites 43
Diamond Alkali- Region 2 48
Initiatives: Early and More Effective Community Involvement 50
Pine Street Canal Site - Region 1 53
Ralph Gray Trucking Company Site-Region 9 55
Initiatives: State Deferral of Certain Site Categories 57
BlackwellZinc-Region6 60
Gilbert and Mosley Site-Region 7 62
in
-------
Initiative 10: Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model 64
Annie Creek Mine Tailings Site - Region 8 66
Initiative 11: Construction Completions 68
Initiative 12: Contracts Management 70
Initiative 13: Enforcement First 72
Initiative 14: Accelerate Cleanup at Base Closures 74
Initiative 15: Promote the Use of Innovative Technology 77
Initiative 16: Compliance Monitoring 80
Initiative 17: Improve the Effectiveness of Cost Recovery 82
References 84
IV
-------
Introduction
In June 1993, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced a series of initiatives designed
to strengthen the Superfund program prior to its reauthorization. The Superfund administrative improvements
initiatives have improved the pace, cost, and fairness of the Superfund program, and have expanded public
involvement.
The Superfund Administrative Improvements Final Report, June 23,1993, contained 17 initiatives and specific
goals and milestones to improve the Superfund program. The report established nine new initiatives that:
(a) increase enforcement fairness and reduce transaction costs; (b) improve cleanup effectiveness and
consistency; (c) expand meaningful public involvement; and (d) enhance the state role in the Superfund
program. In addition, EPA adopted eight continuing initiatives that improve the efficiency, effectiveness,
and fairness of the Superfund program.
This Superfund Administrative Improvements Closeout Report provides background on the development
of the administrative improvements and each of the 17 initiatives and reports on the progress made
between June 23, 1993, and September 30, 1994. Specifically, this report provides a description of the
initiatives, a summary of the achievements or performance of the milestones, the benefits of each initiative,
and the "lessons learned" by Agency personnel through implementing the initiatives. Special focus is
placed on the new initiatives, which are augmented by case studies to illustrate tangible results achieved.
This report begins with an executive summary that provides an overview of the progress made under the
administrative improvements program. The report then discusses each initiative and presents case studies,
where appropriate, describing the success of the initiative. In addition, the report provides a reference
section listing documents that were milestones under the initiatives and reports that are cited in the
initiatives.
-------
Executive Summary
Background
Responding to growing concern over public health and environmental threats due to uncontrolled releases
of hazardous materials, Congress passed the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980. CERCLA, known as Superfund, established a program to identify
and clean up hazardous materials spills and contaminated sites. EPA administers the Superfund program.
During the 14 years that the Superfund program has been in existence, EPA and other Superfund
stakeholders have made significant progress toward reducing risk to human health and the environment
from releases of uncontrolled hazardous substances. EPA has evaluated over 35,000 sites that may pose
risks, conducted over 3,700 early actions to protect the public and the environment, and has completed
construction of cleanup remedies at 278 of the Nation's worst hazardous waste sites.
EPA recognizes, however, that certain aspects of the Superfund program have also generated criticism.
Specific criticisms have focused on the pace and cost of cleanup, the degree to which sites are cleaned, the
fairness of the liability approach, the role of states in the process, and the ability of local communities to
have meaningful participation in the process, particularly disadvantaged and minority communities.
To improve the Superfund program, EPA established the Superfund Administrative Improvements Task
Force, a group of representatives from the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response; the Office of
Enforcement; the Office of General Counsel; the Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation; the Office of
Administration and Resources Management; the Office of Research and Development; Region 2; Region
5; Region 9; and the Department of Justice. The task force, chaired by the Superfund Revitalization
Office, solicited ideas from both Agency personnel and outside stakeholders, including industry, environmental
groups, community groups, and Congressional staff, to develop options for strengthening the Superfund
program.
The Superfund Administrative Improvements Task Force developed recommendations for the Superfund
program that were approved by the Superfund Steering Committee. In developing the initiatives, the task
force focused on issues of most concern to the Administration, Congress, and the public. A key criteria
for selection was the ability to implement the improvement without changing the statute. Priority was
given to actions that could be implemented before September 30, 1994.
To provide oversight for key Superfund administrative and legislative issues, the Administrator established the
Superfund Steering Committee. The committee, chaired by the Deputy Administrator, focused primarily
on Superfund reform legislation. The committee included senior officials from the EPA Headquarters
offices represented on the task force, as well as the Office of Congressional and Legislative Affairs,
Region 2, Region 3, Region 6, and the Department of Justice. The committee reviewed task force
recommendations and provided advice on the appropriate initiatives to adopt.
The goals of the new initiatives adopted by the Agency fall into four themes
• Increasing enforcement fairness and reducing transaction costs
• Improving cleanup effectiveness and consistency
• Expanding meaningful public involvement
• Enhancing the state role in the Superfund program
-------
The task force also considered several ongoing initiatives established to increase the efficiency, effectiveness,
and fairness of the Superfund program. Eight of the ongoing initiatives met the criteria for administrative
improvements. To maintain focus on these ongoing initiatives, the Agency adopted them as administrative
improvements. These initiatives include
,,'
• Implementing the Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model '
• Increasing construction completions \
• Improving contracts management
t
• Promoting "Enforcement First"
• Accelerating cleanup at military base closures *
• Promoting use of innovative technology i
• Improving compliance monitoring f
• Enhancing the effectiveness of cost recovery
To accomplish the goals and action items set forth in the adopted initiatives, EPA Headquarters and
Regional offices each developed implementation plans. These plans enabled the Agency to focus on the
actions necessary to ensure the consistent and successful accomplishment of each administrative improvement.
Progress under each initiative was tracked through administrative improvements quarterly reports. The
final quarterly report, covering performance from June 23, 1993, to September 30, 1994, was issued on
December 23, 1994. In addition, performance narratives for each initiative are included in this report
beginning on page 9.
Overview of Progress
The Agency, in coordination with Superfund stakeholders, was successful in achieving or exceeding most
of the goals and targets it set for itself by the September 30,1994, deadline. In two key areas of performance,
construction completions and de minimis settlements, EPA exceeded targets that had been set at significantly
higher levels than historical performance.
In total, EPA established 4 numerical performance targets, 108 action items with deliverables or due
dates, and 13 action items of an ongoing nature. As of September 30, 1994, EPA had: (a) exceeded all 4
of the numerical performance targets; (b) completed 90, and was still addressing 13, action items with
deliverables or due dates; and (c) was continuing to implement all 13 action items of an ongoing nature.
In addition, Agency efforts on many of the administrative improvements themes and initiatives have
moved beyond the goals and milestones set in the June 23, 1993, Superfund Administrative Improvements
Final Report. Highlights of the Agency's accomplishments and progress are presented below.
Increasing Enforcement Fairness and Reducing Transaction Costs
To increase the fairness of enforcement actions and to reduce transaction costs, EPA developed specific
settlement tools to facilitate the process of allocating responsibility for site costs. These tools serve to
decrease transaction costs, increase allocation efficiency, and identify factors to consider when allocating
response costs among potentially responsible parties.
To address the cost and liability concerns of small waste contributors, EPA encouraged earlier and
expedited settlements and reduced the transaction costs by using de minimis settlements. In addition,
the Agency is improving fairness for owners and prospective purchasers of Superfund sites.
-------
Specifically, the Agency
• Employed non-binding liability allocation techniques and alternative dispute resolution at over 20
sites, receiving favorable reviews from potentially responsible parties
• Issued a report on currently used allocation methods and allocation implementation issues to
facilitate future settlements
• Completed 86 de minimis settlements with over 5,500 potentially responsible parties at 69 sites in
the last two years, which is more than the total number of de minimis settlements obtained in the
prior history of the Superfund program
• Reached settlements at six mixed-funding pilot sites (mixed work was utilized at five sites and
preauthorization was utilized at one site)
• Issued supplemental federal lien guidance that specifies procedures for owner notice and comment
Improving Cleanup Effectiveness and Consistency
The Agency reduced the cost and the duration of site cleanup by standardizing the approach taken at
certain types of sites (presumptive remedies). EPA also reached out to affected parties in developing and
testing soil screening levels to further reduce costs at Superfund sites.
In advancing cleanup effectiveness and consistency, the Agency
• Issued guidance on general policy and procedures for presumptive remedies for municipal
landfills and volatile organic compounds in soil
• Implemented presumptive remedies at five municipal landfills and two sites with volatile organic
compounds in soil
• Observed benefits from the use of presumptive remedies including streamlined feasibility study
analysis, streamlined negotiations due to potentially responsible party acceptance, focused
sampling and risk assessments for municipal landfills, as well as shortened remedial design time
at some sites (At one municipal landfill site, EPA has saved three to six years from the start of the
remedial investigation/feasibility study to construction initiation)
• Issued guidance on dense non-aqueous phase liquid contamination problems and technical
impracticability waivers for ground-water contamination to reflect advances in technical
understanding of ground-water remediation
• Issued draft guidance with methodologies for developing soil screening levels for 107 chemicals
to reduce the time and cost of completing soil investigation
• Completed a desk-top pilot study of ten sites, which determined the comprehensiveness of the soil
screening levels
Expanding Meaningful Public Involvement
The Agency believes that effective community involvement is critical to the success of the Superfund
program. EPA has acted to enhance public participation and understanding at Superfund sites. In
addition, the Agency has placed particular emphasis on developing a proactive environmental justice
strategy to ensure that all communities are part of the Superfund process, including multi-cultural or
lower income communities.
-------
In accomplishing these goals, the Agency
• Arranged a national meeting in September 1993, sponsored by the National Advisory Council on
Environmental Policy and Technology, to listen to citizens' opinions on environmental justice and
community involvement at Superfund sites
• Established the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Environmental Justice Task
Force, which issued a report that greatly expanded the commitment to, and efforts in, addressing
environmental justice issues at Superfund sites
• Identified ten sites for environmental justice initiatives using a possible multi-media approach
• Established community working groups or advisory boards comprised of members of the
community, environmental groups, potentially responsible parties, and city, county, and regional
planning boards, at more than eight sites
• Improved access to funds for citizen groups by issuing simplified Technical Assistance Grant
materials that describe the functions of the grant and how to apply for a grant
Enhancing the State Role in the Superfund Program
Nationwide, there are more hazardous waste sites than EPA alone can address. Many states have developed
sophisticated and experienced cleanup programs to address hazardous waste sites and have already
cleaned up large numbers of sites under their own laws. EPA currently encourages states, territories,
commonwealths, and federally recognized Indian Tribes to address contamination and oversee potentially
responsible party cleanup actions at sites that are not on the National Priorities List. In addition, EPA is
piloting state deferral of National Priorities List-caliber sites.
EPA worked with state associations to
• Develop draft criteria for states to participate in deferral
• Initiate deferral pilots in qualified states (22 sites in 7 states ongoing)
• Establish a work group to address deferral implementation questions and assessed early
state-lead experiences
Continuing Initiatives
Significant progress was made on eight continuing initiatives intended to increase the effectiveness,
efficiency, and fairness of the Superfund program.
The Agency has
• Increased the pace of construction completions at National Priorities List sites. Since the beginning
of FY 1992, construction completions have increased from 61 to 278 at the end of FY 1994
• Streamlined the decision making process and site cleanup through implementation of the
Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model
• Conserved federal tax resources through the use of enforcement authorities. Almost 75 percent of
new cleanup work was initiated by private parties in FY 1994. Private party commitments to site
studies and cleanup work is expected to exceed $1 billion for FY 1994, and the cumulative value
of these commitments since 1980 exceeds $9 billion
• Enhanced the effectiveness of enforcement actions by establishing Regional CERCLA
Compliance Monitoring Procedures, instituting Regional enforcement response policies and
procedures, and developing the Cost Recovery Targeting Report
-------
• Improved outreach and coordination efforts with federal, private, and community stakeholders by
issuing Guidance on Accelerating CERCLA Environmental Restoration at Federal Facilities,
continuing Department of Defense partnerships in innovative technologies, and continuing efforts
to mobilize private firms to participate in additional partnerships on the use of innovative
technologies
• Improved cost control by issuing cost management guidance for remedial and enforcement
Superfund contracting
Conclusions
Overall, the Agency is pleased with the progress made in improving the Superfund program. Significant
steps were taken to address key areas of concern to Superfund stakeholders. The Superfund Administrative
Improvements Task Force identified ambitious yet achievable tasks and targets for implementing the
initiatives. EPA personnel in Headquarters and the Regions and other Superfund stakeholders, detailed in
this report, worked hard to meet or exceed them. In addition, many of the initiatives are already providing
measurable benefits to Superfund stakeholders, public health, and the environment.
Enhancing Superfund performance through administrative improvements required the Agency to refocus
resource utilization. EPA Headquarters and Regions negotiated workload trade-offs to make implementation
of the initiatives possible. Developing tools, guidance, direction, and reports required an "up front"
investment of resources that will provide benefits into the future. Many of the initiatives with ongoing
actions and performance targets require EPA to focus on site activities earlier in the process. The Agency
anticipates that these "up front" investments will produce many benefits in the future, including resource
savings, more cleanups, and more effective public participation.
The charter for the Superfund Administrative Improvements Task Force ended on September 30, 1994.
Many of the efforts that were part of administrative improvements, such as construction completions and
de minimis settlements, remain priorities, and the Agency will continue to set targets and goals for these in
the future. EPA anticipates that public health and the environment will continue to receive measurable
benefits from the administrative improvements efforts in the years ahead.
-------
Acronym List
AA Assistant Administrator
ADR Alternative Dispute Resolution
AOC Administrative Order on Consent
ARCS Alternative Remedial Contracting Strategy
ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances Disease Registry
ATTIC Alternative Treatment Technology Information Clearinghouse
BCT Base Realignment and Closure Team
BRAC Base Realignment and Closure
CAG Community Advisory Group
CD Consent Decree
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980
CERCLIS CERCLA Information System
CERFA Community Environmental Response Facilitation Act of 1992
DNAPL Dense Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid
DOD Department of Defense
DOE Department of Energy
DOI Department of Interior
DOJ Department of Justice
DOL Department of Labor
EDA Economic Development Administration
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FFEO Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
FOSL Finding of Suitability to Lease
FOST Finding of Suitability to Transfer
GIS Geographic Information System
HHS Department of Health and Human Services
HUD Department of Housing and Urban Development
IFMS Integrated Financial Management System
IGCE Independent Government Cost Estimate
KDHE Kansas Department of Health and Environment
LTCS Long-Term Contracting Strategy
NACEPT National Advisory Council on Environmental Policy and Technology
NEJAC National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
NIEHS National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
NPL National Priorities List
ODEQ Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality
OECA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
-------
OERR Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
OSC On-Scene Coordinator
OSRE Office of Site Remediation Enforcement
OSWER Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
PCBs Polychlorinated Biphenyls
PPB Parts Per Billion
PPM Parts Per Million
PRP Potentially Responsible Party
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RD/RA Remedial Design/Remedial Action
RDT Regional Decision Team
RI/FS Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
ROD Record of Decision
RPM Remedial Project Manager
RTDF Remedial Technology Development Forum
SACM Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model
SAFER Streamlined Approach for Environmental Restoration
SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986
SOW Statement of Work
SSL Soil Screening Level
SVE Soil Vapor Extraction
TAG Technical Assistance Grant
TIO Technology Innovation Office
UAO Unilateral Administrative Order
USAGE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
VISITT Vendor Information System of Innovative Treatment Technologies
VOCs Volatile Organic Compounds
-------
Initiative 1: Greater Use of Allocation Tools
Description
In order to reduce the legal and investigative transaction costs potentially responsible parties (PRPs)
encounter in reaching settlement or in allocating responsibility for site costs, the Superfund program
developed the "Greater Use of Allocation Tools" initiative. The Superfund law holds PRPs responsible
for the cost of cleaning up sites. Often a number of parties share responsibility for contamination at a site.
PRPs at these sites frequently incur high transaction costs from litigating when settlement efforts regarding the
allocation of remedial costs are unsuccessful. Several allocation tools currently exist that promote
settlement and reduce the transaction costs associated with achieving settlement. Administrative improvement
milestones encourage the use of three specific tools to help decrease transaction costs for PRPs.
These cost allocation settlement tools fall into three general categories: (a) tools that create proposed
allocations; (b) tools that facilitate the sharing and development of allocation information; and (c) tools
that provide guidance on developing allocations.
The use of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) neutrals greatly facilitates the process of allocating
responsibility among parties at sites. ADR involves a neutral third party who serves at the discretion of
the parties and organizes negotiations, facilitates settlement deliberations, and/or provides an opinion to
the parties to a negotiation.
The sharing of information concerning waste contributed by each PRP with other identified PRPs early in
the Superfund process greatly decreases transaction costs and increases allocation efficiency. It is important
that all PRPs have as much data as possible to assess their relative liability. Releasing information early
in the development of a site is an important means by which the Agency can facilitate the organization of
PRPs and assist them in coalescing their positions.
Allocation guidance helps identify which factors to consider when allocating response costs among PRPs,
including those situations where there is an absence of volumetric information on the waste at a site.
Performance
To better understand and communicate the uses of ADR, including allocations, to support Superfund
program activities, the Agency conducted a national Superfund ADR Workshop in November 1993. The
conference was attended by nearly 100 corporate officials, private legal counsel, ADR service providers,
state agency representatives, EPA staff, and Department of Justice staff. The workshop explored options
for expanding and institutionalizing the use of ADR techniques in the Superfund enforcement process.
The Agency supported the use of nonbinding allocation techniques by PRPs at over 30 sites. Services
provided by EPA staff included exploration of ADR options, convening of parties, design of allocation
processes, identification of qualified neutrals, and provision of contract support and neutral services.
Participating PRPs gave favorable reviews of the allocation process and the Agency's efforts to support
PRP use of ADR.
As part of this initiative EPA attempted to initiate PRP participation in a binding allocation process to
apportion site costs at three sites. Despite the offer of EPA's consultative and financial support for such
efforts, no PRP group agreed to participate in binding allocation.
-------
With regard to tools that facilitate the sharing and development of allocation information, the Agency
issued a memorandum to EPA Regions regarding information release and assistance to PRPs in information
gathering. The memorandum stated that information on PRP waste contribution at Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) sites should be made available to
all PRPs as soon as possible, preferably well before special notice is issued. The memorandum also noted
that Regions should consider releasing information through PRP meetings or directly to PRPs or PRP
steering committees.
On August 12, 1994, the Agency also issued a white paper on the availability of volumetric information
at National Priorities List (NPL) sites and its impact on site settlements. The paper contains findings from
the evaluation of 554 multi-party generator/transporter NPL sites as well as the status and impact of
having complete volumetric information of waste contribution at sites. The major findings of the analysis
indicated that complete volumetric information is available at only 30 percent of the multi-party generator/
transporter NPL sites. Complete volumetric information, however, has only a small positive impact on
achieving settlement with PRPs to conduct the site response action.
EPA is continuing to develop guidance on factors to consider when allocating response costs among
PRPs. These factors will be employed by the Agency, and possibly by PRPs, in reaching allocation
decisions.
On September 30, 1994, the Agency issued a report on currently used allocation methods and allocation
implementation issues that were gathered through interviews with nine parties from across the country
who conduct or participate in allocations.
The report, entitled Developing Allocations Among Potentially Responsible Parties for the Costs of
Superfund Site Cleanups, highlighted three primary findings. First, it is important that the allocation
process is sufficiently flexible to accommodate site-specific circumstances and to advance the ultimate
goal of reaching settlement and reducing transaction costs. Second, the factors selected to apportion costs
in any allocation are a function of the site type, the amount of information available, and the class of
parties participating in the allocation. Finally, the most critical factors in selecting an allocator for a
successful allocation are the neutrality of the allocator and the PRPs' perception of fairness in the process.
These findings enhance the Agency's ability to increase the use of proposed allocation tools.
Benefits
An informal survey of PRP participants involved in the ongoing allocation procedures supported by the
initiative indicates a high level of satisfaction with the use of allocation processes and the Agency's efforts
to support PRP use of ADR methods. PRPs noted several benefits to using an ADR professional to assist
private parties in reaching allocation agreements. Among them are reduced transaction costs attributable to
resolving allocation disputes through private litigation, increased participation in negotiations, and a
heightened level of communication between parties. In addition, PRPs noted the substantial benefit of
having an ADR professional prepare data summaries in complex cases and develop an allocation "straw
proposal" for consideration. There is a general perception that "neutralizing" the process allows for more
open negotiations. The participation of a neutral allocation professional is perceived as benefiting the
allocation effort by expediting resolution, allowing for effective discussions, and reducing the resource
and financial commitment required by all parties. EPA also benefits by reducing its own transaction costs.
The Agency is currently performing an analysis that attempts to quantify the time and resource benefits of
using ADR at Superfund sites.
10
-------
Lessons Learned
Although some Agency resources are expended in supporting the use of allocation tools, it is generally
recognized that this resource expenditure is overshadowed by the increased equity and fairness of the
process for PRPs, and the reduced transaction costs for both PRPs and the Agency.
An informal survey of PRP representatives contacted for participation in the binding allocation pilots
indicates that PRPs view the use of binding forms of ADR for allocation purposes as overly restricting the
settlement discretion of companies, given the large potential financial commitment required at Superfund
sites. Several PRPs stated that EPA's willingness to use an allocation procedure as a method to establish
potential mixed-funding amounts would assist greatly in their willingness to participate in a binding
process.
Contact
David Batson
ADR Liaison
US EPA
Office of Site Remediation Enforcement
(703) 603-9004
11
-------
vvEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
February 1995
Savage Municipal Water Supply Well - Region 1
Background
The use of alternative dispute resolution (ADR)
neutrals greatly facilitates the process of allocating
responsibility among parties at sites. ADR involves
a neutral third party who serves at the discretion of
the parties and organizes negotiations, facilitates
settlement deliberations, and/or provides an opinion
to the parties to a negotiation. ADR can benefit all
parties by lowering transaction costs and avoiding
litigation. At the Savage Municipal Water Supply
Well Superfund site, EPA assisted potentially
responsible party (PRP) allocation efforts through
the use of ADR to facilitate settlement efforts,
lowering the transaction costs of PRPs for whom
ability to pay concerns were an issue. ADR was
also used at the site to educate individuals who,
although not directly involved in the contamination,
were liable due to fraud claims.
Description of the Site
The Savage Municipal Water Supply Well
Superfund site is a 30-acre site that consists of a
former municipal well and the underlying aquifer
from which the Town of Milford, Connecticut
obtained its water prior to the discovery of the
contamination. The Savage Municipal Water
Supply Well operated from 1960 to 1983, during
which time it supplied 45 percent of Milford's
water. Several machine tooling industries opened
plants near the well and the Souhegan River. From
the 1940s until the 1980s, process waters and
wastes from four industrial facilities were released
untreated to the ground or surface waters flowing
through the site. Investigations at the site began in
1983, as part of a state-wide water sampling
program. Contamination was found hi samples and
the well was closed. Following the closing of the
well, the State began investigations to locate the
source of the contaminants, which also were
present in water samples taken at nearby industries.
