United States Office of Publication 9202.1-11
Environmental Protection Solid Waste and EPA 540-R-93-055
Agency Emergency Response PB93-963274
(OS-100) April 1993
Superfund
SUPERFUND:
EPA/ICMA Superfund
Revitalization Conference
Chicago, Illinois
November 12-13, 1992
-------
Additional copies of this document, NTIS Order No. PB93-963274, may be obtained
from:
National Technical Information Service (NTIS)
U.S. Department of Commerce
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
(703) 487-4650
For more information, call the Superfund Hotline at (800) 424-9346.
-------
Publication 9202.1-11
EPA 540-R-93-055
PB93-963274
April 1993
SUPERFUND:
EPA/ICMA Superfund Revitalization
Conference
Chicago, Illinois
November12-13, 1992
^S^EnvJiunrnenta^Proteclion Agency
770WctiM*nr'^~- •"" r
Cnicn;;3, H 60604-3^-:-1'' '""iil Hoof
-------
The policies and procedures set forth here are intended as guidance to Agency and
other government employees. They do not constitute rulemaking by the Agency, and
may not be relied on to create a substantive or procedural right enforceable by any
other person. The Government may take action that is at variance with the policies
and procedures in this manual.
-------
CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY v
I. OPENING PLENARY SESSION 1
Bill Muno, Acting Division Director, 1
Waste Management Division, EPA Region V
Jodi Traub, Acting Associate Division Director, 2
Office of Superfund, EPA Region V
Tim Fields, Director, 2
Superfund Revitalization Office, EPA Headquarters
Richard O'Hara, Director of Remedial Projects, 3
Waste Management, Inc.
Tanya Cabala, Michigan Director 4
Lake Michigan Federation
John Robinson, Former Mayor of Wausau, Wisconsin 5
II. VOLUNTARY CLEANUPS 7
A. Eligible Sites and the Overall Voluntary Cleanup Process 7
B. EPA and/or State Oversight for Voluntary Cleanups 9
C. Possibilities for Reduced Future Liability 11
D. Providing Incentives for Voluntary Cleanups 13
III. ACCELERATING CLEANUPS THROUGH THE SUPERFUND 16
ACCELERATED CLEANUP MODEL (SACM), PRESUMPTIVE
REMEDIES, AND INCREASED FLEXIBILITY
A. The Extent of Cleanups 16
B. Presumptive and Standardized Remedies 18
C. Risk Assessment/Remedy Selection 20
D. Soil Cleanup Levels 22
IV. How TO INVOLVE THE PUBLIC AND OTHER PARTIES 23
MORE EFFECTIVELY IN THE CLEANUP PROCESS
A. Resource Issues 23
B. Dispute Resolution 25
C/D. Public Involvement 27
111
-------
V. CONCLUDING PLENARY SESSION 29
VI. FOLLOW-UP ACTIONS 30
VII. APPENDICES
A. Agenda 31
B. Attendee List 33
C. Pre-meeting Reading List 39
D. Glossary 41
E. Background Information about ICMA 43
IV
-------
ICMA/EPA SUPERFUND REVITALIZATION CONFERENCE
VOLUNTARY CLEANUPS, THE SUPERFUND ACCELERATED CLEANUP MODEL,
AND OTHER SUPERFUND REFORMS
November 12-13, 1992
Chicago, IL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
EPA's Superfund Revitalization Office (SRO), EPA's Region V Waste Management Division, and
the International Qty/County Management Association (ICMA) organized a regional conference in
Chicago to solicit suggestions from different constituencies on how to improve the current
Superfund program. Attendees representing industry, local government, state government,
environmental groups, and private citizenry, participated in break-out sessions focusing on three
primary topics: voluntary cleanups, accelerated cleanups, and public involvement.
The following recommendations have been drawn from the groups' discussions. However, these
suggestions do not necessarily reflect consensus among participants. The summary report outlines
their comments in greater detail.
Voluntary Cleanups
Process:
Oversight:
Liability:
Incentives:
A voluntary cleanup program needs to be constructed in a way that assures the
public of its soundness and assures the volunteering parties that their remedial
actions will not be second-guessed at a later date. While resources at EPA and
the states may be limited, voluntary cleanups are necessary, given the number
of contaminated sites and the need to clean them up more quickly.
Some type of oversight is necessary for all voluntary cleanups. The degree of
oversight can vary according to site specifics such as the demonstrated
capability of the volunteering party, volume and type of waste, difficulty of
cleanup, and future use of the site. Fee and penalty systems might be used to
ensure commitment and create incentives for timely cleanups.
Liability may be limited after the cleanup is completed—particularly when
hazardous substances are removed from the site. Alternative financing
schemes, such as increased landfill fees or additional federal taxes, might be
used to pay for future cleanup costs at sites where liability is limited.
EPA and the states need to define acceptable standards and the extent of future
liability more clearly; both liability and standards need to be articulated from the
start of the cleanup process. Regulatory agencies should play a more active and
cooperative role in assisting volunteering parties in their searches for other
responsible parties.