Ground water is contaminated with volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) and heavy metals. The soil is
also contaminated with VOCs and a stream on site
is contaminated with VOCs and heavy metals.
Implementation
At the Savage Municipal Water Supply Well
Superfund site, ADR, as specified in initiative 1 of
the administrative improvements program, was
used to facilitate settlement and to lower PRP
transaction costs. EPA assisted PRPs in selecting
a neutral ADR professional to work with the PRPs
to resolve allocation issues.
ADR was used at the second of two settlements at
the Savage Municipal Water Supply Well site,
resulting in a cashout settlement resolving both
liability under the Superfund law and fraudulent
transfer claims. The approximately 20 PRPs
involved were mostly passive shareholders
including widows and children of former officers of
a company and were not directly involved in the
contamination; rather they were liable as
12
-------
beneficiaries of fraudulent transfers. The assets of
the company had been transferred in order to avoid
liability claims under the Superfund law. The
fraudulent transfer claims at the site were very
complex and an ADR neutral was deemed helpful in
explaining the nature of those claims to the PRPs.
EPA assisted the PRPs at the second settlement in
selecting a neutral third party. The Agency's chief
motivation in promoting the use of ADR was to
minimize transaction costs. From the beginning,
the PRPs had raised "ability to pay" arguments.
The Agency wanted to ensure that most of the
limited PRP resources would be used for cleanup
of the site and not be spent on negotiations or
protracted litigation. Also, at the time that the
mediation was convened, many of the PRPs were
not represented by counsel. The individual PRPs
felt more comfortable speaking witfi a neutral
mediator than speaking directly with the federal
government. The mediator educated individual
PRPs about the nature of the complicated claims
involved at the site and the extent of each PRP's
liability.
Findings
EPA accomplished two specific goals by
promoting the use of ADR by PRPs at the Savage
Municipal Water Supply Well site. First, ADR
helped lower transaction costs for the PRPs,
thereby allowing PRPs with "ability to pay"
arguments to fund more cleanup efforts, and not
litigation. Second, the Agency was able to send a
clear message to the regulated community that the
fraudulent transfer of assets can not be used as a
successful means of avoiding liability under the
Superfund law. At the same time, the claims at the
site were settled in a manner that attempted to
mitigate the harshness of the liability to individual
passive shareholders.
ADR was an invaluable tool at the Savage
Municipal Water Supply Well site that worked to
lower transaction costs and to educate PRPs about
the nature and extent of their liability. As a result
of using a neutral mediator, a settlement was
achieved whereby limited funds went towards
cleanup and not additional litigation.
Contact
Rona H. Gregory
US EPA Region 1
(617) 565-3051
13
-------
oEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
February 1995
Bofors Nobel Inc. - Region 5
Background
The use of alternative dispute resolution (ADR)
neutrals greatly facilitates the process of allocating
responsibility among parties at sites. ADR involves
a neutral third party who serves at the discretion of
the parties and organizes negotiations, facilitates
settlement deliberations, and/or provides an opinion
to the parties to a negotiation. ADR can benefit all
parties by lowering transaction costs and avoiding
litigation. At the Bofors Nobel, Inc. site, EPA
facilitated the use of ADR by assisting in the
selection of a neutral ADR professional. Due to the
unique nature of the liability at the site, an
extremely large volume of documents containing
confidential business information exists. The ADR
professional assisted potentially responsible parties
(PRPs) in expediting the release of this information
and reaching an allocation agreement.
Description of the Site
Bofors Nobel, Inc., is an 85-acre site at which
various chemicals were manufactured from 1960
to 1987. The plant manufactured chemicals for
sale and pursuant to agreements with other
companies. During this time, the plant's operators
disposed of process water into unlined lagoons. In
1975, the dikes around the lagoons failed, and 2
million gallons of wastewater were released to Big
Black Creek, which is used for recreation. Ground
water, surface water, soil, and sediments at the site
are contaminated with various volatile organic
compounds.
Implementation
At the Bofors Nobel, Inc. site, ADR is being used
to facilitate settlement and lower PRP transaction
costs. EPA helped PRPs select a neutral ADR
professional to assist them in addressing
allocation issues.
Settlement negotiations at the Bofors Nobel, Inc.
site became exceptionally slow, primarily because
of information release issues. Chemicals were
manufactured at the site for dozens of companies
to sell, an arrangement commonly referred to as
"tolling". This arrangement resulted in
voluminous amounts of confidential business
information, which was in turn critical to the
allocation of responsibility for site costs.
Because this information could not be shared
with all parties, allocation efforts at the site
stalled. It became evident that a neutral third
party would be helpful in moving settlement
negotiations forward. A neutral third party could
look at all the data and distribute allocation
information accordingly without releasing critical
confidential business information. The Agency
assisted the PRP group in selecting an ADR
neutral to facilitate information release and assist
in allocation efforts. The Agency suggested
possible ADR neutrals and provided the PRP
group with support to procure a contract with an
ADR neutral.
14
-------
Findings
The mediator is assisting PRPs by cataloging and
distributing site information. The use of this
information is critical to the allocation
deliberations in that it allows PRPs to properly
assess their liability and reach settlement.
The use of ADR at the Bofors Nobel, Inc. site has
led to two direct benefits. First, ADR provided a
major allocation breakthrough and increased the
pace of settlement negotiations. Second,
transaction costs for all PRPs decreased at the site.
Less litigation was encountered with the release of
the confidential business information by a neutral
third party, and PRPs were able to make settlement
offers.
Contact
Larry Johnson
US EPA Region 5
(312) 886-6609
15
-------
Initiative 2: Foster More Settlements with Small Volume Waste Contributors
Description
To provide greater fairness for small volume waste contributors (de minimislde micromis) at Superfund
sites, EPA developed the "Foster More Settlements with Small Volume Waste Contributors" initiative.
This initiative is designed to address three common concerns raised in the context of settlements with
small volume contributors: (a) that they frequently are not able to settle their liability until very late in the
remedy process; (b) that for many sites, volumetric information on waste contributions, used for
establishing eligibility for a de minimis settlement, is not comprehensive; and (c) that de minimis
settlements are time-consuming and resource intensive.
At some sites, there are also very small volume, or de micromis, waste contributors. De micromis parties
are parties whom, as a matter of enforcement discretion, the Agency would not normally pursue, but who
increasingly have been subject to lawsuits filed by major contributors. Consequently, many have requested
EPA assistance in resolving these legal actions.
The goal of this initiative is to encourage more, early, and expedited settlements and to reduce the
transaction costs of all parties. To accomplish this, the Agency planned to: (a) simplify requirements for
determining a potentially responsible party's (PRP's) eligibility for a de minimis settlement and streamline the
process for settling; (b) issue guidance to the Regions on settling with extremely small volume waste
contributors (de micromis parties) and move aggressively to settle with de micromis parties who are
subject to contribution actions by major waste contributors; and (c) establish a communication strategy to
assist small volume waste contributors in understanding the de minimis and de micromis processes.
Performance
First, the Agency issued guidance to streamline the de minimis settlement process by simplifying the
minimum information a Region must have before offering a de minimis settlement. The guidance also
provided a method for constructing payment matrices in appropriate circumstances and encouraged
Regions to take a more active role in facilitating the de minimis settlement. By streamlining the process,
the guidance should serve to increase the number of early, expedited settlements and reduce transaction
costs of all parties.
Second, the Agency established a new policy for assisting de micromis contributors who have been sued
by other parties at a site. By using EPA's existing settlement authority in an expeditious manner, the
Agency can resolve the liability of de micromis parties so they may gain the full extent of contribution
protection available under the statute. The new guidance provides both site-specific examples of when a
de micromis settlement might be appropriate and a matrix for calculating settlement payment amounts.
The Agency also issued a communications strategy, including a model notice letter, for the Regions' use
in assisting and informing de minimis and de micromis parties who may be unfamiliar with the Superfund
process. The communications strategy recommends a variety of approaches to ensure successful
communications with both de minimis and non-de minimis parties prior to, during, and following de minimis
settlement negotiations. It contains a brochure that describes the basics of the Superfund program and the
de minimis settlement process. The brochure is included in mailings to de minimis parties, distributed at
PRP meetings, and provided to elected officials as introductory information about de minimis settlements.
16
-------
Effective communication early in the settlement process with all concerned parties can serve many useful
functions, including limiting transaction costs, improving the chance of acceptance of the settlement offer,
and fostering better relationships with Congress and the public.
As part of the Agency's ongoing settlement process, EPA completed 43 de minimis settlements with over
1,500 PRPs at 30 sites in FY 1993. EPA also completed 43 de minimis settlements with more than 4,000
PRPs at 39 sites in FY 1994.
Under this initiative, EPA Headquarters is continuing to review sites submitted by the Regions for FY
1995 de minimis (including de micromis) settlements.
Benefits
One of the most significant benefits of this initiative was the repose it provided for thousands of PRPs at
Superfund sites. As a result of the negotiated settlements, over 5,500 small business and other
contributors of small amounts of waste to the Superfund sites (de minimis and de micromis parties) have
been removed from the Superfund enforcement and cleanup process. This substantial reduction in the
numbers of parties reduced the transaction costs of ongoing litigation and settlement efforts and, thereby,
the eventual total site cleanup costs. The parties who settled avoided the transaction costs that they would
have incurred had they stayed in the process. The reduction in the number of parties also reduced the
transaction costs for EPA and those parties who remained in the settlement and cleanup process.
The achievement of these settlements also helped satisfy the Congressional and Agency goals of
providing more fairness and equity to all parties in the Superfund cleanup process. In addition, the
experience gained by Agency staff, in cooperation with Department of Justice staff, will improve EPA's
ability to achieve similar settlements with small volume waste contributors in the future.
The Agency's ability to achieve these benefits was enhanced by the Headquarters guidance on
streamlining de minimis and de micromis settlements. The process was also made more efficient by the
Headquarters communications strategy for assisting de minimis and de micromis parties at sites. The
guidance served to standardize the settlement process, resolve issues that arose during the course of
settlement negotiations, and better communicate the goals of de minimis settlements.
Lessons Learned
During the course of the FY 1994 small volume waste contributor initiative, some important lessons have
been learned. The foremost lesson was the importance of early and effective communication with major
parties about proposed settlements with de minimis and de micromis parties. The major parties have a
substantial interest in ensuring that the Agency estimates waste contributions by the smaller parties
correctly and that the Agency receives a fair and reasonable settlement from the settling parties (so the
total liability of the major parties will be appropriately reduced). Earlier and more effective communication
with the major parties at sites decreases the likelihood that they will oppose settlements.
The Agency also learned better ways of communicating with small parties, especially at those sites where
more than 100 parties were negotiating concurrently. EPA used innovative communication tools, such as
a toll-free telephone information line, to increase the ability of the smaller parties to communicate with
Agency staff to ask questions and request information. The Agency has also learned how to improve PRP
searches and collect waste contribution data earlier in the process. Moreover, the Agency reduced
transaction costs by encouraging varied and flexible settlement options.
17
-------
Increased focus on the small volume waste contributors, however, required more Agency and Department
of Justice resources. Nonetheless, the Agency believes the benefits of these early settlements with small
parties will produce additional future benefits by reducing the total costs of settlement and litigation, and
by streamlining subsequent settlements and the cleanup process.
Contacts
Jack Winder Nicole Veilleux
US EPA US EPA
Office of Site Remediation Enforcement Office of Site Remediation Enforcement
(202) 260-3061 (703) 603-8939
18
-------
rxEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
February 1995
Solvent Recovery Service of New England - Region 1
Background
To provide greater fairness for small volume waste
contributors (de minimis/de micromis) at Superfund
sites, EPA developed the "Foster More Settlements
with Small Volume Waste Contributors" initiative.
The Region 1 enforcement team effectively applied
the concepts of this Superfund administrative
improvements initiative to achieve an equitable,
streamlined settlement incorporating the factual
circumstances of three different groups of de
minimis potentially responsible parties (PRPs).
Description of Site
The Solvent Recovery Service of New England
site is a 2.5 acre facility in the Town of Southington,
Connecticut. From 1955 to 1991, spent solvents
used for degreasing and other purposes were sent
to the facility by approximately 1,650 businesses.
Disposal practices at the site included lagoon
disposal and open pit incineration. In 1967, lagoon
disposal was discontinued, and the lagoons were
drained and covered with fill. After the lagoons
were closed, waste was burned in open pits on site
or disposed of off site. In 1991, all activities at the
site ceased pursuant to a court order.
The Agency has identified approximately 1,500
businesses and facilities that submitted waste to
the Solvent Recovery Service facility.
Approximately 1,240 of these contributors were
designated de minimis parties, and approximately
eight percent of the waste was sent to the site by
parties that either could not be located or were not
financially viable. Another 256 companies,
representing approximately 425 facilities, will be
responsible for the site cleanup.
Implementation
The approach used by the Region 1 team at the
Solvent Recovery Service site focused on increasing
the amount and improving the quality of
communication with the PRPs. In June 1992, the
EPA team met with all PRPs in a kick-off meeting
and explained the approach that the Agency would
use to reach a settlement. All PRPs were
encouraged to join the steering committee, which
would serve as the point of dissemination of
information. The de minimis agreement that
resulted from this approach totaled $6.7 million
and settled the liability of 880 facilities.
At the Regional team's request, a small
representative group of the steering committee was
formed to represent the concerns of both small and
large parties in negotiations. This negotiating
group was the liaison between the EPA team and
the PRPs. The EPA team spoke with the
negotiating groups, or its members, nearly every
day, and met with the steering committee as a
whole when necessary to resolve issues.
The PRPs were involved in nearly every aspect of
the development of the settlement, including
donating administrative services to compile
mailings and reviewing transaction documents.
19
-------
EPA draft documents were routinely reviewed by
the negotiating group prior to mailing. At one
point, several boxes of transaction information
were found unexpectedly. To avoid delaying the
settlement, the Region 1 team requested and the
PRPs provided temporary staff to review the
documents and enter the information into the PRP
database.
Cooperation was sought to reduce conflict over the
transactions that would form the basis of the PRP's
allocation of liability. Copies of all of the documents
that the Agency had collected to support its case
were released to the PRPs early in the process.
In addition, the PRPs were invited to audit any
information that the Agency was using to allocate
each PRP's liability. Section 104(e) letters, sent to
each PRP, included a printout of the portion of the
database relating to its transactions.
To encourage de maximis PRPs to identify and
involve de minimis parties, the Agency provided
that a portion of the proceeds from the de minimis
settlement would be turned over to the de maximis
PRPs to pay for the removal action that they had
agreed to conduct. This incentive was structured
so that the greater the number of de minimis
parties who settled, the greater the amount of
money the de maximis parties would receive to
cover the cost of the removal action.
Major settlement decisions were made in
cooperation with the PRPs. The Region 1 team
used proposals from the PRPs to determine the
level of waste contribution that distinguished de
minimis and de maximis parties. Similarly, the
premium to be paid by de minimis parties as part of
the settlement and the cost basis of the settlement
were developed from proposals by the PRPs.
Findings
The major success of the Region 1 team in settling
de minimis and de maximis liability at the Solvent
Recovery Service site was a result of open
communication developed between the EPA team
and the PRPs, and the use of settlement initiatives.
The involvement of the PRPs in verifying the
transactions on which determinations of liability
were based virtually eliminated arguments over the
transactions database. The use of PRP proposals
for developing the cut-off for de maximis liability,
the premium, and the cost basis in the de minimis
settlement significantly limited the negotiations
required to achieve consensus on the provisions of
the settlement. Using the steering committee as a
dissemination point for information greatly reduced
transaction costs for both EPA and the PRPs. In
addition, the use of de maximis incentives resulted
in the de maximis PRPs wholeheartedly endorsing
the de minimis settlement and using their resources
to increase participation by the smaller parties.
Overall, the involvement of the PRPs in the full
range of activities, even at the most detailed level
of reviewing records, fostered a sense of
cooperation and trust between the Agency and the
PRPs that led to a settlement of this case in a little
more than two years.
Contact
Gretchen Muench
US EPA Region 1
(617) 565-4904
20
-------
&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
February 1995
American Chemical Services, Inc. - Region 5
Background
To provide greater fairness for small volume waste
contributors (de minimis/de micromis) at
Superfund sites, EPA developed the "Foster More
Settlements with Small Volume Waste
Contributors" initiative. The Region 5
enforcement team demonstrated that effective use
of de minimis guidance and tools can result in
greater equity and fairness at Superfund sites.
Description of the Site
American Chemical Service, Inc. (ACS) recycled
chemicals on a 21-acre site in Griffith, Indiana from
1955 until 1990. Three different facilities were
studied as part of the site: ACS, Kapica Drum, and
an inactive portion of the Griffith Sanitary Landfill.
ACS began as a solvent recovery firm and later
became a chemical manufacturing operation. From
1955 to 1990, wastes produced during operations
were either landfilled, incinerated, or disposed of
off site. In the earlier years, land-filling was the
primary disposal practice. In the early to mid-
1970s, incineration became the primary disposal
practice. Off-site disposal was used increasingly
during the 1980s.
Approximately 1,400 viable de minimis potentially
responsible parties (PRPs) have been identified.
Another 450 have been identified but either cannot
be located or are not financially viable. There are
27 large PRPs who will be responsible for
implementing the remedial design/remedial action
phase of the site cleanup.
Implementation
The Region 5 team used several of the tools
developed as part of this initiative to reach the
settlement with de minimis parties, but also relied
strongly on improved communications. A group
of 190 PRPs formed a steering committee to
conduct negotiations. The PRP group represented
the concerns of both small and large PRPs, and the
EPA team used proposals developed by the PRP
group to settle issues and develop the final
settlements. Approximately 1,006 de minimis
parties signed the settlement for about $26.4
million.
Early in the settlement process, a waste-in database
was developed for waste generators who sent
waste to ACS over the period from 1955 to 1975.
The database incorporated a mechanism to adjust
each party's liability according to the waste
management practices in place at ACS at the time
that waste was shipped to the site. This adjustment
took into account the varying environmental
impacts of different disposal practices. Waste sent
to ACS over the period when landfilling was the
primary disposal practice was weighted more
heavily than waste sent during the later period of
the site's operations when incineration was the
primary disposal practice. The PRP group and
EPA then expanded the database to include
information on generators who shipped waste to
the site between 1976 and 1990. The EPA team
accepted the database as the basis for allocation of
liability.
21
-------
The Region 5 team considered the results of a
national study of de minimis settlement premiums
in determining the appropriate premium to
implement at this site. Using the facts pertaining
to the technical aspects of the probable cleanup
procedure, the team chose a premium of 100
percent that was supported by the national study as
being fair and equitable.
Findings
Involving a relatively small PRP group to formulate
the de minimis settlement had several positive
effects on the time and effort needed to reach
settlement. The small size of the group
streamlined the settlement process, thereby
reducing the EPA resources required to execute the
consent order and address inquiries regarding the
de minimis settlement. The PRP group was deeply
involved in refining the allocation model, thereby
increasing acceptance of the fundamental fairness
of the resulting allocation of liability. Furthermore,
the strong consensus that was achieved within the
PRP group facilitated acceptance of the settlement
conditions by de minimis parties who had not been
part of the group, yet felt that their concerns had
been addressed.
The use of a standardized premium as part of the
settlement also increased acceptance of the
settlement conditions among the participating
parties. Because the premium was consistent with
the results of a national study, EPA was able to
support its choice with examples from other de
minimis settlements. This helped to foster a sense
of fairness among the settling parties regarding the
premium level.
Contact
Steven Siegel
US EPA Region 5
(312)353-1129
22
-------
Initiative 3: Greater Fairness for Owners at Superfund Sites
Description
The "Greater Fairness for Owners at Superfund Sites" administrative improvement initiative was developed
to increase fairness in the application of Superfund authorities. This initiative addressed three major
concerns pertaining to: (a) federal liens; (b) property assessments; and (c) prospective purchaser
agreements. Background on these issues is provided below.
(A) Federal Liens — The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) provided EPA
with the authority to establish a federal lien in favor of the United States on property where Superfund
expenditures have been made. The lien provision was designed to facilitate the United States' recovery of
response costs and prevent windfalls. The Agency guidance on federal liens issued in September 1987
(OSWER Directive 9832.12) did not provide procedures for giving notice to, and receiving comments from,
potentially responsible parties (PRPs).
(B) Property Assessment — Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (CERCLA), an owner of contaminated property is considered a liable party unless the owner
qualifies as an "innocent landowner." To qualify, a property owner must prove that at the time the property
was acquired, he or she did not know, and had no reason to know, about a release or threatened release of a
hazardous substance. The party is further required to have undertaken "all appropriate inquiry" into the
previous ownership and uses of the property. EPA had not established a standard by which to judge "all
appropriate inquiry." The lack of a standard has created uncertainty and has had significant consequences
including hesitancy on the part of lending institutions to provide loans for the purchase of property and to
accept property as collateral, decisions by the private sector to abandon previously developed land, and
payment by businesses for inadequate property assessments.
(C) Prospective Purchaser Agreements — Potential Superfund liability poses a dilemma for prospective
purchasers of Superfund sites when knowledge of contamination prior to purchase prevents their use of
CERCLA's "innocent landowner" defense after acquisition. Prospective purchasers are willing, in some
instances, to conduct or finance some cleanup work in return for a covenant not to sue from EPA. The
current Agency policy limits the use of these covenants to situations where the Agency is planning to take
an enforcement action at a site, and where a substantial benefit not otherwise available would be received
by the Agency for cleanup of the site by the purchaser. At sites where these conditions are not met,
cleanups that could be partially conducted or funded by private prospective purchasers may be left to EPA
to undertake and complete. As a result, contaminated property that could potentially be cleaned up and
used may instead be abandoned.
Performance
As part of the Superfund administrative improvements effort, the Agency issued supplemental federal lien
guidance to improve notification and increase the opportunity for comment on final federal liens under
CERCLA. This guidance states that the Agency should provide notice to property owners, who are PRPs,
that the Agency intends to perfect a lien on their property prior to filing the papers to perfect such liens.
The Agency should also give such property owners the opportunity to be heard through submission of
documentation or by appearing before a neutral EPA official.
EPA also took steps to increase the availability of information to facilitate "all appropriate inquiry".
The Agency identified criteria for "all appropriate inquiry" standards used by other organizations, e.g.,
23
-------
American Society for Testing and Materials, states, and other federal agencies. In addition, the Agency
decided to supplement private efforts to develop standards for conducting adequate property assessments by
providing direction about EPA's publicly available information sources, rather than setting a standard.
These sources include data on permitting and remediation that can be used by the public to obtain
information about the previous ownership and uses of a property.
EPA is increasing its efforts to negotiate agreements that will facilitate or assist in the re-use or development
of contaminated property. The Agency has drafted expanded criteria for evaluating circumstances in which
EPA may provide an administrative covenant not to sue to a prospective purchaser of contaminated
Superfund property, and expects to issue a guidance document in FY 1995.
Benefits
The information collected and guidance issued under this initiative were intended to improve the fairness of
EPA's treatment of owners and prospective purchasers of Superfund sites. This initiative achieves that goal
through greater outreach and communication of statutory requirements to property owners. The clearest
example is the supplemental federal lien guidance that provides for notification before perfecting a lien on a
party's property and affords the owner of the property an opportunity to comment and present information to
defeat the lien. These efforts remove barriers between the federal government and private parties, prevents
the private parties from being surprised by Agency actions, and improves both communication and education.
With regard to the "all appropriate inquiry" requirement, EPA prepared a report that identified criteria for
evaluating standards. Furthermore, EPA, summarized the standards and related materials developed by other
organizations. This report is publicly available and can be a very useful tool for any private party seeking
direction and information on site assessment. EPA's decision not to set an Agency standard also had many
benefits. A number of private professional organizations have been or are in the process of developing
standards for conducting property assessments. EPA's setting a standard could discourage the development
of better property assessment tools by those organizations and agencies with greater expertise.
Lessons Learned
The decision not to develop an EPA standard on "all appropriate inquiry" at this time has both positive and
negative consequences. First and foremost, the lack of an EPA developed or sanctioned standard may still
be of concern to lenders and insurers who may question the reliability of standards developed by private
organizations or other federal agencies. On the other hand, the development of a standard would be
extremely resource intensive.
The prospective purchaser issue was determined to be much broader than that addressed by the
supplemental guidance. Indeed, an entire universe of sites where enforcement actions are not anticipated
remain unaddressed. The barrier posed by potential Superfund liability at these sites prohibits beneficial
economic development. To truly increase the fairness to owners or prospective purchasers of contaminated
property, guidance is needed to address these situations.
Contact
Lori Boughton
US EPA
Office of Site Remediation Enforcement
(703) 603-8959
24
-------
xvEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
February 1995
Publicker Industries, Inc. - Region 3
Background
One of the goals of the "Greater Fairness for Owners
at Superfund Sites" administrative improvements
initiative is to address the concerns of prospective
purchasers. Superfund liability poses a dilemma
for prospective purchasers of Superfund sites when
knowledge of contamination prior to purchase
prevents their use of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act's (CERCLA) "innocent landowner"
defense after acquisition of the property. The
Publicker Industries, Inc. site represents a prime
example where the Agency and a prospective
purchaser worked together to forge a mutually
satisfactory agreement. The prospective purchaser
at the Publicker site has been willing to finance
some of the cleanup work in return for a covenant
not to sue from EPA.
Description of the Site
Publicker Industries is a 37-acre site that housed a
liquor and industrial alcohol distillation process
from 1912 to 1985. In the late 1970s, as production
declined, the company used some of its tanks to
store fuel oils for other companies. The property
was sold in 1986, but the new owner declared
bankruptcy and abandoned the facility shortly after
acquisition. At the time of abandonment, the site
included nearly 440 tanks, storage drums, product
stock, warehouses, a power plant, and several
hundred miles of process lines, some of which
were covered with asbestos. In total, 2 million
gallons of hazardous materials were located at the
site. As a result, soils are contaminated with
volatile organic contaminants and heavy metals.
In December 1990, EPA filed a cost recovery
action against Publicker Industries, Cuyahoga
Wrecking Corporation, and Overland Corporation
to recover government funds spent on the site.
Implementation
A unique redevelopment opportunity exists at the
Publicker Industries, Inc. site due to its location on
the Delaware River and proximity to a major airport,
interstate highways, and rail lines. This
redevelopment potential is clouded, however, by the
possibility of Superfund liability at the site. The
site is Fund-lead because the potentially
responsible parties (PRPs) are either bankrupt or
financially incapable of performing 100 percent of
the work. Cleanup costs are very high and it is
uncertain how much money the Agency will be
able to recover. To date, approximately $15
million has been spent on response actions at the
site. Asbestos disposal work, the final portion of
the site-wide remedial investigation/feasibility
study, and the remedial design/remedial action
remain to be performed. Best estimates at this
time are that an additional $3 million may be spent
for site remediation. Resources from a prospective
purchaser would be most welcome because they
would be used to fund this additional cleanup work.
25
-------
The Agency, along with the State, has negotiated a
prospective purchaser agreement. Under the
agreement, the prospective purchaser would pay
EPA and the State $2.3 million. In exchange, EPA
and the State would provide the prospective
purchaser protection from liability for all current
contamination. With this protection from liability,
the prospective purchaser can move forward with
its plans to develop a state-of-the-art, intermodal
port facility, which, in addition to providing over
500 new jobs, will allow the local cruise and cargo
facilities to compete with other East coast ports.
Findings
The prospective purchaser agreement at the
Publicker site has benefited the Agency, the
regulated community, and the local community in
several ways. Primarily, the Agency has gained
additional funding to finance cleanup at the site.
The local community and economy will benefit
from the redevelopment of the site through the
creation of jobs and return of the land to
productive use. The prospective purchaser also
benefits from this agreement by gaining access to
a prime location for business, without fear of
possible Superfund liability. The local community
will gain because the agreement results in
economic redevelopment and jobs.
Contact
Brian Nishitani
US EPA Region 3
(215) 597-2396
26
-------
Initiative 4: Evaluate Mixed Funding Policy
Description
The Agency uses mixed funding in situations where it is appropriate to recover less than 100 percent of
the site costs from potentially responsible parties (PRPs) in a particular settlement. There are three types
of mixed funding: preauthorization (where PRPs perform the work and the Agency agrees to reimburse
them for a portion of the costs); cashouts (where the PRPs fund a portion of the work that EPA performs);
and mixed work (where the PRP and the Agency perform different aspects of the cleanup).
The Agency obtained the views of organizations and individuals, including PRPs, regarding mixed
funding. Many of those questioned believe mixed funding could be used more frequently at sites with a
significant orphan share (the share of cleanup costs for which no financially viable PRP can be held
accountable). In addition, many of those surveyed noted that the procedures and documentation required
to enter into a mixed-funding settlement, or to assert a claim against the Fund (the Trust Fund established
under the law to finance Superfund cleanups) are burdensome.
In FY 1993, in order to address these concerns, the Agency conducted a two-part evaluation of mixed
funding as part of the Superfund administrative improvements initiative. The first part evaluated several
different mixed-funding options and quantified the cost implications to the Fund. The Agency completed
this phase of the evaluation during September 1993.
The second part of the evaluation explored options for streamlining the mixed-funding decision-making
process, as well as options available under the current preauthorization regulation for streamlining the
application and documentation requirements.
To assist the evaluation effort and gather data on mixed-funding use, the Agency piloted several mixed-
funding settlement demonstration projects in FY 1993 and FY 1994. The Agency began compiling
information about these negotiations and, based on experience and the evaluation of the mixed-funding
demonstration projects, identified opportunities for streamlining preauthorization procedures and
requirements. Any future revisions to EPA's mixed-funding policy will use the results of studies and
demonstration projects.
Performance
To fulfill the requirements of the first part of the mixed-funding analysis, the Agency evaluated the
potential cost of mixed funding in the Mixed Funding Evaluation Report: The Potential Costs of Orphan
Shares (OSWER, September 1993). This report analyzed the cost implications to the Trust Fund if EPA
routinely paid for the orphan share of the costs of the remedial design/remedial action (RD/RA).
If EPA paid the entire orphan share for RD/RA at all enforcement-lead sites (where PRPs perform the
remedy) with an orphan share, Headquarters estimated that the annual cost to the Fund would range from
approximately $150 million to $420 million dollars per fiscal year. For the purposes of comparison, the
Superfund appropriation for FY 1993 was approximately $1.57 billion dollars. At sites where PRPs
perform the remedy, PRPs commit to perform an average of $1.14 billion dollars worth of RD/RA each
year. At sites where EPA performs the remedy, the Agency obligates an average of $474 million dollars
per year to implement the RD/RA.
27
-------
To address the second part of the mixed-funding initiative the Agency evaluated streamlining options in two
areas: the settlement decision-making process, and the application and documentation process for
preauthorization mixed funding. In order to better assist the Agency in evaluating and gathering data on
mixed-funding use, the Agency piloted several mixed-funding settlement demonstration projects.
As part of its effort to streamline the settlement decision-making process, the Agency considered making
changes in the Headquarters consultation and concurrence requirements Regions must follow. After
evaluating the options, the Agency decided that for the pilot sites, Headquarters would grant approval earlier
in the process (i.e., pre-approval) than is done in the standard mixed-funding approval process.
In an effort to streamline the application and documentation requirements of preauthorization mixed
funding, the Agency considered several options including: model preauthorization language to amend
relevant provisions of the model RD/RA consent decree (CD); a simplified model preauthorization decision
document; guidance for PRPs on implementing preauthorized response actions; and a one-day orientation
for technical and management staff on the preauthorization process and roles and responsibilities. For the
preauthorization mixed-funding pilot sites, all of these streamlining techniques were utilized.
EPA Headquarters worked with the Regional offices to identify appropriate sites for mixed funding. In
order to select prospective pilot sites, Headquarters screened an initial list of 23 sites proposed by the
Regions against the following five criteria
• Date by which negotiations would be completed (i.e., could negotiations be completed by March
31,1994)
• EPA's share of the costs
• Benefits of the settlement to the government
• Type of mixed-funding settlement (preauthorization, mixed work, cashout)
• Type of concern that the pilot would address (orphan share, municipal share, divisibility of harm,
innovative technology)
The initial screening focused on whether the negotiations at the site could reasonably be completed by
March 31, 1994. It was important to have an anticipated negotiation completion date in order to have
time to gather and analyze data with respect to the Regions' experience with the streamlined process. A
number of sites fell out because of an uncertain negotiation completion dates. For the remaining sites,
Headquarters conducted conference calls with the Regions to determine the site's suitability as a pilot.
Seven pilot sites were selected. The Regions determined what type of mixed-funding settlement would be
appropriate for a pilot site. A determination that a site was not suitable for the pilot did not rule out the
possibility for a mixed-funding settlement. For these sites, traditional mixed-funding considerations
would be applied to determine whether or not mixed funding would be an appropriate part of the settlement.
The Agency defined "measures of success" in order to evaluate the pilot projects. These measures relate
to the overall number of settlements achieved using mixed funding and the timeliness and quality of the
settlement process. Where the use of mixed funding (either mixed work or preauthorization) resulted in a
case reaching settlement without a large expenditure of resources (such as would be expended going to
trial), the pilot was successful. For purposes of the evaluation, settlement was more than an agreement in
principle; settlement was defined as an agreement on the specific language of a document that embodies
the agreement in principle, with signatures by PRPs.
Several other milestones under the mixed-funding administrative initiative are still underway. EPA will
continue efforts to recommend measures for streamlining preauthorization procedures and requkements based
on the evaluation of demonstration projects. The Agency will also continue to explore the possibility of using
mixed funding based on the evaluation of demonstration projects.
28
-------
Benefits
For the purposes of its pilot, Region 4 concluded that the process was less time consuming than anticipated and
streamlining procedures (e.g., pre-approval, and other preauthorization streamlining) enabled the Region
to maintain more control over, and gain a better understanding of, the process.
With respect to part one of this initiative, the principle benefit of the orphan share cost analysis was that
the Agency estimated the cost of funding orphan shares. The report, therefore, provided a useful baseline
for assessing orphan share funding, which will help to inform future debates on mixed-funding policy.
With respect to part two of this initiative, the results of the pilots indicated, and the Regions participating
in the initiative observed, that the use of mixed funding was effective in helping the Agency reach
settlement at the pilot sites. In total, six cases were settled. Regions negotiating these settlements
observed that mixed funding was a critical element in directing negotiations towards reaching settlement
instead of litigation. In addition, streamlining preauthorization procedures and requirements may make it
less burdensome to implement mixed funding. An added benefit is that expanding the use of mixed
funding may result in more settlements, which may be more equitable. Finally, in some cases, cleanup
will be accomplished earlier with less litigation.
Lessons Learned
From the orphan share report, the Agency learned that expanding the use of mixed funding may create a
significant demand on the Trust Fund, potentially resulting in the delay of cleanups.
The lessons learned from the mixed-funding pilots are primarily site specific, but some overall
conclusions can be drawn with regard to the time and resources required to negotiate mixed-funding
agreements (that is, the effect of the streamlined procedures).
For all of the pilot sites, pre-approval by Headquarters proved to be an efficient and effective way to
involve Headquarters in the process since Headquarters is responsible for approving expenditures from
the Fund. This pre-approval was effective in facilitating the pilot projects.
For the mixed-work pilots, delays in the settlement process were primarily attributable to the drafting of
the CD language and statement of work. Delays could be minimized with the creation of model CD
language for mixed-work settlements just as model language for preauthorization has been drafted.
Survey information demonstrates that, contrary to common perception, preauthorization can be approved
and executed in as little as five months.
Contacts
Denise Ergener Bill Ross
US EPA US EPA
Office of Site Remediation Enforcement Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
(202) 260-3092 (703) 603-8798
29
-------
&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
February 1995
Bypass 601 Ground Water Contamination - Region 4
Background
The Agency uses mixed funding in situations where
it is appropriate to recover less than 100 percent of
the site costs from potentially responsible parties
(PRPs) in a particular settlement. There are three
types of mixed funding: preauthorization (where
PRPs perform the work and the Agency agrees to
reimburse them for a portion of the costs); cashouts
(where the PRPs fund a portion of the work that
EPA performs); and mixed work (where the PRP
and the Agency perform different aspects of the
cleanup).
The settlement reached at the Bypass 601 site
represents an innovative use of preauthorization
mixed funding. Under this preauthorized mixed-
funding agreement, the PRPs agreed to perform
the remedial action while the Agency
preauthorized a claim against the Fund for a
portion of the response costs.
Description of Site
The Bypass 601 site is defined as an area in
Concord, North Carolina, in which ground water is
contaminated by multiple unknown sources. The
Martin Scrap Recycling Facility is a 13-acre
inactive battery salvage and recycling operation
west of Concord that was identified as a potential
source of the ground-water contamination.
Waste at the site was sent by a large and diverse
group of PRPs, including major corporations, state
and municipal governments, and more than 2,500
small businesses and individuals. Of the total 4,200
identified PRPs, Region 4 offered to settle with 115
as de minimis parties and with 2,500 as de micromis
parties under a unique de micromis settlement
procedure. The orphan share at this site consisted
of nearly 75 percent of the total waste present. This
share was attributed to PRPs that either could not
be located or were not financially viable.
Implementation
The sizable orphan share of total cleanup cost,
combined with the high number of de minimis and
de micromis parties at this site created an unfairly
large allocation of cleanup costs to the larger
generators. To reduce the financial burden on
these PRPs, EPA chose to use preauthorization
mixed funding to share cleanup costs. As much as
38 percent of total cleanup costs, or up to $10.1
million, will be paid by EPA, and the remainder by
the larger generators. The funding arrangement
also recovered approximately $4 million in past
EPA costs and was incorporated into a consent
decree signed by 80 of the larger generators.
The Bypass 601 settlement represents the first
settlement in the nation to use the new response
claims procedures regulation codified at 40 CFR
307. To simplify the application process, the
Agency shared sections of draft guidance
documents to help the PRPs prepare the
application. Also, the Agency used streamlined
language in the preauthorization decision
30
-------
document that embodies the terms and conditions
of preauthorization. EPA Headquarters provided
the Region with model consent decree language
necessitated by preauthorization, which simplified
the settlement process.
Findings
The larger generators presented their "good faith"
offer on October 11,1992, and the Agency agreed
in principle on November 1, 1992. The drafting of
the preauthorization mixed-funding application
and its review were completed in three months.
This process was greatly streamlined through the
use of model language for the preauthorization
decision document, and by sharing EPA draft
guidance for completing the document with the
PRPs. The amount of time saved by the use of a
mixed-funding agreement at the Bypass 601 site
cannot be determined because it is the first
settlement of its kind reached under the new
regulation, and, therefore, cannot be measured
against a baseline.
Contact
Seth Bruckner
US EPA Region 4
(404) 347-2641
31
-------
&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
February 1995
Jacksonville Municipal Landfill/Rogers Road
Municipal Landfill - Region 6
Background
The Agency uses mixed funding in situations
where it is appropriate to recover less than 100
percent of the site costs from potentially responsible
parties (PRPs) in a particular settlement. There are
three types of mixed funding: preauthorization
(where PRPs perform the work and the Agency
agrees to reimburse them for a portion of the
costs); cashouts (where the PRPs fund a portion of
the work that EPA performs); and mixed work
(where the PRP and the Agency perform different
aspects of the cleanup).
The settlement at the Jacksonville and Rogers Road
Landfills represents a unique and innovative
application of the mixed-funding initiative of the
Superfund administrative improvements effort.
Falling under the "mixed-work" type of funding,
the settlement of liability for cleanup costs at these
two sites will be shared between the Agency and
the City of Jacksonville, Arkansas, the landfill
operator. The City will use in-kind services to fund
its share of the settlement, with heavy reliance on its
own work force to complete some of the site work.
Description of Site
The Jacksonville and Rogers Road Landfills are
two municipal landfills located near the City of
Jacksonville, Arkansas. The two landfills, which
were operated by the City of Jacksonville, are on
properties located within one-half mile of each
other. Because of the similarities between the
wastes disposed of at each site, they are being
treated as one site. Unknown quantities and types
of wastes were burned in open areas and buried in
unlined trenches at the sites over varying periods
of time from 1953 to 1974. Both landfills were
closed by the State of Arkansas by 1974.
Because the sites were operated as sanitary landfills
and not as permitted Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) disposal facilities, waste
transporters were not required to provide
information regarding generators, waste types, or
quantities. Consequently, the PRP search focused
on identifying the generators most likely to have
sent waste to the landfills.
Implementation
Initially, the Region 6 enforcement team approached
the major PRPs and requested their voluntary
cooperation in the cleanup of the landfill sites.
At that time, the PRPs were unwilling to commit
to funding the cleanup. The EPA team then
approached the State of Arkansas.
Under the provisions of Section 104 of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), the
State would have been responsible for 50 percent
of all costs incurred at the Superfund sites because
they were operated by a political subdivision. The
potential financial liability for the State would
have been approximately $3 to $4 million. The
State indicated that fiscal constraints to its budget
32
-------
would inhibit its ability to fund the cleanup at that
time, and progress toward cleanup was stalled.
The Agency, therefore, began to seek an alternative
solution.
The Region 6 team approached the City of
Jacksonville with a proposal that the City cover a
share of the cleanup costs with in-kind services
using its own labor force. Negotiations between
the Agency and City officials produced two consent
decrees (CDs) covering the settlement of liability
at both landfills. The net value of the City's
participation will exceed 50 percent of the
expected $3.1 million remedial action cost.
During the negotiation of the mixed-funding
agreement, the Region 6 team became aware that
the City labor unions were concerned that its
members would be handling hazardous waste. To
accommodate this concern, the Agency allowed
the segregation of work at the sites into two parts
— hazardous and non-hazardous. The Agency
will perform all work related to hazardous
materials, and the City will perform the remainder
of the work related to the handling of non-hazardous
materials. Additionally, the City sought and was
granted contribution protection from the other
major PRPs. The CDs were signed on December
20, 1993, and entered on June 20, 1994. The
removal and incineration of all hazardous waste
was completed by November 1994, and site
regrading and restoration will be complete in the
near future.
municipalities differently than other PRPs. The
mixed-funding component of the administrative
improvements effort provided the flexibility to
make alternative arrangements to cover a portion of
the cleanup costs for the two landfill sites in this
case where the municipality did not have the
resources to satisfy its financial responsibility under
CERCLA. The Agency was able to adopt a
cooperative role and seek an equitable solution that
provided the City the latitude to meet its financial
responsibilities hi an alternate yet appropriate way.
Using in-kind services allowed the City to preserve
its scarce capital resources while expanding the
employment of its work force. The City was also
willing to agree to the settlement in order to gain
protection from third-party suits and to establish its
image as a cooperative partner in the enforcement
process. As a result, the mixed-work settlement
allowed for the completion of remedial action at the
site in just four months from the time the settlement
was entered.
Contacts
Stephen Gilrein
US EPA Region 6
(214) 665-6710
Kathleen Aisling
US EPA Region 6
(214) 665-8500
Findings
The mixed-work settlement at these sites
establishes an important precedent for treating
33
-------
Initiative 5: Streamline and Expedite the Cleanup Process
Description
The main goal of this continuing initiative is to accelerate cleanups and standardize the cleanup decision-
making process for certain types of sites. Specifically, the effort focuses on standardizing remedial
components at sites and sharing information between sites to expedite the cleanup process. The initiative
also attempts to eliminate duplication of effort, facilitate site characterization, and simplify analysis of
cleanup options. In many cases, the components of this initiative can save time and/or money, while
increasing cleanup effectiveness and consistency of remedy selection.
Performance
Presumptive Remedies: Presumptive remedies are standardized remedies for certain types of sites based
on scientific and engineering analyses performed at similar Superfund sites. The Agency can realize cost
and time savings by using presumptive remedies and limiting analyses during the remedial investigation/
feasibility study (RI/FS) stage.
The development of presumptive remedies includes evaluating technology-implementation data for
similar types of sites and drafting guidance that identifies remedy selection patterns based on the
identified site characteristics. Presumptive remedies encourage streamlined RI/FS processes designed to
implement the presumptive remedy correctly.
• In September 1993, the Agency identified potential presumptive remedies and issued guidance on
general policy and procedures for cleaning up municipal landfills and volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) in soils.
• In September 1993, the Agency developed a draft presumptive remedy guidance for ground water
(which includes dense non-aqueous phase liquids strategy).
• EPA continues to identify sites for evaluating the use of presumptive remedies and has begun
demonstration projects on municipal landfills and sites with VOC contamination in soil. To date,
the Agency has identified seven demonstration sites, including three municipal landfill sites, that
it will survey before issuing the guidance.
• Region 7 developed draft presumptive remedies in October 1994 for three site types:
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), manufactured gas plant, and grain storage contaminated sites.
EPA Headquarters will finalize these drafts based on comments received.
Standardized Specifications: EPA develops remedial designs in response to site-specific characteristics.
Developing and using standardized remedial designs based on research collected on specific types of sites
can reduce cleanup costs and decrease cleanup time.
The purpose of standardized design specifications is to streamline the design process and to foster
uniformity and consistency across projects.
Through an interagency agreement, EPA is partially funding the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE)
development of standardized design specifications for various activities on components of hazardous
waste remediation work. These specification are prewritten to provide generic non-site-specific portions
of the text, while allowing for editing of site-specific sections. After a joint review, USAGE distributes
34
-------
the standardized components to the federal, state, and contractor community through the widely used
Construction Criteria Data Base, which is periodically updated to reflect design improvements and new
field information. Standardized design components include air stripping systems, site clearing and
grubbing, thermal treatment systems, and health and safety requirements. To date, 15 standardized design
documents have been produced and are in use.
Addressing Dense Non-Aqueous Phase Liquids Contamination (DNAPLs): In September 1993, the
Agency concluded a study of the pervasiveness of DNAPLs at Superfund sites. DNAPLs include
contaminants, such as chlorinated solvents, with extremely complex fate and transport characteristics.
These heavy contaminants will not mix with water and typically exist at the bottom of an aquifer. Current
site characterization and cleanup strategies may fail to detect their presence, which can make aquifer
cleanup difficult or impossible using current technologies. The presence of DNAPLs may result in
incomplete site assessments, inadequate remedial design, and increased costs during remedial action, and
may ultimately control the success or failure of ground-water cleanups.
Agency research indicates that approximately 85 percent of all Superfund sites have ground-water
contamination and 60 percent of all Superfund sites are likely to have DNAPL contamination. Under the
DNAPL initiative, the Agency is continuing to develop a comprehensive strategy to detect and address
DNAPL contamination. This strategy focuses on locating contaminant ground-water plumes and DNAPL
sources within plumes, evaluating the extent of DNAPL contamination, and initiating appropriate
responses using a phased approach. The initiative places special emphasis on early actions to prevent
exposure, contain plumes and DNAPL sources, and prevent migration. The initiative also encourages
consideration of innovative technologies to address DNAPL contamination.
In 1994, the Agency conducted technical and policy/training seminars in all ten Regions to examine policy
issues for addressing DNAPL contamination. Over 2,500 participants attended, including representatives
from federal, state, and other regulatory agencies, private and public contractors, potentially responsible
parties (PRPs), and academicians. The Agency also released technical guidance on characterizing DNAPL
sites, and guidance on technical impracticability waivers for sites where complete restoration is not feasible,
including DNAPL sites. EPA continues to monitor the implementation of the guidance.
On August 23, 1993, the Agency issued model consent decree language for DNAPL sites involving
technical impracticability waivers. The language addresses situations where ground-water remediation
will not achieve performance standards and is, therefore, excluded from the Record of Decision by a
waiver of performance standards or the selection of a contingent remedy. The performance-standard
waiver may require further actions, such as operations to prevent migration of the plume or prevent
exposure to contaminated water, and may require PRPs to perform work additional to or different than
that specified in the original statement of work.
Lead Initiative: Lead is a highly toxic metal that can adversely affect the nervous and reproductive
systems, delay physical and neurological development, and retard cognitive and behavioral development.
Lead contaminates many Superfund sites, particularly large-area mine tailing or smelting sites.
On July 14,1994, the Agency issued the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response Revised Interim
Soil Lead Guidance for CERCLA Sites and RCRA Corrective Action Facilities. This directive assists risk
managers in making accurate risk estimates and selecting effective cleanup methods. The lead initiative
takes into consideration the activities and requirements of other Agency offices, such as the implementation
of Title X of the Comprehensive Housing and Urban Development Act of 1992, that requires EPA to
promulgate health-based standards for lead in soil, paint, and dust. The initiative also reflects careful
consideration of strategies for large-area lead sites, and preliminary results from EPA's Three City Study on
lead levels in children's blood.
35
-------
Land Use Initiative: Under the land use initiative the Agency planned to issue a policy clarifying the
role of land use in remedy selection. This component of initiative 5 is on hold and was not completed as
part of Superfund administrative improvements.
Benefits
Standardized decision-making processes and remedies combined with practical approaches to addressing
certain types of contamination allow the Agency to improve cleanup efforts. The initiative's emphasis on
the similarities among sites as opposed to the specifics of each site demonstrates EPA's ability to
capitalize on experience.
The municipal landfill presumptive remedy is expected to show the greatest time and cost savings of the
presumptive remedies since both the characterization and the risk assessment processes are streamlined.
As an example, EPA has saved three to six years at one site in the period from the start of the RI/FS to
construction initiation.
EPA anticipates that the other presumptive remedies will also provide greater consistency and general
acceptability of the remedy by interested stakeholders. Qualitative benefits for presumptive remedies
include: streamlined negotiation due to PRP acceptance, and focused site characterization and risk
assessment.
The DNAPL policy and guidance, which includes guidance on addressing the technical impracticability of
ground-water remediation at DNAPL sites, have resulted in better technical evaluations, more consistent
approaches at sites, and greater protection of public health and the environment due to better site management.
Lessons Learned
EPA has found that efforts to streamline cleanups are most effective when multiple initiatives are applied
(e.g., presumptive remedy and early action) simultaneously on a site-specific basis.
The actual time and cost savings are expected to be dependent on the presumptive remedy as well as other
site-specific factors (stage of the remedy, complexity of the PRP involvement). The effort to quantify
results has been difficult because of the complexity of sites and other compounding factors.
The Agency learned that early communication with stakeholders is critical to the overall success of
streamlining initiatives. This allows stakeholders to understand the processes and participate in key
phases of site remediation, and reduces the perception that a streamlined process does not provide enough
opportunity for stakeholders input.
Contact
Robin Anderson
US EPA
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
(703) 603-8747
36
-------
&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
February 1995
BFI-Rockingham Landfill Site - Region 1
Background
A component of EPA's efforts to streamline and
expedite cleanups is the use of presumptive
remedies. Presumptive remedies are preferred
technologies for common categories of sites based
on EPA's historical patterns of remedy selection
and scientific implementation. The objective of
the presumptive remedy initiative is to use the
program's past experience to streamline site
investigation and speed up selection of cleanup
activities. Presumptive remedies can foster
consistency in remedy selection, and reduce the
cost and time required to clean up similar types of
sites.
Description of Site
Disposal Specialists, Inc. (DSI) operated the BFI-
Rockingham Landfill site in Rockingham,
Vermont, as a 17-acre solid waste landfill from
1968 to 1991. Although municipal solid waste
constitutes the majority of waste at the site, the
landfill accepted industrial solid and liquid wastes
during the 1960s and 1970s. The landfill also
contains a 1.5-acre lined cell used during the
1980s for the disposal of municipal incineration
ash. Browning Ferris Industries of Vermont, Inc.
(BFI-VT) currently operates a solid waste transfer
station on the site. The landfill sits on a ridge
within 300 yards of the Connecticut River. EPA
placed the landfill on the National Priorities List
(NPL) in October 1989.
The State of Vermont, which has been involved in
the regulation of the landfill since 1968, required
that several hydrogeological investigations be
performed, and ordered semi-annual sampling of
monitoring wells surrounding the landfill. The
State also required the installation of an alternate
water supply for three residences located between
the landfill and the Connecticut River. DSI
installed an active gas collection system in the
landfill in 1989.
Implementation
In July 1992, EPA entered into an administrative
order on consent with BFI-VT and DSI for a
remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS)
that would incorporate streamlining principles to
expedite the site cleanup. The statement of work
for the site emphasized the use of the presumptive
remedy guidance Conducting Remedial
Investigations/Feasibility Studies for CERCLA
Municipal Landfill Sites, February 1991, and
Presumptive Remedy for CERCLA Municipal
Landfill Sites, September 1993. The Agency also
selected the site as a national pilot for the
evaluation of the presumptive remedy guidance.
In accordance with the landfill guidance and
presumptive remedy directive, the Agency used
historical data to streamline the risk assessment
and RI/FS, and establish an initial basis for action.
Historical data for the site included the results of
the hydrogeological investigations, semi-annual
sampling performed by DSI for the State solid
37
-------
waste program, and historical photos of the landfill.
By examining historical data, the Agency identified
a ground-water risk and recognized that intense
concentrations of contaminants, known as "hot
spots," were unlikely.
Next, the Agency accelerated the RI by eliminating
a complete chemical characterization of the landfill
and focusing source control RI/FS activities on
gathering data necessary to implement the
presumptive remedy. This has an additional
benefit of reducing the need for pre-design studies.
After performing the streamlined RI/FS, the
Agency selected a landfill cap remedy.
EPA streamlined the remedial action (RA) by
quantifying the potential ground-water risks to
support the need for a source control action and
qualitatively evaluating other pathways addressed
by the source control action. All pathways outside
the scope of the presumptive remedy were fully
evaluated in the RA. The Agency used the most
recent historical information to initiate the
development of the risk assessment early in the RI/
FS. Data collected during the RI/FS was
compared with the most recent historical
information to support the useability of the
historical data.
To further expedite site cleanup, the Agency
implemented a non-time-critical removal action
for the components of the cleanup prescribed in
the presumptive remedy. In September 1993, EPA
signed an action memorandum selecting a remedy
that required the multi-layer landfill cap and
expanded gas controls. In November 1994, the
cap construction was 85 percent complete.
The final phase of the action involved aspects of
the cleanup that were beyond the scope of the
presumptive remedy, such as off-site ground-water
and surface water contamination. The Agency
addressed the portions not included in the
presumptive remedy with a Record of Decision
(ROD) signed in September 1994.
Findings
The presumptive remedy approach at the BFI-
Rockingham Landfill site decreased the time
period from RI/FS start to construction initiation
from the typical five to eight years to two years.
In addition, the Agency reduced the time period
from RI/FS start to ROD signing for those
activities omitted from the presumptive remedy
from three to five years to two years. The time
saved resulted from the use of the presumptive
remedy approach to streamline the RI/FS process
and implement the source control action while
completing the RI/FS for the management of
migration action. Other factors influencing cost
and time savings were the cooperative and
proactive participation of the State government
and potentially responsible parties.
Contacts
Ed Hathaway
US EPA Region 1
(617)573-5782
Andrea McLaughlin
US EPA
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
(703) 607-8793
38
-------
xvEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
February 1995
Indian Bend Wash South Site - Region 9
Background
At the Indian Bend Wash South Site, Region 9
employed two innovative approaches to
administering remedy selection that will
streamline and expedite the cleanup process. The
Agency chose to implement both a presumptive
remedy and the "plug-in" approach. Using a
presumptive remedy allows EPA to assume that a
remedial technology is appropriate in cases where
treatability data substantiate its effectiveness.
Based on site data and pre-existing treatability data
from other facilities, soil vapor extraction (SVE)
was selected as the presumptive remedy because it
has been determined to be effective in removing
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from soils of
the type found at Indian Bend Wash South. EPA
also used the "plug-in" approach, under which
multiple, similar, but separate subsites make use of
the same remedy at different times. Because the
Indian Bend Wash South site contains a number of
distinct but similar facilities that have released
VOCs into soils, the plug-in approach is
appropriate.
Description of Site
The Indian Bend Wash site covers 13 square miles
in Scottsdale and Tempe, Arizona. The site consists
of two study areas, Indian Bend Wash North and
Indian Bend Wash South. This case study focuses
on Indian Bend Wash South, where the plug-in
approach is being used. In 1981, the cities of
Scottsdale, Tempe, and Phoenix discovered VOCs
in municipal ground-water production wells. The
contaminated wells were shut down and are currently
out of service; one well that has wellhead treatment
remains in operation. The land surrounding the
site is used for residential, light industrial, and
commercial purposes.
The contaminants of concern in the affected wells,
VOCs, are constituents of solvents used by a
variety of industries as degreasing and cleaning
agents. Indian Bend Wash South contains a number
of separate industrial and business properties that
have released contaminants into soils as a result of
discharge of solvents or contaminated wastewater
through dry wells or leachate systems, direct
discharge to land surface, leaking tanks or pipes,
spills, and other means.
Implementation
The remedy chosen for the Indian Bend Wash
South site was termed the VOCs-in-Vadose-Zone
remedy. This remedy utilizes two specialized
approaches, and EPA's feasibility study (FS), risk
assessment, and Record of Decision (ROD) for the
site are structured to interface with these approaches.
EPA is the lead agency for the Indian Bend Wash
South site. Funding is being provided by a
combination of sources, as potentially responsible
parties (PRPs) are performing some work, and
Superfund is funding other work.
The use of a presumptive remedy in the case of the
Indian Bend Wash South site was justified due to
39
-------
the availability of pre-existing treatability data
supporting the use of S VE to treat soils of the type
found at this site. This included data from Indian
Bend Wash North, the other study area of Indian
Bend Wash. The remedy calls for SVE to be applied
to soils at the site that have unacceptable levels of
VOCs in the vadose zone (soils above the water
table) and also for air emissions treatment.
The plug-in approach is designed to address a site
that has many similar, smaller subsites within it.
A base remedy is established, and a process is
designed by which the separate subsites "plug in"
to it. The Indian Bend Wash South site was an
ideal candidate for this approach because it is
essentially a mega-site, a multitude of sites within
one larger site. There is no single source of
contamination. Rather, contamination has
emanated from many individual properties over a
wide area, and each subsite is a separate source
area that needs to be investigated. Performing the
same work for all the operable units would mean
re-inventing the wheel many times over and using
many resources. Similarly, waiting for all
remedial investigation (RI) work to be completed
for all subsites before signing the ROD would
cause unnecessary delays in cleanup.
SVE was selected as the remedial action, and a
standard process will be used to determine where
it will apply. If the conditions at a subsite match
pre-defined characteristics, the subsite will "plug
in" to the remedial action and be subject to its
requirements. After plugging into the remedy,
remedial design and action can begin at the subsite.
Subsites that do not meet the pre-defined criteria
are not plugged in but can be addressed by other
remedies, removal actions, or modifications to the
remedy, if necessary. The plug-in approach is
flexible so that the remedy can be adjusted to deal
with unexpected conditions that occur during the
RI at the subsite.
EPA has performed more than 50 screening
investigations at individual facilities, including
interviews, inspections, screening sampling, and
other work. These investigations identified several
facilities where VOC soil gas was sampled in
excess of 1,200 parts per billion (ppb), and several
focused RIs followed. PRPs are required to
conduct the focused investigations according to
strict standardized operating procedures provided
by EPA. EPA is relying on soil gas for vadose
zone characterization of VOCs at the site.
Findings
EPA's initial evaluation indicated that employing
the plug-in approach for the VOCs in soil at Indian
Bend Wash South could reduce the cleanup
schedule by ten years and save at least $5 million.
The plug-in ROD has been developed and plugged
into the first subsite at Indian Bend Wash South
site. Time needed to create the FS and ROD was
no more than normal, and it is assumed that this
time will decrease as experience with the plug-in
approach is gained.
As compared with the start of this pilot, funding
and resources for Indian Bend Wash South have
decreased. Consequently, progress on the RIs for
the subsites is being compromised, and the Region
is not realizing the full benefits of the plug-in
approach. Several more plug-in completions and
RD starts could have occurred if the resources
were available to keep up with the fast pace at
which the plug-in approach allows the Superfund
process to operate.
Contact
JeffDhont
US EPA Region 9
(415) 744-2363
40
-------
Initiative 6: Develop Soil Screening Levels
Description
Soil contamination is a problem at many hazardous waste sites. Soil contaminant cleanup levels and levels
of concern have historically been set on a site-specific basis through the risk assessment and remedy
selection process. This process requires a detailed examination of the entire site, a time-consuming
endeavor. EPA is developing, as part of this initiative, soil screening levels (SSLs) for a variety of
common chemical contaminants to decrease the time and, therefore, the cost required to complete soil
investigations. The SSLs can be used as a tool to identify contaminant levels below which there is no
concern under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act and above
which further site-specific evaluation is warranted. The SSLs may also be used as preliminary
remediation goals in some situations.
Performance
EPA is developing the Soil Screening Guidance to serve as a tool designed to significantly reduce the time
and cost it takes to complete soil investigations and cleanup actions, as well as to improve the consistency
of these actions across the nation. The draft guidance was written to assist remedial investigation/
feasibility study (RI/FS) work at Superfund National Priorities List (NPL) sites. It is expected to assist
site managers in quickly dividing sections of a site into two categories: sections that pose little risk from
soil contamination and sections that require additional study to determine what actions may be needed to
clean up the contaminants.
The guidance provides a framework for developing risk-based, site-specific SSL values that can be
compared to samples taken from a site to determine whether a particular section of a Superfund site poses
a soil-contaminant risk warranting further study. The guidance provides a simple, site-specific method for
developing SSLs, with options for more detailed analysis or use of genuine values. The SSLs are designed for
a residential scenario and are based on three exposure pathways: soil ingestion, inhalation of volatile
chemicals or fugitive dust, or ingestion of contaminated water caused by migration of soil contaminants
into ground water. The most recent guidance, December 1994, provides SSLs for 107 common
contaminants.
EPA completed a pilot study in 1994, to determine whether the exposure pathways addressed by the draft
soil screening guidance are sufficient to model the exposure pathways of a residential area. EPA
examined the soil contaminants and exposure pathways from ten sites and concluded that the guidance
pathways were sufficient for their intended purpose and that additional exposure pathways did not need to
be quantitatively incorporated into the SSL process.
EPA is using the SSL framework at a demonstration project Superfund site. The demonstration will
provide information regarding the usefulness of the guidance, as well as the three methodologies
presented in the framework.
EPA's Office of Emergency and Remedial Response is developing a document to explain the SSL process
to the general public. The document will present the process in a clear, concise manner without relying
on cumbersome technical explanations.
41
-------
Benefits
It is too early to quantify the benefits of the SSL guidance because they have not been fully implemented.
It is expected, however, that the SSLs will complement the ongoing Superfund Accelerated Cleanup
Model and streamline the RI/FS process by
• Increasing the consistency of soil-contaminant risk assessments
• Focusing investigations on pathways of concern
• Eliminating from further investigation areas of NPL sites that do not pose a significant soil
contaminant risk
• Concentrating resources on areas of NPL sites that pose significant soil contamination risk
These benefits are expected to reduce time, cost, and the level of EPA resources required to evaluate a site.
It also is expected that the SSL guidance will provide a framework for other cleanup efforts including
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) cleanups, state-sponsored cleanups, and voluntary
cleanups. A host of outside parties, including industry and state representatives, have already contacted
EPA regarding the SSL methodologies. The Agency conducted extensive outreach to small and large
industries, environmental groups, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation, the lending community, environmental auditors, the insurance industry
and others to promote appropriate application of the SSL guidance, both within and outside the NPL
context. EPA may see, as a result of state and industry interest, a reduction in risk to public health and the
environment if states and industries undertake preemptive cleanups using the SSLs as cleanup levels.
Such activities also would result in future reductions in demands on EPA resources.
Lessons Learned
EPA conducted extensive outreach to involve outside scientific and technical experts in the development
of the soil screening methodologies. The involvement of such outside experts increased the development
time, but also increased the integrity, quality, and overall acceptance of the final product.
EPA believes that effective community outreach programs have increased public awareness and
understanding of the procedures and mitigated negative public reaction. To further this, EPA is continuing
community outreach programs designed to increase public awareness of the site-evaluation process;
developing a risk communication tool to facilitate public understanding of the guidelines; and seeking
community groups' comments on the clarity of draft SSL guidelines to a non-technical audience.
Contact
David Cooper
US EPA
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
(703) 603-8763
42
-------
Initiative 7: Implement an Environmental Justice Strategy for Superfund Sites
Description
In April 1993, EPA's Superfund program began a series of demonstration projects in each Region to provide
the basis for developing a national Superfund environmental justice strategy. In November 1993, the Assistant
Administrator of the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) expanded the scope of
the environmental justice initiative by directing the formation of a task force to analyze environmental
justice issues specific to each of the waste programs, and to develop recommendations to address these
issues. The OSWER Environmental Justice Task Force included representatives from all OSWER program
areas, the Regions, and other EPA offices with an interest in waste programs and environmental justice.
Subsequent to the establishment of this initiative, President Clinton issued Executive Order 12898 on
environmental justice (February 11, 1994), which focused the attention of all federal agencies on
environmental justice issues. The order is comprised of four central themes including incorporation of
environmental justice into federal agency decision making such as in rulemakings, administrative actions,
permit decisions, and enforcement activities; identifying and addressing disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations and low-income populations;
conducting activities that substantially affect human health or the environment in a manner that does not
have discriminatory effects; and applying the order equally to Native American programs.
The Executive Order also focuses on the establishment of an interagency working group; the development
of Agency strategies on environmental justice; further research, data collection, and analysis; and the
development of interagency pilot projects focusing on a medical assistance program, community
empowerment programs, residential initiatives, a labor program, public housing, and Indian affairs.
EPA's OSWER has developed an environmental justice strategy to implement the requirements of the
Executive Order. The task force produced a report that contained a number of recommendations,
including the following: issuing an environmental justice directive on development of policy, regulations
and guidance; developing interagency partnerships with the Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD), the Department of Agriculture, the Economic Development Administration (EDA), the Department of
Health and Human Services and others; expanding public participation in the Superfund remedial process
through the use of community advisory groups; expanding risk assessment to include multiple sources of
risk in a community; and other recommendations.
Performance
OSWER Directive
To ensure that all waste programs treat environmental justice as an integral part of all EPA policies,
guidance, and regulations, OSWER's Assistant Administrator issued OSWER Directive 9200.3-17 on
September 21, 1994. It requires staff to evaluate each decision document subject matter for the possibility
of disproportionately adverse impacts on minority and low-income communities. Staff are also required,
when appropriate, to solicit meaningful input from key stakeholders, including members of the
environmental justice community and the regulated community, at all critical stages of OSWER policy,
guidance, and regulatory development.
43
-------
To promote consistent implementation of environmental justice goals within EPA, the Agency has also
developed draft guidelines to assist staff in identifying communities that raise or are likely to raise
environmental justice concerns. These guidelines are to be used as a reference by all waste programs staff
who have influence over site-specific decision making or who have contact with client communities (i.e.,
community involvement coordinators, site assessment managers, on-scene coordinators, remedial project
managers, and assistant regional counsel). A draft of these guidelines is currently under review by the
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council subcommittee on waste and facility siting. These
guidelines focus on risk assessment and community outreach dynamics in communities with environmental
justice concerns.
NPL Analysis
EPA is being proactive in the use of the Geographic Information System (GIS) program. EPA has
completed a demographic analysis of 158 National Priorities List (NPL) sites (Preliminary Analysis of
Population Demographics, August 1993). The analysis identifies populations (White, Black, Indian,
Asian, Hispanic, and Other) living near 158 sites. Data on populations above and below the age of 18
living within four miles of a site is included in the analysis. To complete this analysis, the study was
expanded to include all 1,200 NPL sites; a final report is expected to be completed in early 1995.
Proactive Site Assessment
In addition to the demographic study, EPA has made plans to conduct a pilot proactive site assessment
program, in conjunction with states, tribes, and local communities, to ensure that sites in areas with low
income populations and minorities that warrant EPA action are identified. To accomplish this, EPA plans
to undertake the following projects
• Fund a cooperative agreement with a tribe to identify previously undiscovered sites for
assessments
• Through a grant to a non-profit organization such as a university, develop materials and a
program for community organizations in minority areas to become involved in site identification
and provide information useful to EPA and state programs
• Selection by Regions of two areas, one urban and one rural, where community groups have
expressed concern about risks from multiple sources. The Regions will work with state and local
governments to take a geographic approach in assessing the impacts of sites collectively and
individually and will develop strategies for appropriate actions
EPA also plans to analyze site assessment priority setting to ensure that low-income and minority
communities are covered. To accomplish this, EPA will review existing site assessment guidance for
prioritization criteria and factors; obtain Regional input on other criteria considered by site assessment
managers and Regional Decision Teams; collect environmental justice prioritization factors from the
Environmental Justice Task Force; and compare current criteria with that of the Environmental Justice
Task Force and provide the Regions with any additional proposed criteria for review.
National Environmental Justice Advisory Council
In an effort to improve communications and develop trust between EPA and affected communities, under
the Federal Advisory Committee Act, EPA established the first National Environmental Justice Advisory
Council (NEJAC), which contains a subcommittee on waste and facility siting. The committee and
subcommittee were set up to provide advice and information on environmental justice issues with regard
44
-------
to waste programs. A goal of the subcommittee is to foster mutually supportive partnerships and
communication among all levels of government, business, communities, and academic institutions to
address environmental justice issues.
There have been two meetings of the NEJAC subcommittee (August 4-5, 1994/Albuquerque, NM and
October 25,1994/Herndon, VA). The subcommittee is chaired by Charles Lee of the United Church of
Christ Committee on Racial Justice. The subcommittee has endorsed the "cutting edge" effort represented by
the OSWER Environmental Justice Task Force report.
Interagency Initiatives
EPA is working very closely with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Agency for
Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), and the National Institute of Environmental Health
Sciences (NIEHS) to conduct community outreach in minority and low-income areas with serious health
concerns. HHS is helping ATSDR provide medical referral services, which are beyond the scope of
ATSDR, to communities with a dearth of health facilities.
Currently, EPA, HHS, and ATSDR are working on three medical assistance pilots: Del Amo/Montrose
site in Torrance, CA; the Old Reichhold Bros, site in Columbia, MS; and the Southern Wood/Piedmont
site in Augusta, GA. These pilots provide technical assistance to state and local agencies, environmental
health education to residents, medical testing, referral to specialty clinics, and medical monitoring. EPA
has identified 20 more sites where additional health support is needed.
EPA is also conducting a survey of sites with lead paint problems to see how they have been addressed
and to determine options for addressing similar problems in the future. EPA is working with the HUD
lead abatement program to address the lead problem in housing where minority populations live and in
low-income areas.
To further enhance the development of equity and justice in the Superfund program, EPA will continue to
identify opportunities for coordination at sites with other federal agencies including HUD, Department of
Labor, and EDA. Attention will focus on economic redevelopment, risk management, community
outreach, and public health activities.
Community Involvement/Outreach Initiatives
EPA is committed to helping communities surrounding Superfund sites to participate more fully in the
Superfund remedial process. One of the major environmental justice initiatives in the Superfund program
involves developing community advisory groups (CAGs) for selected Superfund sites. EPA is developing
a CAG guidance that describes membership, functions, objectives, and scope of authority. A draft is currently
under review. Each Region identified a pilot site for the establishment of CAGs in FY 1994, and each
Region will implement a CAG at these sites by the end of FY 1995. The pilots will
• Form groups representing the diverse interests of the community
• Provide an open forum to discuss Superfund site issues — bringing all the players to the table
from the beginning
• Increase opportunities for EPA and the community to share information and work together in
decisions affecting the site and community
In an effort to facilitate meaningful community involvement in environmental decision making at Superfund
sites, EPA formed the Environmental Teacher Institute, which is a partnership between EPA and Morgan
State University located in Baltimore, Maryland. This initiative invites teachers from areas where hazardous
45
-------
waste is of serious local concern and from communities of low-income and diverse cultural backgrounds.
The teachers learn about key environmental issues, how to develop an environmental action plan, and how to
obtain scientific information, which will ultimately be shared with students and local citizens.
The first program was held in 1993, and included lecture and discussion sessions with senior EPA
officials, specialists, and representatives from environmental groups and industry. As part of the session,
teachers visited an active site and participated in workshops designed to assist them in developing programs to
teach their students and other teachers about environmental issues and environmental career potentials.
EPA also held a national meeting in September 1993, sponsored by the National Advisory Council on
Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT) to hear citizens' opinions on environmental justice
issues. Topics discussed included community involvement, empowerment, non-discriminatory
implementation and enforcement, economic development, redevelopment of cleaned sites, and creation of
a community-wide environmental quality approach.
Additionally, Superfund Revitalization Public Forum meetings were held in May 1993, in Dallas, and in
November 1993, in Atlanta. These meetings were initiated to collect ideas from different interest groups
on how the Superfund process can be improved. Environmental justice issues were discussed at each of
these meetings, including the need to communicate more effectively and empower low-income communities
and minorities. Discussions also centered around the need for EPA to examine the exposure rates to
contaminants that different communities face due to lifestyle or other conditions, such as disparities in
health and nutritional status (e.g., less access to health care).
Native Americans
EPA has committed to expanding its outreach efforts to Native American Tribes, including expanding
technical assistance to tribal governments, initiating pilots to implement environmental program activities
with other federal agencies on tribal lands, and has co-sponsored the second National Tribal Conference
on Environmental Management in May 1994.
Other Activities
Each of the Regions has been actively involved in developing and implementing environmental justice
strategies at a number of Regional pilot sites. Some Regional environmental justice activities have included
• Using information from GIS to characterize population demographics, which allows EPA to
examine the location of hazardous waste sites with respect to the most sensitive minority and low
income populations. Other efforts have involved developing the LANDVIEW program for use as
a screening tool and indicator for potential environmental justice issues at sites
• Incorporating environmental justice initiatives with community relations plans for sites
In FY 1993, EPA issued simplified Technical Assistance Grant (TAG) materials including an informational
pamphlet, a fact sheet, and an application package. The pamphlet and fact sheet provide basic information
including a description of what a TAG is, how it is related to the Superfund program, and how citizen
groups may apply for a TAG. The application package provides citizens with detailed instructions on
filling out TAG application forms.
The amount of information has a direct impact on the level people can participate in the Superfund
program. To foster greater fairness and to facilitate greater community involvement among minority
communities at hazardous waste sites, EPA published several other Superfund documents in other
languages (e.g., Spanish, Portuguese, Vietnamese) during FY 1994.
46
-------
Benefits/Lessons Learned
EPA has found that by understanding the demographics of an area it can implement strategies that allow
for more effective community involvement and outreach. Through the use of innovative community
involvement, EPA is expanding its communications and outreach network. By forming partnerships with
other agencies, EPA is learning a great deal about how these programs can compliment the efforts of EPA,
particularly in the areas of health and economic redevelopment.
Through interaction with various stakeholders on the NEJAC subcommittee on waste and facility siting
and through public meetings, EPA is learning a great deal about the specific environmental concerns in
client communities.
EPA also has found that by educating staff about environmental justice concerns, they are able to work
more effectively with communities.
Contacts
Timothy Mott Suzanne Wells
US EPA US EPA
Office of Outreach and Special Projects Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
(202) 260-2447 (703) 603-8863
47
-------
&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
February 1995
Diamond Alkali - Region 2
Background
In April 1993, EPA's Superfund program began a
series of demonstration projects in each Region to
provide the basis for developing a national Superfund
environmental justice strategy. In November 1993,
the Assistant Administrator of the Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) expanded
the scope of the environmental justice initiative by
directing the formation of a task force to analyze
environmental justice issues specific to each of the
waste programs, and to develop recommendations to
address these issues. The OSWER Environmental
Justice Task Force included representatives from all
OSWER program areas, the Regions, and other EPA
offices with an interest in waste programs and envi-
ronmental justice.
Description of Site
The Diamond Alkali site includes a former pesticides
manufacturing facility and properties located at 80 and
120 Lister Avenue in Newark, New Jersey, and a six-
mile reach of the Passaic River known as the Passaic
River Study Area. The Passaic River Study Area is
bordered on the eastern shore by the towns of
Harrison and Kearny, and on the western shore by the
City of Newark, New Jersey. Several companies have
been situated along the banks of the river over the last
100 years. Studies conducted at the site have revealed
that many of the companies manufactured, stored, and
disposed of toxic chemicals that have been found in
the Passaic River sediments. The toxic chemicals that
have been found include pesticides, dioxin, polychlo-
rinated biphenyls (PCBs), metals, and other hazardous
substances.
The site was placed on the National Priorities List
in 1983. In 1983 and 1984, the State of New Jersey
issued separate bans on the consumption of fish and
crabs from affected sections of the Passaic River;
however, many nearby residents still consume
seafood from the river. EPA has negotiated consent
orders with a potentially responsible party to design
and construct the containment remedy at the land-
based properties at 80 and 120 Lister Avenue and to
conduct the remedial investigation of the river
under EPA oversight.
The site is located in the Ironbound section of
Newark, a densely populated, heavily industrialized
urban area with many non-English speaking
residents. Early community relations efforts at the
site were inadequate, considering the make-up of
the community. The community was dissatisfied
with the length of time required for site cleanup,
the lack of information provided to the public, and
with EPA's decision to contain land-based con-
tamination rather than treating it off site. In 1993,
EPA began conducting interviews in the community
to obtain information for the creation of a new
community relations plan.
Implementation
EPA has implemented an innovative public
outreach program to improve the level and method
with which it communicates with minority and low-
income communities living near this site and to
48
-------
involve these communities in the decision-making
process. The Agency took a creative approach
toward implementing a community relations plan
that would gain back the community's trust.
EPA involved the community early in the cleanup
process before important decisions were made
about the remedial investigation by sending a copy
of the scope of work to local citizens, officials, and
organizations for comment. A meeting was held to
answer questions and to address the community's
concerns. While increasing community involvement
may have slowed the cleanup process initially,
EPA feels that by addressing the community's
concerns early, future problems may be prevented.
During initial community interviews, EPA identified
nine interest groups, including local residents,
anglers, and crabbers; local county and State
officials; the Ironbound Committee Against Toxic
Wastes; the Passaic River Coalition; the Port
Authority of New York and New Jersey; environ-
mentalists; Vietnam Veterans of America-New
Jersey Council; maritime industry organizations,
including ocean carriers, marine-terminal operators,
shipping and labor associations; and other area
industries. To involve all interested parties in the
process, a community advisory group (CAG) was
formed with representatives from the interest groups
and local clergy. In response to a request by the
CAG, a tour of the site was held on July 28, 1994.
In an effort to reach the large population of minori-
ties living in the area, fact sheets, flyers, and fishing
advisory signs were produced in English, Spanish,
and Portuguese. Public notices were translated and
placed in both ethnic and local newspapers. EPA
used both local translators and a local sign com-
pany to complete this work in an attempt to in-
crease the involvement of the local community.
To better distribute information and to build a rapport
with community leaders, EPA representatives
attended a low-income housing project tenant
association meeting. In addition, EPA obtained a list
of all of the churches in the Ironbound section and
sent public service announcements to all of the
clergy. EPA also plans to meet with the clergy to
gain ideas on how to more effectively communicate
with the community. Informational material was
distributed door-to-door and to community centers.
EPA has awarded over $200,000 in grants to the
States of New York and New Jersey for public
outreach and education on the fish/crab consumption
advisories in effect for these states. The program
encourages public outreach via grassroots pathways
including churches, local health clinics, one-stop
shopping centers, day care centers, and schools.
The goal of this program is to notify local residents
of fishing advisories in local waterways, including
the Passaic River.
Findings
In implementing this initiative, EPA has found that
until guidance exists on how community relations
activities at sites with environmental justice concerns
should be implemented, each Region should develop
community relations programs based on site-specific
characteristics and the concerns of the community.
EPA also discovered that community relations
programs involve a significant amount of time,
resources, and planning to be successful and that
in some instances, especially in minority
communities or low-income areas, a creative
approach is necessary for public outreach programs
to be successful. Building trust with the community
by using grassroots channels such as churches,
neighborhood associations, and community centers
was found to be effective for increasing community
involvement.
Overall, EPA has found that to successfully
address environmental justice issues at a site there
needs to be ongoing and dynamic interaction with
the community to build its trust and to ensure its
concerns are addressed.
Contacts
Lance Richman
US EPA Region 2
(212) 264-6695
Pat Seppi
US EPA Region 2
(212) 264-9369
49
-------
Initiative 8: Early and More Effective Community Involvement
Description
Community awareness and involvement is often crucial for effective and speedy implementation of
Superfund cleanup actions. EPA involvement can take many forms: working with community groups,
conducting public meetings, holding one-on-one living room conversations, publishing newsletters,
briefing elected and appointed civic officials, and improving the media's access to the site and site
information. EPA's public outreach efforts can help communities understand the Superfund process,
provide for more effective community involvement on site decision making, and, in many cases, allow
cleanup to take place earlier.
Under this initiative, EPA is taking steps to overcome obstacles to effective community involvement.
These obstacles can include inaccessibility of both key site information and site decision makers,
difficulties in obtaining Technical Assistance Grants (TAGs), which provide funds to community groups
for site study, and problems in obtaining and interpreting health studies. To make information more
accessible, EPA has set up community working groups and participated in the creation of site specific
advisory boards at Department of Defense sites. In addition, EPA continues to reduce the paperwork
involved in obtaining a TAG. TAG materials and application forms have been revised to make them more
user friendly. Based on focus group interviews held in June 1994, EPA is developing a TAG
informational video to educate citizens. EPA has also streamlined the TAG process, making the grants
more accessible to communities who can use TAG funds to hire experts to interpret technical information
relating to a site.
The Agency also works to involve communities early in the cleanup process by scheduling presentations,
providing site tours, and holding meetings to explain the Superfund cleanup process and emphasize the
importance of information exchange between EPA and the public. In these and other ways, the community
involvement initiative works to encourage active community participation in the Superfund process from
start to finish.
Performance
EPA has completed several activities to provide more effective community involvement. Highlights of
these activities are discussed below.
A working group or advisory board has been established at more than eight Superfund sites. Working
groups and advisory boards, which are comprised of members of the community, regional environmental
groups, potentially responsible parties, and city, county, and regional planning boards, allow these
stakeholders and regulating agencies to work together to understand the competing needs and
requirements that arise during site cleanup. Each working group and advisory board is designed to fit the
needs of the particular community.
EPA has revised a course that educates community members on the goals of the Superfund program and
the stages a site must go through before cleanup is completed. The course is designed for community
groups of less than 20 people. The course was initially designed by Region 6, but has been modified to
apply to all Regions. The revised course incorporates information on the Superfund Accelerated Cleanup
Model and administrative improvements.
50
-------
In an effort to increase community involvement early in the Superfund process, EPA has implemented
several innovative approaches. Fact sheets have been developed to guide community members and other
interested parties through the site assessment process, answer commonly asked questions, and provide
contacts at EPA Regions and Headquarters.
In other efforts, EPA community involvement coordinators, working with remedial project managers,
on-scene coordinators, and site assessment managers, are becoming involved in the site planning process
early in the prelisting phase. Community involvement coordinators identify points in the cleanup process
where EPA should encourage public involvement, for example, during site identification.
To communicate the technical nature of the program in ways that all parties can comprehend, EPA is
working to improve its approach to outreach and environmental education. EPA has developed a short
guide and video to the Superfund program entitled This is Superfund: A Citizen's Guide to EPA's
Superfund Program. The video, which has been sent to the Regions, is approximately 10 minutes long
and parallels the corresponding brochure entitled This is Superfund. Regions can use the guide and video
to inform local citizens about the program. The brochure will be translated into Spanish by January 1995.
Region 4 developed a set of fact sheets describing common contaminants, harmful exposure levels, health
effects, and recommendations to protect human health. The fact sheets are being distributed to all Regions for
use in educating members of the community. Fact sheets describing common treatment technologies for
hazardous materials also have been created and distributed.
In other efforts, Regions are improving the way they interact with the public. Some Regions have begun
inviting community members to a short discussion of the nature of cleanup activities at a site, followed by
a site tour. For some sites, the Agency has set up a toll-free number that citizens can call to hear a
recording about the cleanup progress EPA is making at a specific site.
To increase involvement of communities of color at Superfund sites, EPA has been translating documents,
guides, and fact sheets into Spanish. Site-specific materials have also been translated. Other language
translations, such as Vietnamese, have been undertaken to meet the needs of specific communities.
In June 1994, EPA convened a series of community involvement focus groups with participation by
community members, TAG recipients and applicants, and local government officials to get direct feedback
on the TAG program and on proposals for new community involvement activities. EPA then produced a
30-minute video, using footage from the three meetings, to summarize the main points made by the
participants. The video has been distributed throughout EPA, including all ten Regional community
involvement offices, as well as to all focus group participants.
Benefits
Improved public involvement has been noted since the start of the community involvement initiative.
Document translation efforts, in particular, afford non-English speaking communities the opportunity to
become informed and involved in the cleanup process.
51
-------
Lessons Learned
The following common themes emerged from EPA's search for improvements in community involvement
• Community working groups can be effective in assisting EPA with remedy selection decisions
• Community involvement benefits EPA and the community
• Citizens want access to information on the technical and administrative aspects of the Superfund
program
The Agency has encountered certain problems that are difficult to solve. Primarily, limited resources
prevent EPA from pursuing as many community involvement improvements as may be desirable. Second,
community satisfaction with existing programs is difficult to measure.
Contact
Bonnie Gitlin
US EPA
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
(703) 603-8868
52
-------
&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
February 1995
Pine Street Canal Site - Region 1
Background
Community awareness and involvement is often
crucial for effective and speedy implementation of
Superfund cleanup actions. EPA involvement can
take many forms: working with community groups,
conducting public meetings, holding one-on-one
living room conversations, publishing newsletters,
briefing elected and appointed civic officials, and
improving the media's access to the site and site
information. EPA's public outreach efforts can
help communities understand the Superfund
process, provide for more effective community
involvement on site decision making, and, in many
cases, allow cleanup to take place earlier.
Description of Site
The Pine Street Canal site is located on the eastern
shore of Lake Champlain within the City of
Burlington, Vermont. The site, which encompasses
approximately 50 acres, is located roughly one-
half mile south of downtown Burlington. The site
consists of an abandoned barge canal and turning
basin surrounded by partially filled wetlands along
with various industrial, manufacturing, and office
buildings. The Pine Street Canal is connected to
Lake Champlain, which is a source of drinking
water for the City of Burlington and other lakeside
communities.
There have been numerous business activities at
the site and in surrounding areas, including
petroleum storage, soft-drink bottling,
manufacturing, and transportation. Historically,
the principal use of the site has been industrial;
however, residences, small shops, offices, and
public parks are located nearby. A private beach,
public bike/running path, and numerous railroad
tracks are also located within the study area.
Approximately 22 acres of the site are currently
designated as wetlands, which provide habitats for
a variety of wildlife including beaver, muskrat, and
many species of birds and fish.
The Pine Street canal was originally constructed in
the late 1800s to transport lumber and other raw
materials by barge from ports on Lake Champlain
to mills along Pine Street. The Burlington Gas
Works coal gasification plant, which began
operations at the site in the early 1900s, is the
major source of site contaminants. The Burlington
Gas Works reportedly disposed of large quantities
of coal gasification wastes (by-products), such as
coal tar, fuel oil, cyanide, and metals at its former
location along Pine Street. The by-products were
reportedly disposed of in the wetland areas behind
the plant. The site was first proposed for inclusion
on the National Priorities List (NPL) in 1981 and
listed in 1983.
Implementation
In an effort to foster more effective community
involvement at the Pine Street Canal site, EPA and
several other interested parties established a
coordinating council. The coordinating council is
a coalition of community, government, and
53
-------
business members whose immediate goal is to
reach consensus on the studies required for the
site. The council consists of representatives from
EPA, the State of Vermont, the City of Burlington,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, potentially
responsible parties (PRPs), and other citizens'
groups (including the Technical Assistance Grant
recipient). Council members are developing a
solution for the site that is acceptable to the
community, is based upon sound science, and
meets state and federal requirements.
The coordinating council was organized in the
summer of 1993, after EPA withdrew its proposed
remediation plan for the site in June 1993. Public
opposition to the proposed plan led to the discussions
that resulted in the formation of the coordinating
council. The council's emphasis on public
participation, a neutral facilitator, pooling of data,
and the participation of all parties' scientists will
result in a plan for the site supported by all parties.
To facilitate the activities of the coordinating
council, several technical issues work groups were
created. The work groups, comprised of
representatives of EPA, the State, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, the City, PRPs, and the Lake
Champlain Committee, have been meeting since
mid-November 1993, to identify relevant technical
issues. The work group reviewed public
comments received by EPA and incorporated
potential issues into a working document titled,
"Technical Issues Document." A draft statement
of work (SOW) was developed by the work group's
technical experts and submitted to the coordinating
council for review and approval. The coordinating
council presented the palled studies to the
community for review and comment. The studies
have been phased. A Phase I SOW was agreed
upon and became an attachment to an
administrative order on consent (AOC) in Summer
1994. Phase I field studies were completed in
December 1994. A Phase II SOW has been agreed
upon and will become part of a second AOC for
field work to be performed in 1995.
The coordinating council and technical issues
work group hold monthly meetings to discuss site-
related issues. All meetings are open to the public
and some meetings have been aired on a local
cable station. Written summaries of all
coordinating council meetings are available in the
repositories at the University of Vermont and
Fletcher's Free Libraries in Burlington, and the
EPA Records Center in Boston, Massachusetts.
Fact sheets have been mailed to over 800 people
and a local newspaper has published a series of
articles on the coordinating council meetings.
Findings
Progress at this site has been better since this
collaborative effort in which the interested parties
seek common ground was initiated. If the
coordinating council approach is successful in
Burlington, the process may work at other
Superfund locations as well. The community has
worked hard to organize a Vermont response to the
Pine Street site, and now has the opportunity to be
directly involved in effecting an environmentally
sound and cost-effective solution.
Contact
Sheila Eckman
US EPA Region 1
(617) 573-5784
54
-------
vyEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
February 1995
Ralph Gray Trucking Company Site - Region 9
Background
Community awareness and involvement is often
crucial for effective and speedy implementation of
Superfund cleanup actions. EPA involvement can
take many forms: working with community groups,
conducting public meetings, holding one-on-one
living room conversations, publishing newsletters,
briefing elected and appointed civic officials, and
improving the media's access to the site and site
information. EPA's public outreach efforts can
help communities understand the Superfund
process, provide for more effective community
involvement on site decision making, and, in many
cases, allow cleanup to take place earlier.
Description of Site
The Ralph Gray Trucking Company site is located
just north of 1-405, near Golden West Street and
Sowell Avenue in Westminster, California.
Operations at the site began in the early 1930s
when the Ralph Gray Trucking Company began
dumping petroleum waste products into four open
pits at the site. In 1936, Mr. Gray, the owner of
the company, was found guilty of maintaining a
public nuisance after several complaints were filed
with the local health officials and the Westminster
Chamber of Commerce. He was fined $100 and
ordered to remove the "nuisance" within 30 days.
Mr. Gray never removed the wastes and in 1958, a
housing developer decided to build homes at the
site. He dug two trenches in the shape of a "T"
and buried the wastes from the original uncovered
pits. He then constructed homes with their
backyards on top of the trenches. Residents have
since noticed and complained of black tar-like
sludge seeping up in their yards, pools, and patios.
Studies conducted at the site have revealed that the
wastes and surrounding soil at the site contain
benzene, polyaromatic hydrocarbons, and sulfur
compounds. These toxic wastes are suspected to
be the cause of some of the headaches, nausea, and
respiratory problems experienced by the residents.
The site was added to the National Priorities List in
1992. Cleanup is occurring in two phases and each
contaminated trench will be addressed separately.
As part of the cleanup plan, buried wastes and
contaminated soil will be excavated and disposed of
at an EPA-approved hazardous waste disposal
facility. Approximately 50 families will be
temporarily relocated during the cleanup of the site.
Implementation
An extensive community involvement outreach
effort was undertaken early at this site to address
the impact of a removal action on the lives of
nearby residents. Several approaches were taken
to ease the temporary relocation of approximately
50 families living within the site. Initially, EPA
conducted interviews with citizens using a 19-page
questionnaire. In conducting these interviews,
EPA was able to gather information concerning
residents' workshifts, direct contact with waste,
respiratory problems, physical disabilities, rental
55
-------
properties, pets, schools, and occupations. This
information assisted EPA community involvement
staff and relocation specialists in meeting the needs
of families affected by the cleanup of the site.
One finding of the interviews was that several of
the affected families were not English-speaking.
In a special effort to communicate with these
families, EPA established toll-free message lines
in English, Vietnamese, and Spanish. EPA also
provided a Vietnamese-speaking language
coordinator at the site at least two days per week
and produced many of the site fact sheets in both
English and Vietnamese.
In other efforts to communicate effectively with
the residents, EPA produced and published a six-
page fact sheet entitled Temporary Relocation
Information in January 1994, in both English and
Vietnamese. The fact sheet serves to inform
residents of the ongoing activities at the site and
includes information related to the relocation of
several residents, announced a community meeting,
and invited residents to preview temporary
housing accommodations. The fact sheet also
identified who would be temporarily relocated,
provided a site map, described the temporary
accommodations, discussed site security and
insurance, and answered general questions
residents might have concerning the relocation.
In July 1994, EPA published A Resident's Guide
to Temporary Relocation in both English and
Vietnamese. This booklet serves to update residents
on relocation activities at the site and identifies
relocation details including the relocation schedule,
accommodations, and issues surrounding the
preparation for relocation.
To address the concerns of residents being
temporarily relocated, EPA has implemented
several security measures to ensure the safety of
their homes. One measure has involved making
video tapes of the condition of the residents'
homes before the residents are temporarily
relocated. EPA will keep the original video tape
and each homeowner will be given a copy of the
tape. Other security measures being provided for
each house include motion detectors, lock-out
boxes, and security devices. In addition, a security
guard has been placed on duty 24-hours a day for
the entire community.
Findings
In implementing this accelerated community
involvement effort, EPA has found that residents
are highly supportive of the removal activity at the
site. Early and effective communication has
helped to make the temporary relocation of
approximately 50 families proceed smoothly and
quickly. In addition, EPA's efforts to involve the
public has made residents feel that they are part of
the process and also has served to sustain interest
in site activities.
Contacts
Fraser Felter
Community Involvement Coordinator
US EPA Region 9
(415)744-2181
Dick Vesperman
Remedial Project Manager
US EPA Region 9
(415) 744-2232
56
-------
Initiative 9: State Deferral of Certain Site Categories
Description
The state deferral initiative presents an opportunity for states and EPA to coordinate the use of their limited
resources more effectively and efficiently in addressing the large universe of hazardous waste sites
potentially requiring cleanup. EPA and states have long agreed that the number of contaminated sites is
larger than either level of government alone can address in the near future.
Over the past several years, many states have been developing increasingly sophisticated and experienced
cleanup programs, and several states already address significant numbers of non-National Priorities List
(NPL) sites under their own laws. Under the deferral program currently being developed, EPA will be
able to defer consideration of certain NPL-caliber sites while interested and qualified states, territories,
commonwealths, and federally recognized Indian Tribes compel and oversee potentially responsible party
(PRP) response actions. The deferral program expects financially viable, cooperative PRPs to implement
response activity. By deferring NPL-caliber sites, EPA will encourage both more cleanups and quicker
cleanups than would occur if these sites were left in the queue for listing on the NPL. The deferral
program does not anticipate using Superfund money to conduct response actions at deferred sites.
To implement the deferral initiative, the Agency established a work group to develop guidance for the
program and to pilot the deferral concept at NPL-caliber sites. Representatives from every Regional office
and several Headquarters offices were members of the work group. State officials also provided input on
implementation issues and were responsible for conducting deferral pilots in their respective states.
Performance
During FY 1994, the work group developed draft guidance, currently under final review, to ensure that
responses at deferred sites protect human health and the environment, foster public involvement, and
balance competing needs for flexibility and accountability. The guidance addresses
• Criteria states and other applicants should meet to participate in the program
• Criteria for determining site eligibility for deferral
• Cleanup levels that must be achieved at deferred sites
• Procedural requirements
• EPA oversight of deferral programs
• Financial assistance for deferral programs
• Community participation
• Response completion or termination
57
-------
Deferral pilots are ongoing at 22 sites located in 7 different states. The workgroup initially identified 26
sites in 8 states for potential deferral pilots; 8 of the original sites were dropped from the pilot program
and were replaced by 4 alternate sites. The Agency provided $225,000 in financial assistance to Kansas
and Maryland to facilitate the implementation of the deferral pilots for 15 of the pilot sites ($15,000 per
site). The 22 deferral pilot sites are
Region 3: Region 6:
Healthways, DE Terrero Mines, NM
Chicago Bridge and Iron, DE Blackwell Zinc, OK
Harvey Knott Landfill, DE
Anne Arundel County Landfill, MD Region 7:
Black and Decker, MD Almena Agra Service, KS
Bausch and Lomb, MD Deluxe Specialties, Inc., KS
North Carroll Shopping Center, MD Gilbert-Mosley, KS
Bata Shoe, MD Lakeside Hills, KS
Secular Grain, KS
Region 4: Fourth and Carey, KS
Kentucky Industrial Haulers, KY ALLCO Chemical Corp., KS
Third and Osage, KS
Region 5: Koch Chemical Co., KS
Canton Wood, OH Chevron Chemical, KS
The pilot sites were selected during development of the deferral guidance and were intended to provide
experience in implementing the deferral concept. Experiences at the deferral pilot sites have been diverse.
The Agency has identified four measures to assess progress at the pilot sites
• The presence of an agreement between EPA and the state specifying roles, responsibilities,
and schedules of performance for the deferred site(s)
• The presence of an agreement(s) between the state and PRPs describing work to be performed
• Response action taking place at the deferred site
• Community support for the deferral
Ultimate measures of success for the deferral program would include levels of risk reduction, timeliness
of response, cost, and community satisfaction. Such measures, however, are beyond the scope of
evaluation for the pilots at this time.
Benefits
Progress at the pilots has varied, but the deferral experiences so far confirm the value of the deferral
concept and the draft deferral guidance developed by the work group. At the majority of the pilot sites,
states have agreements with PRPs and investigations or remedial activities are underway. The states and
EPA have also entered into formal deferral agreements for nearly all the sites. Finally, community
reaction has generally been positive, although the extent of state interaction with communities has not
been fully determined. At the majority of deferral pilot sites, EPA expects that environmental threats,
risks to communities, and PRP uncertainty about liability will be addressed more quickly than if these
sites remained in the NPL listing queue.
58
-------
Lessons Learned
The most significant factor influencing site progress has been the presence of an agreement with PRPs at
a site. At a few sites, financially viable PRPs have not yet been identified or state negotiations with PRPs
have not yet been successfully concluded. Without state/PRP agreements, timely responses at deferred
sites and effective implementation of the deferral program could be precluded. Experience suggests that
state/EPA agreements that clarify the respective roles of each agency and the expected outcomes at
deferred sites facilitate response implementation.
The pilot experiences confirm the usefulness of the draft deferral guidance. In particular
• Site eligibility criteria, which include the presence of financially viable, cooperative PRPs, should
be used to maximize the possibility of a successful deferral
• States and EPA should enter into formal agreements to clarify and document mutual
understanding, identify site-specific project milestones, and encourage continuing site progress
Contact
Alan Youkeles
US EPA
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
(703) 603-8784
59
-------
vvEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
February 1995
Blackwell Zinc - Region 6
Background
Over the past several years, many states have been
developing increasingly sophisticated and
experienced cleanup programs, and several states
already address significant numbers of non-
National Priorities List (NPL) sites under their own
laws. Under the deferral program currently being
developed, EPA will be able to defer consideration
of certain NPL-caliber sites while interested and
qualified states, territories, commonwealths, and
federally recognized Indian Tribes compel and
oversee potentially responsible party (PRP)
response actions. By deferring NPL-caliber sites,
EPA will encourage both more cleanups and
quicker cleanups than would occur if these sites
were left in the queue for listing on the NPL. The
deferral program also expects financially viable,
cooperative PRPs to implement response activity.
Description of She
The Blackwell Zinc site, one of the 22 pilot
deferral sites, is located in Blackwell Industrial
Park, on the western edge of Blackwell, Kay
County, Oklahoma, a city with a population of
12,000. The site is approximately one-square mile
in size. A zinc smelter operated on the Blackwell
site from the mid-1930s until the mid-1970s.
During the business activities conducted on the site,
an acid pond with a concrete liner was built. This
liner has since cracked, and as a result, acid and
contaminants entered the ground water. A drainage
ditch that runs through the site may have spread
contamination to off-site sediment. In addition,
people living in the area have used contaminated
soil from the site as fill material in their yards and
driveways. A bag house was installed during the
operation of the zinc smelter to recover emissions
and minimizing contamination of the air.
The contaminants of concern at the site are lead
and cadmium. Sampling revealed that several
locations have elevated concentrations of either
lead or cadmium. The highest soil concentrations
of lead encountered to date are approximately
2,000 parts per million (ppm), and the highest soil
cadmium concentrations are approximately 250
ppm. Blood lead data collected by the Kay County
Health Department showed that approximately
three percent of the children screened have elevated
blood lead concentrations.
Implementation
Under the state deferral initiative, the State of
Oklahoma is addressing contamination at the
Blackwell Zinc site by compelling and overseeing
PRP response actions. The Blackwell Zinc site
was a good deferral candidate because the PRPs
have been full and enthusiastic participants and are
cooperating with the State.
A memorandum of understanding between the
Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality
(ODEQ) and EPA was signed on April 19, 1994.
The memorandum, which is based on Region 6
pilot deferral criteria, designates the Blackwell
60
-------
Zinc site as a state deferral pilot. The PRPs at the
site are Cyprus-AMAX and the Blackwell
Industrial Authority (i.e., the City of Blackwell).
ODEQ has entered into a consent order with these
two parties to investigate and remediate the site.
The City of Blackwell is very concerned about the
contamination at the site, and is pushing the PRPs
to complete the work quickly. The local citizens
are supportive of the deferral and site work is
currently on schedule. The PRPs have conducted
small scale removals at a city park and a local
school. The equipment at an on-site softball field
also has been removed. The methods of soil
treatment currently being considered include: soil
removal for disposal in a federally permitted land-
fill; soil tillage to a predetermined depth; and use
of a phosphate fertilizer to bind the lead.
Oklahoma prefers to perform its studies in phases
and has completed approximately ten separate site
studies that will culminate in a remedial
investigation (RI). The draft document is due to
EPA in March 1995, and the final document must
be submitted hi May 1995.
Findings
Because the RI will not be submitted to EPA until
1995, there are no definitive results of the process
at the Blackwell Zinc site. Preliminary indications
are that the initiative is a success. Deferring the
site to Oklahoma's jurisdiction has expedited the
involvement of the PRPs, the City, and the citizens
living in the area.
Contact
Ky Nichols
US EPA Region 6
(214) 665-6783
61
-------
vvEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
February 1995
Gilbert and Mosley Site - Region 7
Background
Over the past several years, many states have been
developing increasingly sophisticated and
experienced cleanup programs, and several states
already address significant numbers of non-
National Priorities List (NPL) sites under their own
laws. Under the deferral program currently being
developed, EPA will be able to defer consideration
of certain NPL-caliber sites while interested and
qualified states, territories, commonwealths, and
federally recognized Indian Tribes compel and
oversee potentially responsible party (PRP)
response actions. By deferring NPL-caliber sites,
EPA will encourage both more cleanups and
quicker cleanups than would occur if these sites
were left in the queue for listing on the NPL. The
deferral program also expects financially viable,
cooperative PRPs to implement response activity.
Description of Site
The Gilbert and Mosley site, one of the 22 state
deferral pilot sites, is located in downtown Wichita,
Kansas. The site covers 2,600 acres and includes
residential, commercial, and industrial development
areas. The site extends approximately four miles
from north to south and one-half mile from east to
west. In 1986, the Kansas Department of Health
and Environment (KDHE) conducted a hazardous
waste compliance inspection under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act and discovered
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in an on-site
well. In 1989 and 1990, KDHE completed
investigations confirming widespread VOC
ground-water contamination and identified several
potential source areas.
Implementation
Under the state deferral initiative, the State of
Kansas is addressing contamination at the Gilbert
and Mosley site, and is compelling and overseeing
PRP response actions. The Gilbert and Mosley
site was a good candidate because the PRPs have
been full and enthusiastic participants and are
cooperating with the State.
On May 23, 1994, the State of Kansas and EPA
entered into a site-specific deferral agreement to
clean up the Gilbert and Mosley site. The
agreement indicates terms under which the State
will manage PRP remedial investigation/feasibility
studies (RI/FS) and remedial design/remedial
action (RD/RA) operations. These activities will
assess and address the VOC contamination at the
site. The State entered into a corresponding
agreement with the PRPs who will fund the RI/FS,
RD/RA, and State oversight costs for the site.
As a component of its agreement with the State,
EPA provided approximately $14,000 to the State
in financial assistance and anticipates providing an
additional $7,000. The funding enables the State
to perform additional managerial, technical, and
enforcement tasks unique to the deferral process
and are defined in the agreement between the
Agency and the State.
62
-------
Findings
The formal agreements between EPA and the State,
and the State and PRPs, provided a framework for
coordinating responsibility for cleanup activities and
oversight. The State and EPA agree that the
presence of financially viable and willing PRPs
greatly increases the likelihood of a successful site
deferral. Financially viable and willing PRPs,
together with effective Agency-State coordination,
can greatly decrease the time required for agreement
negotiations. Both EPA and the State of Kansas
consider the deferral pilot a success and have
received positive feedback from the community.
Contact
Paul Doherty
US EPA Region 7
(913) 551-7924
63
-------
Initiative 10: Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model
Description
To streamline and expedite risk reduction and cleanup at Superfund sites, EPA is implementing the Superfund
Accelerated Cleanup Model (SACM). SACM is a continuing initiative that accelerates cleanup and risk
reduction at Superfund sites by consolidating site-assessment functions into a one-step process, taking
early actions while assessing long-term cle mup, using presumptive remedies where appropriate, initiating
enforcement activities earlier, and addressing the worst threats to people and the environment first.
and
and
SACM comprises "early actions" and "long-
threats to the health and safety of people
Comprehensive Environmental Response,
early actions may include removing soil
landfills, relocating people, and providing
include addressing contamination of grounjl
early and long-term actions, the Agency is
focusing on the most contaminated areas fi
tie
SACM also reduces cleanup time through <
combines the preliminary assessment of a
supplementary data is collected to supply
SACM also emphasizes early i
(PRPs) in an effort to foster communicatioji
Performance
erm actions." Early actions are aimed at addressing immediate
the environment. Based on increased use of the
iompensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) removal authority,
waste, preventing access to contaminated areas, capping
Iternative drinking water sources. Long-term actions may
water and preserving wetlands and estuaries. By using both
able to quickly reduce risk and maximize resources by
rst.
single, continuous, site assessment process. This process
ite with the site investigation. Where a threat exists,
information needed for both early and long-term actions.
involvement for communities, states, and potentially responsible parties
and eliminate multiple information gathering efforts.
As a part of this ongoing initiative, EPA has completed the SACM pilots and moved to full implementation.
Several pilots demonstrated the potential e:fectiveness of SACM concepts through measurable time and
cost savings. For example, through streamlining activities, Region 8 shortened the timeframe for site
assessment from three years to one year at a site in Utah; and, by using an early action, Region 10
estimates it saved more than 15 months and $100,000 at a site in Washington.
To communicate the success of the new
application, EPA sponsored a national wor
Regional Pilots: End-of-Year Report. Thii
savings achieved through several pilot proj
cleanup model in the Regions and to identify areas for national
shop in Dallas, Texas, and completed the Status of Superfund
document provides site-specific examples of the time and cost
:CtS.
The Agency has issued various guidance documents
Resources on Worst Sites First, Site Inspect
Time-Critical Removal Actions Under CER
Remedial Site Assessment Investigations,
foster implementation efforts. Regions hav
have invited state representatives to act as
activities between on-scene coordinators
In addition, EPA has revised program management
nationwide.
, and
land
to support SACM implementation including Focusing
on Prioritization Guidance, Guidance on Conducting Non-
CLA, SACM Coordination Strategy, Integrating Removal and
the SACM Update. Regions have also issued guidance to
been given flexibility in implementing SACM; some Regions
numbers of Regional Decision Teams (RDTs). Cross-training
remedial project managers also take place on a Regional basis.
measures to encourage SACM implementation
64
-------
Benefits
Various pilot activities established under SACM included: establishing RDTs to prioritize sites and select
appropriate actions; integrating site assessments; taking early actions; and choosing appropriate long-term
cleanup actions. The pilots have demonstrated benefits to the Superfund program by
• Accelerating Superfund cleanups
• Reducing risk to human health and the environment
• Increasing the role of states and involving communities early
These benefits are consistent with the goals established by the Administrative Improvements Task Force.
Also, EPA will attempt to use the pilots to increase community involvement, motivate early PRP
involvement, and ensure that data collection and quality objectives are met at all stages of cleanup.
Lessons Learned
The Agency expects that full implementation of SACM will cut years off the cleanup process at sites by
consolidating steps. EPA Regions are finding that implementing SACM requires more resources at the
front end of the process, which achieves overall efficiencies in completing cleanups.
Involving communities in the cleanup process is another important part of SACM. By involving citizens
from the start, the Agency and citizen groups can work together to arrive at a cleanup plan that is
acceptable to both parties.
Contact
Cheryl Hawkins
US EPA
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
(703) 603-8868
65
-------
&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
February 1995
Annie Creek Mine Tailings Site - Region 8
Background
The Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model
(SACM) has been implemented to make
Superfund cleanups more timely and efficient. To
best integrate Superfund program components,
SACM involves continuous site assessment, cross-
program coordination of response planning, risk
reduction through early action, cleanup of long-
term environmental contamination, early public
notification and participation, and early initiation
of enforcement activities.
EPA employed coordinated response planning,
risk reduction, and enforcement techniques at the
Annie Creek Mine Tailings site. Using these
methods as introduced under SACM, the Agency
found innovative cleanup practices through
alternative authorities, reduced risk with a non-
time-critical removal action, and expedited
cleanup through incentives for potentially
responsible party (PRP) involvement.
Description of Site
The Annie Creek Mine Tailings site is located in
the Black Hills of South Dakota, west of the Cities
of Lead and Deadwood in Lawrence County. The
site is part of the Bald Mountain-Lead mining
district where gold ore has been processed at
small cyanide mills since the late 1800s, leaving
behind about five acres of arsenic-bearing tailings
that were later placed in a timber "crib" dam for
containment. It is believed that a flood destroyed
the crib dam, sending tailings downstream along
Annie Creek and Spearfish Creek. Erosion of the
arsenic-bearing tailings over the years has
deposited tailings and tailings mixed with soil and
sediment in Annie Creek and approximately three
miles downstream in streambed sediments of
Spearfish Creek below its confluence with Annie
Creek. Both streams are designated as trout
spawning areas and Spearfish Creek is used for
trout fishing. Spearfish Creek Canyon is
designated a National Scenic Highway and River.
In 1989, sampling results indicated high
concentrations of arsenic in the water and
sediments of Annie Creek. In 1989, the company
stabilized the original tailings pile. In July 1991,
the site was proposed for the National Priorities
List (NPL). Site characterization activities were
initiated in Spring 1992, and, early in 1994, a
response action was selected using non-time-
critical removal authority. The main conclusion of
the engineering evaluation and cost analysis was
that, although there is contamination in the
system, the Annie Creek drainage contains a
healthy, natural ecosystem that has developed over
a period of 80 years. The baseline risk assessment
indicated that the main exposure pathway to high
arsenic concentrations, for both humans and
ecological species, is ingestion of contaminated
soil, sediment, surface water, and ground water.
Today, the land use is industrial and recreational; it
is only under the residential maximum exposure
scenario that there would be an unacceptable risk to
human health. The permanent residential scenario
66
-------
is highly unlikely at this site. Further, EPA
concluded that in spite of arsenic contamination in
the environment, the species are numerous and
diverse and the general health of the ecosystems is
good. A response aimed at deterring potential
ecological risk would be more detrimental to the
environment than beneficial and, therefore, was
deemed unnecessary. In Fall 1994, the physical
construction of the removal action was completed.
It consisted of covering areas of exposed tailings
and drainage controls to divert surface water runoff
from Annie Creek. Surface and ground-water
monitoring under State authority is underway and
longer term institutional controls are currently
being put in place. These institutional controls will
include deed restrictions on private land that
prohibit permanent residential activities and
domestic ground-water use, and limitations on
disturbing public lands.
Implementation
In May 1992, the Region issued a request for
information under Section 308 of the Clean Water
Act and Section 114 of the Clean Air Act. The
request initiated the site characterization process
for all media including surface water, ground water,
soil, sediment, air, and aquatic and terrestrial biota.
Using SACM procedures, the cleanup timeline was
expedited using a non-time-critical removal action.
The removal action is anticipated to be a final
response used to balance the flexibility of a
streamlined administrative removal approach with
the thoroughness of the remedial process. These
streamlining techniques resulted in site cleanup
within three years of proposed listing to the NPL.
The project is estimated to have saved over two
years and approximately $2 million.
To further expedite cleanup at the site, the Region
developed incentives for PRPs by using EPA's
enforcement discretion. Effectively communicating
the cost benefit of innovative approaches designed
to acknowledge PRP cooperation allowed the
Agency to achieve such cooperation. Listening,
maintaining flexibility, and employing enforcement
discretion created a "win-win" situation for all
involved parties including EPA, the PRP, the State,
and the community.
Findings
An important lesson learned at the Annie Creek
Mine Tailings site is that a cooperative partnership
is essential for an expedited cleanup. Cooperation
among various programs and between EPA and
PRPs fostered the timely achievement of cleanup
activities.
The biggest incentive EPA can offer to the PRPs is
to expedite the cleanup process and lower costs.
This result was achieved at Annie Creek. EPA
demonstrated that, through the use of enforcement
discretion, it created an environment that rewarded
and encouraged PRPs to continue to work
cooperatively toward an expedited cleanup. The
Annie Creek project demonstrated that EPA can
expedite the Superfund process without
compromising its mission to protect human health
and the environment.
Contact
Anne Spencer
US EPA
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
(703) 603-8774
67
-------
Initiative 11: Construction Completions
Description
In the early years of the Superfund program, EPA focused on assessing the relative risk posed by sites,
prioritizing sites, and putting them on the National Priorities List (NPL). More recently, EPA's priority at
sites has been to select remedies and secure private-party implementation of the remedies. As the program has
matured, attention has shifted to completing remedy construction, which has become an important measure of
the success of the program. In order to better communicate successful completion of cleanup activities,
EPA established the Construction Completion List. As stated in 40 CFR Part 300, a site is placed on the
Superfund Construction Completion List when
• Any necessary physical construction is complete, whether or not final cleanup levels or other
requirements have been achieved
• EPA has determined that the response action should be limited to measures that do not involve
construction (e.g., institutional controls)
• The site qualifies for deletion from the NPL. See 40 CFR 300.435(e)
Under this continuing initiative, EPA has intensified its efforts to increase the number and rate of
completions.
Performance
EPA has exceeded its goal in this continuing initiative in each of the last two years. In FY 1992, EPA
established national targets to more than double the number of NPL construction completions by the end
of FY 1992, from 61 to 130 and, to more than triple completions by the end of FY 1993, to 200. The
Agency surpassed both of these targets by completing construction at the 149th NPL site at the end of FY
1992, and completing construction at the 217th NPL site at the end of FY 1993. Similar success was
experienced in FY 1994 in completing construction at the 278th NPL site by September 30, 1994.
To ensure that the NPL construction completion targets would be met, EPA initiated several activities. A
collaborative approach was undertaken in which the Regions and Headquarters combined their efforts to
achieve the national targets without having individual Regions assume responsibility for a specific number
of completions.
Under the collaborative approach, EPA developed a comprehensive list of all potential construction
completion sites and followed the status of each of the identified sites through the Superfund Lead Region
(previously Region 8, currently Region 7) monthly conference calls with the Regional Waste Management
Division Directors. EPA has been working toward streamlining the requirements for completions and
clarifying the completion procedures for EPA project managers and will continue to use the collaborative
approach to ensure that NPL construction completion targets will be met.
EPA created a work group composed of Headquarters and Regional managers to work toward meeting
national construction completion goals. One particular goal of this group is to identify areas where
streamlining efforts may be appropriate. The group made several changes to streamline the construction
completion process, including eliminating the requirement for an Interim Closeout Report for long-term
ground-water cleanups, supplementing the construction completions definitions for bioremediation and
68
-------
soil vapor extraction cleanups, and issuing an information package (Superfund Construction Completion
Care Package, May 1993). These streamlining efforts are described in more detail below.
EPA issued guidance clarifying declaration of construction completion at soil vapor extraction and certain
bioremediation sites (NPL Construction Completion Definition at Bioremediation and Soil Vapor Extraction
Sites, OSWER Directive 9320.2-06, June 21, 1993). According to this guidance, sites undergoing certain
types of restoration can be included in the construction completion category when the treatment unit has
been constructed and is operating as designed. These restoration activities include
• In-situ soil vapor extraction uses vapor extraction wells alone or in combination with air injection
wells, to physically remove volatile compounds from soil layers located above the water table
• In-situ bioremediation uses additives to degrade organic contaminants in soils and aquifers
• Ex-situ bioremediation uses microorganisms to degrade organic contaminants in excavated soil,
sludge, and solids
The Superfund Construction Completion Care Package, compiles all relevant guidance and policy documents
to assist remedial project managers (RPMs) in meeting NPL construction completion targets. Included in
the package is a list of contacts, a list of FY 1992 accomplishments, a question and answer section, examples
of documentation used in the construction completion process, flow charts depicting the construction
completion process, construction completion process guidance, a memorandum eliminating the requirement
for closeout reports at certain sites with a no action Record of Decision, and a Federal Register notice
defining construction completion.
EPA is updating the current guidance document for site completion activities. When completed, the new
document will serve to replace Procedures for Completion and Deletion of National Priorities List Sites
and the Superfund Construction Completion Care Package (OSWER Directive 9320.2-3A). This
guidance will answer many of the questions RPMs have concerning construction completions.
Benefits
By combining the efforts of the Regions and Headquarters and streamlining the requirements for construction
completions, EPA was able to surpass the NPL construction completion targets for both FY 1993, and FY
1994. The increased number of construction completions highlights the success of the Superfund program.
Lessons Learned
EPA found that by using a collaborative approach, it was able to use its resources more effectively. EPA
also found, as greater emphasis has been placed on construction completions, attention has been shifted
away from sites at other stages in the cleanup process. Accordingly, any change in Superfund's cleanup
priorities should be evaluated from the perspective of its potential to affect the future rate of construction
completions.
Contact
Bill Zobel
US EPA
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
(703) 603-8809
69
-------
Initiative 12: Contracts Management
Description
EPA makes extensive use of contractors in carrying out its Superfund mission. In general, services that
can be appropriately obtained through the private sector are contracted out. EPA is currently spending
over $500 million each year on contractor support for Superfund sites.
Under this continuing initiative, EPA has focused on two areas of opportunity for improved performance.
First, the Agency is continuing implementation of the Superfund Long-Term Contracting Strategy (LTCS)
for the next generation of Superfund contracts. Second, EPA is developing and issuing guidance to
improve cost planning and cost oversight.
The LTCS was designed to support a "one program" approach to assessment, enforcement, and cleanup at
Superfund sites by basing contract design on functional rather than program-specific lines. The strategy
also decentralized contracts and contract management functions to the Regions to increase flexibility and
strengthen oversight, management, and accountability.
Performance
EPA has moved forward with implementation of the LTCS for Superfund. The Enforcement Support
Services contracts are already in place. Solicitations for many of the other contracts have been issued.
Due to the sensitivity of contracting information, all inquiries on the status of specific procurements
should be directed to EPA's Office of Acquisition Management.
On March 15, 1994, EPA completed the Long-Term Contracting Strategy Review Final Report that
recommended adjustments to the strategy including providing more resources for contracts management
in the Regions. As a part of the Superfund base budget review for FY 1995, EPA is redirecting resources
to contracts management in the Regions. Implementation of the other report recommendations is ongoing.
EPA has also developed and issued guidance to increase the effectiveness of EPA's contracts management
procedures and control costs. The focus is on finalizing guidance and oversight procedures and
incorporating them into future contracting vehicles. For example, the Guide for Preparing Independent
Government Cost Estimates (issued July 29,1993) provides information on preparing and using independent
government cost estimates (IGCEs). IGCEs are detailed cost estimates based on information obtained
from sources other than the contractor. IGCEs provide EPA with cost information necessary to negotiate
favorable costs with contractors.
The IGCE guide
• Defines and explains the importance of IGCEs
• Defines minimum roles and responsibilities for members of the contract management team
• Details various cost estimating methodologies
• Describes EPA uses for IGCEs
70
-------
The Cost Management Manual for Superfund (issued June 23, 1994) provides additional contract
management procedures including
• Preparing detailed statements of work
• Conducting thorough reviews of contractor invoices
• Reducing program management costs
• Applying more stringent contract controls
The Cost Management Manual also incorporates information from the earlier IGCE guidance regarding
the procedures for developing and refining IGCEs.
Each procedure is designed to improve the EPA contracts management process, thereby improving EPA
oversight of contractor cost and performance and reducing costs. The procedures described in the Cost
Management Manual also are being incorporated into the contract management procedures for the new
Regionally based Response Action Contracts, designed to replace the Alternative Remedial Contracting
Strategy Contracts; and the Enforcement Support Services Contracts, designed to replace the Technical
Enforcement Support contracts.
Benefits
The Superfund program is beginning to realize the benefits of this initiative through cost savings in areas
such as program management and in improved contractor performance. It is expected that these trends
will continue with further implementation of the LTCS as the next generation of Superfund contracts are
awarded.
EPA also has benefited because the new guidance and improved oversight have increased the consistency
and effectiveness of the Regional and national contract management procedures. Regional reviews have
indicated improved invoice review procedures and higher quality IGCEs, which have resulted in better
written scopes of work.
Lessons Learned
EPA has learned that contracts providing services to a particular Region are best managed by that Region.
EPA also has learned that Regionally based contracts require higher levels of coordination between the
Regions and Headquarters than were necessary to manage the previous generation of Superfund contracts.
Additionally, EPA has discovered that incorporating Regional involvement into the development and
implementation of national contract management tools (e.g., detailed scopes of work, IGCEs,
standardized invoice review procedures, etc.) results in a higher level of Regional compliance and overall
program consistency.
Contact
Tim Fontaine
US EPA
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
(202) 260-1354
71
-------
Initiative 13: Enforcement First
Description
In the early days of the program, EPA's efforts were concentrated on initiating the investigative phase of
Superfund. As the program developed, the ability to identify responsible parties grew. Rather than
expending Superfund money to finance the study and cleanup of sites, EPA used its enforcement tools to
shift the burden to the responsible parties under Agency oversight.
The Superfund 90-Day Study, completed in 1989, made a number of recommendations to strengthen
enforcement and increase private party response. These recommendations included: increased use of
enforcement and settlement authorities; better integration of enforcement and Fund-financed cleanup
activities; improved case management and case support; stronger responsible party oversight and cost
recovery; and better intergovernmental coordination.
Based on these recommendations, the Administrator shifted the emphasis of the program to "Enforcement
First" and added resources to the enforcement program. As a result, the portion of remedial actions conducted
by potentially responsible parties (PRPs) increased from 30 percent in FY 1987 to 70 percent in FY 1992.
During that same time period, the value of Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act (CERCLA) settlements increased from less than half a billion a year to almost $1.5 billion.
To evaluate the effectiveness of "Enforcement First" under this initiative, EPA has been and will continue
to track various Regional enforcement performance measures including: the number of remedial design/
remedial action (RD/RA) negotiation completions; the number of civil judicial referrals of RD/RA
settlements and cost recovery actions; the number of unilateral orders in compliance; the value of
response actions; and the number of enforcement actions to compel compliance with existing orders and
decrees.
Performance
EPA is continuing to conduct the following activities under this initiative
• Encourage the use of alternative dispute resolution tools to assist with settlements. These tools —
allocation, mixed funding, de minimis settlements, cashouts — are incentives for obtaining
voluntary response from PRPs
• Increase the use of CERCLA Section 106 administrative orders to compel private party response
and help bring negotiations to a successful conclusion
• Improve case support by increasing the comprehensiveness of the administrative record and cost
recovery documentation for each case
• Emphasize adequate PRP searches to bring private parties into negotiations as early as possible
• Work closely with the Department of Justice and other governmental bodies to smooth
administrative decision making and expedite settlements
• Emphasize more complete communication among EPA offices to help alleviate confusion and delays
72
-------
Benefits
The "Enforcement First" initiative has benefited the Superfund program because more cleanups are
occurring at a faster rate than ever before. Responsible parties are performing an ever increasing
proportion of response actions at Superfund sites. "Enforcement First" benefits include
• Almost 75 percent of new cleanup work was initiated by private parties in FY 1994
• Total settlements have exceeded $1 billion in each of the last five years
• The cumulative value of private party commitments to site studies and cleanup since 1980 now
exceeds $10 billion
• The Superfund enforcement program continues to enhance enforcement fairness and reduce
transaction costs
• More than $200 million was returned to the U.S. Treasury through cost recovery efforts in 1994.
In total, EPA has reached agreements for the recovery of more than $1 billion for the Superfund
Lessons Learned
The adoption of the "Enforcement First" approach has resulted in a dramatic increase in the value of PRP
settlements. EPA's use of enforcement tools has encouraged greater PRP participation in the negotiation
and settlement process. The strict, joint, and several liability scheme has proven to be a strong incentive
for settlement. Likewise, the treble damages provision is an incentive to comply with unilateral
administrative orders. "Enforcement First" is proven to work: it saves taxpayer dollars, allows for more
cleanup, and saves government resources.
Contact
Lori Boughton
US EPA
Office of Site Remediation Enforcement
(703) 603-8959
73
-------
Initiative 14: Accelerate Cleanup at Base Closures
Description
The challenge of cleaning up closing military bases has intensified because of pressure for the quick transfer of
the property to non-federal owners for reuse. Military base closures and realignments have a potentially
significant impact on the economies of states and local communities. President Clinton announced a five-
part plan in July 1993, for revitalizing communities impacted by base closures. One of the goals of the
program was to ensure environmental cleanup took place as quickly as possible to hasten redevelopment.
The goal of this initiative is to accelerate cleanup at closing or realigning bases to ensure that property is
more quickly available for productive reuse by communities. The Department of Defense (DOD) has
identified 77 major base closure installations around the country that receive priority attention. A Base
Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Team (BCT), consisting of EPA, DOD, and state representatives,
operates at each installation. The BCT meets to review the process underway to clean up the site, evaluate
methods to handle problems that develop, and discuss how to integrate the priority of environmental
cleanup with reuse needs.
In undertaking efforts to expedite land transfers and leases, and to accelerate cleanups, DOD and EPA
developed guidance to provide direction to the BCTs. To accomplish these objectives, EPA participated
in a series of interagency workgroups within DOD's Fast Track Cleanup Program to develop guidance on:
property transfer; property leasing; conducting environmental surveys; and conducting "bottom-up"
reviews of the cleanup plans.
The Agency has also worked closely with DOD to enhance the role of communities in the cleanup of
federal facilities. EPA has worked mostly with the headquarters components of the military services in
developing policy and guidance. Regional, state, and base participation has focused on implementation.
California and Texas are among the states that have been the most active in these efforts.
Performance
EPA has completed several key activities under this initiative. Administrative improvements have focused
on developing guidance, issuing policy, and working with DOD.
In September 1993, EPA provided input to DOD for guidance covering several elements of the Fast Track
Cleanup Program, including "Finding of Suitability to Lease" (FOSL). The FY 1994 Defense Authorization
Act directed EPA and DOD to establish a memorandum of understanding to assure an adequate regulatory
role in the leasing of parcels at closing bases. The memorandum, which acknowledges that a DOD
guidance document (the FOSL guidance) was developed with EPA participation, provides a consultation
process for a FOSL, including any restrictions or limitations on reuse necessary to protect human health
and the environment.
The FOSL guidance defines a process to: (a) identify parcels of land suitable to lease; (b) ensure that
leases do not interfere with ongoing cleanup actions; and (c) assure compliance with applicable
environmental requirements by means of model lease language. The key to the effective implementation
of the guidance is to assure that the regulators are involved in the process of developing documentation as
early as possible. Leasing has provided a means to allow reuse prior to remediation in some cases.
74
-------
EPA provided input to DOD for guidance on "Finding of Suitability to Transfer" (POST). This guidance
defines a process to: (a) identify parcels of land suitable to transfer; (b) ensure that transfers do not interfere
with ongoing cleanup actions; and (c) assure compliance with applicable environmental requirements. To
transfer property by deed, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA) requires the federal agency involved to provide a statement that all remedial action necessary
to protect human health and the environment was taken prior to the conveyance.
DOD issued its final FOST guidance on June 1, 1994. Although EPA was involved in the development of
the guidance, the final version does not fully reflect the position developed jointly by EPA and DOD.
EPA is working with the military services to resolve the matter.
At closing bases, the military services are directed to identify uncontaminated parcels under further DOD
guidance related to the Community Environmental Response Facilitation Act of 1992 (CERFA), based on
the evaluation of data from a specified series of sources. For real property that is part of a facility listed
on the National Priorities List (NPL), the identification is not considered complete until concurrence by
the EPA Administrator, and concurrence by the state is necessary in the case of other real property. Parcels that
do not meet the CERFA criteria may still be eligible for transfer by deed or lease. In 1993 and 1994, as
required by CERFA, DOD developed an inventory of all uncontaminated parcels of land at closing bases.
Under FOST, parcels suitable for transfer are those with no contamination that require remediation, or
those that have been remediated and are ready for reuse. Under FOSL, those sites that did not meet the
strict FOST requirements may be leased, as long as regulators and the federal agencies agree that the land
can be reused without unacceptable risk to human health, and that the reuse will not interfere with cleanup.
EPA has determined, as a matter of policy, that in order to facilitate reuse, CERFA should be used by all
the military services to identify parcels with substantial reuse potential as "uncontaminated" even though
some limited quantity of hazardous substances has been stored and may have been released on the parcel.
This common sense approach has aided in the identification of parcels available for reuse.
During FY 1994, EPA, DOD, and the Department of Energy (DOE) worked collaboratively to issue
policy on accelerating cleanup at federal facilities. The Guidance on Accelerating CERCLA Environmental
Restoration at Federal Facilities was signed by the three agencies on August 22, 1994. The guidance was
initiated to institutionalize some accelerated cleanup approaches already in place at federal facilities and
to further encourage and support efforts by federal agencies to develop streamlined approaches to the
cleanup of hazardous waste. It encourages the use of innovative technologies. It also recommends the
use of the following: removal actions to address imminent and substantial endangerment; non-time-
critical removals and interim response actions; sampling data for both the site investigation and response
investigation; and standardized technical and field methodologies.
EPA also conducted activities under this initiative that have evolved beyond base closure installations.
Lessons learned from these efforts can be transferred to base closure facilities. These activities focus on
identifying ways to accelerate cleanups and tailor remedial options to appropriate land use.
Federal facility sites for demonstrating ways to accelerate cleanup have been identified and projects initiated.
DOE has four sites: Hanford (WA), Mound (OH), Oak Ridge (TN), and Savannah River (SC), which
have components that are run through partnerships with EPA and the states. These projects, which are
conducted through DOE's Streamlined Approach for Environmental Restoration (SAFER) project, are
designed to move sites through the system quickly. At the NASA-Langley (VA) site, an interagency
agreement was signed before the site was listed as final on the National Priorities List (NPL), and work is
proceeding at an accelerated pace. DOD's sites are the Navy's government-owned, contractor-operated
facilities at Calverton Long Island and Bethpage Long Island. The Region and the Navy began
75
-------
negotiating an agreement for these installations, but the talks dissolved due to issues over listing the site
on the NPL. Work at the sites is now proceeding under EPA's Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) corrective action program.
Benefits
EPA and DOD have been successful in the use of FOSL leasing procedures. More than 50 parcels of land
have been leased including multiple parcels at some of the same installations. In many cases, the lessees
have taken over maintenance of the facilities, resulting in a financial savings for DOD.
At this point, the POST procedures have not been used enough to determine how successful they will be.
Deed transfers have occurred at approximately six sites. Although this is a small number, some of the
parcels have been large in size.
SACM initiatives that have application at federal facilities were incorporated into the Guidance on
Accelerating CERCLA Environmental Restoration at Federal Facilities. This policy, built on lessons
learned in base closure, will be helpful in the larger federal facility arena.
Under DOD's authority, the BCTs conducted the BRAC cleanup plan, a bottom-up review of ongoing and
planned activities, which was later compared with the anticipated base reuse plans. EPA, the state, and
the service then adjusted cleanup priorities to ensure that they matched reuse needs. Through this
approach, the teams brought together information that had previously been scattered throughout the
system. EPA participated in this activity through its membership in the BCT.
It is difficult to measure the effectiveness of the BCTs because there is no baseline performance data to
serve as a comparison. The BCTs are preventative in nature, and the benefits they provide are long term.
EPA's participation in these teams ensures that there will be no surprises relating to environmental conditions
and the impact of laws and regulations on proposed actions. Several intangible benefits have been noted,
especially a better appreciation between the parties at the sites of how to achieve environmental cleanup.
Lessons Learned
It is critical that field level people be empowered to make decisions regarding the activities conducted
under this initiative. These individuals have the best understanding of the site, which helps to ensure that
decisions do not have to be reconsidered.
The partnership projects between EPA and other federal agencies have demonstrated the importance of
working together up front to prevent significant future problems. This results in a much more cost-
effective and efficient process.
The activities undertaken have provided the opportunity to accelerate the process. There have been mixed
results so far, with some installations emphasizing cleanup while others have focused primarily on reuse.
Contact
BobCarr
US EPA
Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse Office
(202) 260-2035
76
-------
Initiative 15: Promote the Use of Innovative Technology
Description
Comprehensive, readily accessible information on treatment technologies improves the timeliness and
consistency of remedy selection, facilitates remedy implementation, and reduces the risk associated with
emerging technologies. The goal of this initiative is to obtain market, regulatory, and public acceptance
of innovative technologies through full-scale demonstrations of hazardous waste treatment systems.
A shortage of facilities where large-scale testing can be conducted using actual hazardous waste has
hampered technology development and evaluation. To solve this problem, EPA has focused on efforts to
increase the testing and use of innovative technologies as well as the sharing of information. "Orphan"
sites and federal facilities are excellent candidates for demonstrating innovative technologies. Potentially
responsible party (PRP) lead sites may also be suitable under appropriate circumstances.
Performance
Public-Private Partnerships
EPA has emphasized the use of public-private partnerships at federal facilities to demonstrate and evaluate
innovative hazardous waste treatment technologies. As a focus of this effort, Clean Sites, Inc., through a
cooperative agreement with EPA's Technology Innovation Office (TIO), is working to establish partnerships
between federal agencies (EPA, the Department of Defense [DOD], and the Department of Energy
[DOE]), states, and Fortune 500 companies. Private sector participants include AT&T, Beazer East, Dow,
DuPont, Monsanto, Southern California Edison, Xerox, Exxon, Phillips Petroleum, General Electric,
Thiokol, Hercules, and ICI.
Innovative technologies, demonstrated through the partnership projects, target contamination problems of
mutual concern at federal facilities and private sites across the country. TIO's cooperative agreement with
Clean Sites, Inc. was implemented in July 1992 and runs through July 1997.
EPA's first public-private partnership is continuing with the DOD McClellan Air Force Base (CA). The
private companies involved in this partnership are AT&T, Beazer East, Dow, DuPont, Monsanto, Southern
California Edison, and Xerox. Two demonstrations were implemented at the site between July and
October 1994. The first technology demonstrated was a two-phase extraction process for treating soil and
ground water contaminated with volatiles. Preliminary results from the demonstration indicate that
extraction rates are higher, and the need for surface treatment of extracted water has been minimized. The
second technology demonstrated was a photolytic destruction process used to treat off-gases from soil vapor
extraction. The initial application of this technology did not perform as expected due to mitigating factors
at the demonstration site, and the demonstration was suspended. A modified version should be ready for
the resumed demonstration by March 1995. A public visitors' day was held at the McClellan site on
October 6, 1994; 250 people attended.
EPA concluded an agreement with DOE at the Pinellas plant in Florida. A public-private partnership
project involving General Electric, Exxon, and Phillips Petroleum is now in the implementation phase at
this facility through DOE's Innovative Treatment Remediation Demonstration program. The agreement
outlines the roles and responsibilities of the various partners at the site. Decision-making authority rests
with DOE and the federal and state regulators, with input from the private companies.
77
-------
Private firms are participating in additional partnerships. Clean Sites is currently working with the Remedial
Technology Development Forum (RTDF) to demonstrate an innovative remediation technology at DOE's
Paducah (KY) Gaseous Diffusion Plant. General Electric, Exxon, and Phillips Petroleum are involved in
this activity. Efforts are also underway to establish partnerships at the Joliet (IL) Army Ammunition
Plant, Massachusetts Military Reservation-Otis Air National Guard Site, and the Naval Air Station North
Island (CA). Thiokol, ICI, Hercules, Alliant, and DuPont are interested in the partnership at Joliet. The
EPA Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory is providing support for all of the partnership projects.
Databases: Improving Remedy Selection Through the Generation of Cost and Performance Data
Evaluation of existing and potential technology databases revealed the lack of actual cost and performance
data on technology applications as a major, continuing limitation. Currently, the contents of final closeout
reports vary widely, and much of the first-hand experience of project personnel is not routinely documented.
EPA is conducting an ongoing information collection activity to assess existing and potential databases.
The Agency currently has several databases that contain information on remediation technologies,
including the Alternative Treatment Technology Information Clearinghouse (ATTIC) and the Vendor
Information System of Innovative Treatment Technologies (VISITT). EPA is also in the process of
developing the Decision Document Database (3-DB) to address many of the information shortcomings in
existing databases that have been identified by internal and external studies.
In conjunction with the Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable, made up of federal agencies
including EPA, DOE, DOD, and the Department of Interior (DOI), EPA's TIO developed a consistent set
of cost and performance data elements on innovative technologies of interest. Utilizing these data elements as
a guide, EPA is in the process of preparing summaries of 17 completed Superfund remedial actions.
These remedial actions involve the use of innovative technologies such as soil vapor extraction, thermal
desorption, bioremediation, and soil washing. DOD efforts in this area are funded by the Air Force and
involve preparation of cost and performance summary reports for approximately 20 remediation projects
at military facilities.
Other Activities
EPA undertook efforts to ensure that treatment technology information is provided to data repositories for
dissemination. Access to information has been a problem in the past, and this ongoing effort will ensure
that all parties involved will be able to take advantage of information on innovative technologies.
The Federal Facilities Enforcement Office (FFEO) and the Western Governors' Association held the
"Regulatory and Institutional Barriers Roundtable" conference in October 1993. This conference, which
was a follow-up to the "Commercialization Roundtable" held in August 1993, identified regulatory,
attitudinal, and financial barriers that hamper the use and commercialization of innovative technologies.
The Agency developed policy regarding the use of federal facilities as test centers for innovative
technology. EPA Policy for Innovative Environmental Technologies at Federal Facilities was signed by
the Administrator on August 19, 1994. The document reaffirms EPA policy that federal facilities should
be used as test and demonstration centers, and encourages their use. It encourages remedial project
managers (RPMs) to be more flexible at federal facility sites, thereby allowing for more widespread use
of innovative technologies.
78
-------
Benefits
By pooling the expertise of engineering departments and laboratories, the public-private partnerships will
result in faster identification and implementation of cost-effective, permanent treatment technologies. In
addition, the use of these partnerships will encourage community acceptance of innovative alternatives.
An added benefit comes when the private partners introduce the innovative products demonstrated as part
of treatment systems at sites where they are PRPs. In the long term, the public-private partnerships are
expected to either save time, money, or clean up sites better, or result in a combination of these benefits.
Agencies comprising the Roundtable recognize the importance of documenting results from cleanups and
the benefits of greater coordination of such efforts between agencies.
Systematic collection of cost and performance information employing standard terminology will establish
a baseline for future data gathering, assist in remedy selection by allowing project managers to consider
previous technology applications on sites with similar characteristics, and allow more meaningful
comparison of technology performance.
Lessons Learned
EPA has implemented several demonstrations of innovative technologies, and is in the process of
establishing an additional three or four. The performance and cost data collected through the partnership
demonstrations are valuable components of technology transfer from one site to another. The public-
private partnerships also illustrate a more streamlined remedy selection process at the demonstration site
that can be used at private company sites around the country where contamination problems are similar to
those found at the demonstration site.
There are currently six active sites where partnerships are in place. At two of the sites, McClellan and
Paducah, technology demonstrations are underway. Communication and cooperation are vital because of
the large number of individuals involved at every site, each with a different set of expectations and ideas.
In conducting the partnerships, EPA developed agreements to describe the roles and responsibilities of all
involved parties, as well as status reports, roadmaps, timetables, and distinct milestones. The agreements
formalized the communication between the parties. Getting the right people, i.e., cleanup managers, to
the table is vital.
In addition to the challenges of reaching consensus among a large group, as might be expected with
projects of this nature, there have been technical difficulties with some of the technologies. The purpose
of the initiative is to test the technologies to determine their capabilities and limitations. Even if a
technology does not work immediately, it does not mean that the effort is a failure. An important lesson
from partnership demonstration efforts to date is that a promising technology should not be abandoned at
the first sign of difficulties. Demonstrations should be of sufficient scale and duration to allow modifications
and improvements as necessary based on operating experience.
Contacts
Jim Cummings Diane Lynne Dan Powell
US EPA US EPA US EPA
Technology Innovation Office Federal Facilities Enforcement Office Technology Innovation Office
(703) 308-8796 (202) 260-9755 (703) 308-8827
79
-------
Initiative 16: Compliance Monitoring
Description
EPA has been very successful in encouraging potentially responsible parties (PRPs) to clean up sites. In
order to ensure that PRP cleanups are being performed satisfactorily and in a timely manner, the Agency
must have an effective compliance monitoring and enforcement program. In November 1992, the Office
of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) implemented a long-term strategy for facilitating
implementation of Regional compliance monitoring and enforcement programs. This strategy has two
primary components: (a) development of Regional compliance monitoring and enforcement procedures;
and (b) installation of enhanced compliance tracking systems (for monitoring compliance with terms and
conditions of consent decrees (CDs), administrative orders on consent (AOCs), unilateral administrative
orders (UAOs), and enforceable work-plan milestones).
The goals of the compliance monitoring program are to strengthen EPA enforcement of AOCs, UAOs, and
CDs through ongoing oversight of PRP compliance. EPA will monitor PRP activities to ensure that they
are performed correctly and on schedule. Such oversight will encourage PRPs to adhere to cleanup
schedules that will result in reduction of risk to public health and the environment.
The Regions have been free to develop their own procedures for compliance monitoring and enforcement so
long as the procedures provide: clearly defined roles and responsibilities for the program and Office of Regional
Counsel staff; routine documentation of non-compliance; documentation of recommended responses to non-
compliance; management review; and notification to Regional financial management staff when a stipulated
penalty assessment is made. OSWER will not mandate any particular compliance monitoring approach so
long as significant Regional progress continues to be made in implementing compliance monitoring programs.
Performance
EPA is continuing to develop and implement procedures for increasing the effectiveness of the compliance
monitoring and enforcement program. This process is underway in every Region and includes issuing
Regional Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA)
compliance monitoring guidance and implementing Regional compliance tracking systems.
Each Region has issued compliance monitoring guidance that explains how remedial project managers (RPMs)
and on-scene coordinators (OSCs) should conduct compliance monitoring. The guidance documents outline
• How frequently RPMs and OSCs should conduct compliance monitoring activities
• How the Region defines AOC and CD compliance
• What type of tracking mechanism (e.g., manual or automated) is used to track AOC, UAO, and
CD compliance
• Whether the Region requires that compliance information be tracked on a Region-wide or site-
specific basis
• The level of tracking detail required to monitor AOCs, UAOs, and CDs
Each Region has also issued enforcement response guidance that specifies the Regional procedures for
handling non-compliance with AOCs and CDs. These guidance documents identify appropriate
documentation and Regional enforcement response in the event of non-compliance. The enforcement
guidelines typically specify that the appropriate EPA personnel first contact the PRPs by phone to notify
80
-------
them that they are not in compliance. If the PRPs do not indicate an intent to comply or if the PRPs fail to
comply, Regional guidance often specifies that a letter should follow the phone call. If the PRPs fail to
comply after receiving the letter, EPA may assess stipulated penalties and, in extreme cases, cite legal
action for injunctive relief and may even take over work at the site.
EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) currently is reviewing Regional compliance
reporting measures and plans to determine whether national compliance guidelines are appropriate or
necessary. The Office of Site Remediation Enforcement (OSRE), as part of the OECA review, is reviewing
each Region's approach to ensure that the Regions are tracking the most appropriate compliance indicators.
Benefits
Region-specific compliance monitoring and enforcement guidance has clarified the roles and responsibilities,
methods, and procedures used within each Region. The information has increased the efficiency and
effectiveness of each Region's compliance monitoring and enforcement procedures. The guidance
documents also have increased the inter-Regional exchange of information concerning compliance monitoring
and enforcement activities that will continue to increase the overall efficiency and effectiveness of EPA's
compliance monitoring and enforcement program.
Assuring compliance with CERCLA orders and decrees sends a strong message to the PRP community
that the Agency is aggressively monitoring compliance with its orders and agreements. By using
enforcement procedures in all ten Regions, the Agency indicates its intention to compel PRP compliance.
As the Agency decreases non-compliance delays, PRP cleanups are conducted in a more timely fashion.
Preliminary results of EPA Regional compliance monitoring reviews indicates that the improved
compliance monitoring procedures are increasing Regional enforcement of AOCs, UAOs, and CDs.
Region 8, for example, has responded to approximately 13 instances of PRP non-compliance since
January 1993, when the monthly compliance monitoring and reporting practices were put in place. A
precise count is difficult to obtain since some instances are reported over a span of several months and
appear to reflect continuing non-compliance rather than distinct instances of non-compliance.
Lessons Learned
EPA has learned that an aggressive compliance monitoring and enforcement program can reduce the time
required to clean up a site by minimizing the number of delays due to PRP non-compliance with AOCs,
UAOs, and CDs.
EPA also has learned that the current national data systems may not meet completely the Regions' need to
monitor compliance and enforcement concerns. Regional methods of monitoring compliance and enforcement
issues currently range from manual filing systems, to automated desk-top systems, to the use of modified
national tracking systems. Improved national automated data systems would allow a standardized
compliance monitoring and enforcement tracking system to be developed.
Contact
Bruce Pumphrey
US EPA
Office of Site Remediation Enforcement
(703) 603-8998
81
-------
Initiative 17: Improve the Effectiveness of Cost Recovery
Description
The Superfund law provides for recovery of federal money spent at a site. EPA is responsible for recovering
the costs as fully and expeditiously as possible. To improve cost recovery, EPA is currently undertaking
several activities, including integrating financial and Superfund information systems, and promulgating
the cost recovery rule.
This initiative addresses obstacles to effective cost recovery. Activities focus on the development of tools
to increase the efficiency, timeliness, and effectiveness of the Agency's cost recovery efforts under
Superfund. These tools include improved systems for tracking the Agency's cost recovery data and
prioritizing cost recovery work, and developing a cost recovery rule to standardize the cost recovery
process and documentation.
Performance
EPA has completed several important activities under this initiative. Efforts have focused on developing
effective and efficient reports, and revising the cost recovery targeting process.
The Cost Recovery Targeting Report was developed to combine CERCLA Information System (CERCLIS)
planning obligations with Integrated Financial Management System (IFMS) actual past data to present a
complete picture of statute of limitations dates and the past costs associated with the respective sites.
CERCLIS and IFMS do not normally interact, which has made it difficult to assemble an accurate
assessment of the statute of limitations workload or the effectiveness of past cost recovery efforts.
The Cost Recovery Targeting Report merges data from the two systems to resolve potential problems
related to comparability of and access to data, and to enable EPA to identify sites where the statute of
limitations is near expiration. The report is also used to present a complete picture of recoverable past
costs and the status of all past, ongoing, and planned efforts to address those costs. EPA revised the cost
recovery target process to target all cases greater than $200,000 where the statute of limitations is an issue.
Under the revised process, the Regions are required to provide documentation for all cases where the
statute of limitations is an issue, including those where the deadlines have expired. The revised process
should help Regions prioritize their cost recovery work.
In order to protect the Trust Fund, standardize cost recovery documentation requirements, and clarify statute
of limitations issues, EPA proposed the Cost Recovery Rule. The rule addresses cost documentation
requirements, the application of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act's (CERCLAs) statute of limitations, the types of costs that constitute recoverable indirect costs, and the
methodology used to calculate these indirect costs. The rule is still in the deliberative process.
Benefits
Promulgation of the cost recovery rule will clarify cost recovery issues for all stakeholders. It will also
reduce transaction costs by reducing the potential for litigation and standardizing the documentation that
potentially responsible parties (PRPs) can expect to receive.
82
-------
The Cost Recovery Targeting Report merges CERCLIS and IFMS data, allowing for more efficient,
timely and effective cost recovery.
Lessons Learned
Developing the automated statute of limitations targeting report was much more difficult than expected.
The ambiguity of the statutory language made it very difficult to arrive at a consensus on how it should be
interpreted and implemented. Resolving these differences required many meetings and revisions. In
addition, bridging the gap between IFMS and CERCLIS has proved to be difficult because of the
differences in the two systems, principally that IFMS data is organized at the site level while CERCLIS is
much more detailed.
Contacts
Lori Boughton Chad Littleton
US EPA US EPA
Office of Site Remediation Enforcement Office of Site Remediation Enforcement
(703) 603-8959 (703) 603-8991
83
-------
References
Administrative Improvements Reports
EPA. June 23, 1993. Superfund Administrative Improvements Executive Summary.
EPA. June 23,1993. Superfund Administrative Improvements Final Report.
EPA. October 1993. Superfund Administrative Improvements Quarterly Report.
EPA. February 24, 1994. Superfund Administrative Improvements Quarterly Report.
EPA. May 24, 1994. Superfund Administrative Improvements Quarterly Report.
EPA. September 2,1994. Superfund Administrative Improvements Quarterly Report.
EPA. December 23, 1994. Superfund Administrative Improvements Quarterly Report.
Administrative Improvements Direct
EPA. August 19, 1994. EPA Policy for Innovative Environmental Technologies at Federal Facilities.
EPA. August 1993. Preliminary Analysis of Population Demographics.
EPA. May 1993. Superfund Construction Completion Care Package.
EPA/DOD/DOE. August 22, 1994. Guidance on Accelerating CERCLA Environmental Restoration at
Federal Facilities.
EPA/OE/OWPE. July 29, 1993. Memorandum from Bruce M. Diamond, Director, Office of Waste
Programs Enforcement, and William A. White, Office of Enforcement/Superfund to Regional Counsels,
Regions 1 - 10, and Directors, Waste Management Divisions, Regions 1 - 10. Supplemental Guidance on
Federal Superfund Liens. OSWER Directive 9832.12-la.
EPA/OERR. July 12, 1993. Memorandum from Henry L. Longest II, Director, Office of Emergency and
Remedial Response, to Division Directors, Focusing Resources on Worst Sites First. OSWER Directive
9360.0-35.
EPA/OERR. August 1993. Guidance on Conducting Non-Time-Critical Removal Actions Under CERCLA.
EPA 540-R-93-057.
EPA/OERR. December 21, 1993. Memorandum from David Bennett, Office of Emergency and Remedial
Response, to Superfund Administrative Improvements Regional Contacts; and April 6, 1994,
Memorandum from David Bennett to Superfund Administrative Improvements Regional Contacts,
"Initiate State Deferral Pilots."
EPA/OERR. October 21, 1993. Memorandum from Henry L. Longest n, Director, Office of Emergency
and Remedial Response, to Divisions. Integrating Removal and Remedial Site Assessment Investigations.
OSWER Directive 9345.1-16FS.
84
-------
EPA/OERR. March 1994. SACM Update. Publication 9203.1-14FS.
EPA/OERR. August 23,1993. Memorandum from Henry L. Longest II, Director, Office of Emergency
and Remedial Response, to Regional Counsel Superfund Branch Chiefs, Regions 1 -10, and Waste
Management Division Branch Chiefs, Regions 1-10. "Sample Consent Decree Language Addressing the
Issue of Technical Impracticability of Ground Water Pump and Treat Remedies for Certain Superfund
Sites."
EPA/OERR. December 1993. Status of Superfund Regional Pilots: End of Year Report. OSWER
Directive 9202.1-15A.
EPA/OERR. September 14,1993. Memorandum from Henry L. Longest n, Director, Office of Emergency
and Remedial Response, and Bruce M. Diamond, Director, Office of Waste Programs Enforcement, to
Addressees. "Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model Coordination Strategy."
EPA/OERR. March 1994. This is Superfund: A Citizen's Guide to EPA's Superfund Program.
EPA 540-K-93-008.
EPA/OERR. March 8,1994. Memorandum from Henry L. Longest II, Director, Office of Emergency and
Remedial Response, to Division Directors. Update on SACM Implementation. OSWER Directive 9203.1-14.
EPA/OERR/OWPE. October 27, 1993. Memorandum from Henry L. Longest E, Director, Office of
Emergency and Remedial Response, and Bruce M. Diamond, Director, Office of Waste Programs
Enforcement, to Timothy Fields Jr., Director, Superfund Revitalization Office. "Administrative
Improvements: Streamlining Mixed Funding."
EPA/OSRE. September 30, 1994. Developing Allocations Among Potentially Responsible Parties for the
Costs of Superfund Site Cleanups.
EPA/OSRE. August 12,1994. Memorandum from Bruce M. Diamond, Director, Office of Site
Remediation Enforcement, to JJca Joiner, Acting Director, Superfund Revitalization Office. "Superfund
Administrative Improvements - White Paper on Volumetric Information at Multi-Party NPL Sites."
EPA/OSWER. April 14, 1994. Memorandum from Elliott P. Laws, Assistant Administrator, to Waste
Management Division Director, Regions 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8; Emergency and Remedial Response Division
Director, Region 2; Hazardous Waste Management Division Directors, Regions 3 and 9; and Hazardous
Waste Division Director, Region 10. "All Appropriate Inquiry under CERCLA."
EPA/OSWER. June 23, 1994. Cost Management Manual for Superfund. OSWER Directive 9202.1-20.
EPA/OSWER. September 1993. Evaluating the Technical Impracticability of Groundwater Restoration.
OSWER Directive 9234.2-25.
EPA/OSWER. September 1993. Guidance on General Policy and Procedures, Municipal Landfills and
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) in Soils. OSWER Directive 9355.0-47FS, OSWER Directive
9355.0-49FS, and OSWER Directive 9355.0-48FS.
EPA/OSWER. July 29, 1993. Guide for Preparing Independent Government Cost Estimates. OSWER
Directive 9202.1-12.
EPA/OSWER. June 21, 1993. NPL Construction Completion Definition at Bioremediation and Soil Vapor
Extraction Sites. OSWER Directive 9320.2-06.
85
-------
EPA/OSWER. July 14,1994. Memorandum from Elliott P. Laws, Assistant Administrator, to Regional
Administrators, Regions 1-10, Revised Interim Soil Lead Guidance for CERCLA Sites and RCRA
Corrective Action Facilities. OSWER Directive 9355.4-12.
EPA/OSWER. September 1993. Study of Pervasiveness ofDNAPLs at National Priorities List (NPL)
Sites. OSWER Directive 9355.4-13.
EPA/OWPE. September 1993. Mixed Funding Evaluation Report: The Potential Costs of Orphan Shares.
EPA/OWPE/OE. September 30,1993. Memorandum from Bruce M. Diamond, Director, Office of Waste
Programs Enforcement, and William A. White, Enforcement Counsel for Superfund Office of
Enforcement, to Waste Management Division Directors, Regions 1-10, and Regional Counsels, Regions
1 -10. "Communications Strategy for Settlements with Small Volume Waste Contributors."
EPA/OWPE/OE. March 31, 1993. Memorandum from Bruce M. Diamond, Director, Office of Waste
Programs Enforcement, and William A. White, Enforcement Counsel for Superfund Office of
Enforcement, to Waste Management Division Directors, Regions 1-10, and Regional Counsels, Regions
1-10. Revised Policy on Discretionary Information Release Under CERCLA. OSWER Directive
9835.12-Ola.
EPA/OWPE/OE. July 30,1993. Memorandum from Bruce M. Diamond, Director, Office of Waste
Programs Enforcement, and William A. White, Enforcement Counsel for Superfund Office of
Enforcement, to Waste Management Division Directors, Regions 1-10, and Regional Counsels, Regions
1-10. Streamlined Approach for Settlements With De Minimis Waste Contributors under CERCLA
Section 122(g)(l)(A). OSWER Directive 9834.7-1D.
EPA/OWPE/OE. July 30, 1993. Memorandum from Bruce M. Diamond, Director, Office of Waste
Programs Enforcement, and William A. White, Enforcement Counsel for Superfund Office of
Enforcement, to Waste Management Division Directors, Regions 1-10, and Regional Counsels, Regions
1-10. Transmittal of Guidance on CERCLA Settlements With De Micromis Waste Contributors. OSWER
Directive 9834.17.
Administrative Improvements Indirect
DOD. Finding of Suitability to Lease.
DOD. June 1, 1994. Finding of Suitability to Transfer.
EPA/OERR. February 1991. Conducting Remedial Investigations/Feasibility Studies for CERCLA
Municipal Landfill Sites.
EPA/OERR. September 1993. Presumptive Remedy for CERCLA Municipal Landfill Sites. OSWER
Directive 9355.0-49FS, EPA 540-F-93-035.
86
------- |