Accelerated Cleanups
SACM:
Certain trade-offs are implicit in SACM. Regulatory agencies and PRPs may
move too quickly with too little data. Some PRPs may not want to sign up for
cleanups due to uncertainty associated with less thorough assessments. While
-------
Presumptive
Remedies:
Remedy
Selection:
Soil Cleanup
Levels:
EPA and the states face shortages in resources, and particularly in staff, SACM
places additional demands on the same number of people.
SACM rightly encourages some type of action. Even a partial solution is
preferable to no action at all. However, quick action should not be the only
goal, particularly if an expedited process leads us to disregard options such as
alternative technologies. In some instances, long-term solutions may be best
achieved if we wait for more effective technology.
While presumptive remedies may ultimately save time and money, some
flexibility should remain in the process in order for site-specific information to
be considered in the remedial plans. Regulatory agencies should ensure that
remedies will not be systematically applied to sites where they might not be
appropriate.
Presumptive remedies might be used as tools to approach the investigation and
remediation at a site and should remain optional. At complicated sites, remedial
investigations will still be necessary.
As a related point, more data on the cost of remedies is needed. A database,
which includes information on after-construction costs, would help parties
share more accurate information on remedies.
Society needs to make tradeoffs regarding risks and resources. Both ecological
and public health risks somehow should enter into the risk assessment process.
Risk communication and public education are fundamental to effective
implementation of environmental decisions.
While standards might be useful in expediting the process, responsible parties
should be able to appeal these standards. Appealing parties might be required to
supply supporting data to justify their request for a waiver.
Public Involvement
Resource
Issues:
Dispute
Resolution:
EPA should consider including local government representatives and citizens on
the decision teams under SACM. Representation and involvement of all
affected parties needs to be improved, perhaps through the early establishment
of voluntary committees within a community. Such local advisory committees
should have the authority to affect cleanup decisions and should include
responsible parties, environmental groups, both elected and appointed local
government officials, and citizens. By gaining early input from all of these
parties, EPA would be able to consider all of these interests from the onset
rather than learning of dissent and criticism after cleanup decisions have been
made more exclusively.
ADR techniques can be helpful. EPA and the states need to rethink their
traditionally authoritative roles in the process. When possible,
VI
-------
mediators/facilitators should be used as truly neutral parties who can manage the
process from the onset.
Public
Involvement: Both the quality and quantity of outreach needs to improve. EPA and the states
need to conduct more public outreach early in the process to involve local
governments, the public, and the media. Local governments, citizens, and
other interested parties might be involved even before the investigation begins
as well as through the final stages of the remedy. All EPA and state personnel,
especially project managers, should be trained to interact effectively with the
public.
EPA's Follow-Up Actions
As a result of the input received from participants at the Superfund Revitalization Conference, EPA
has developed the following list of actions to take with respect to attendees' suggestions.
1. EPA will review its current policies for communicating with potentially responsible
parties, e.g., the policy revisions implemented last year by EPA Region I.
2. EPA will examine mechanisms to get citizens involved earlier in the Superfund
cleanup process, and will examine its community involvement policies in this
regard.
3. EPA will continue its efforts to develop a national voluntary cleanup strategy,
utilizing the suggestions contained in this report.
4. In implementing SACM, EPA must find ways to assure sufficient data is collected
to provide adequate certainty in accelerated cleanups to address the concerns of
potentially responsible parties and affected citizens.
5. In developing presumptive remedy guidance, EPA will assure that it does not stifle
the use of innovative technologies.
6. EPA will work with States and private parties to develop a construction cost data
base, in order to obtain more accurate information on the cost of remedies.
7. EPA will develop and implement a strategy for better communicating Superfund
risks and cleanup progress.
8. EPA will conduct a special meeting with representatives of local governments on
SACM and other Superfund revitalization initiatives.
9. EPA will explore the feasibility of providing additional support, beyond the existing
Technical Assistance Grant mechanism to the establishment of local advisory
committees to better involve affected interest groups in the Superfund cleanup
process.
10. EPA will assure that all Regional Superfund personnel, not just Community
Relations Coordinators, are properly trained in community involvement procedures.
Vll
-------
SUMMARY REPORT
EPA's Superfund Revitalization Office (SRO), EPA's Region V Waste Management Division, and
the International Gty/County Management Association (ICMA) organized a regional conference in
Chicago to solicit suggestions from different constituencies on how to improve the current
Superfund program. Private citizens as well as representatives from industry, local governments,
environmental groups, and state environmental agencies were invited to participate in the one and a
half day meeting. Representatives from EPA Headquarters and EPA Region V also attended, but
primarily as observers. The group consisted of the following participants: 19 from the private
sector, 12 from local government, 9 from citizen and environmental groups, 17 from state
agencies, 10 from EPA Headquarters, and 13 from EPA Region V.
This conference was the first of four regional meetings that SRO will conduct in collaboration with
ICMA in 1992 -1993. While topics may vary, each conference will be designed to gather ideas
from different interest groups on how the Superfund process can be improved. Following each
conference, summary reports will be available to the public.
The Chicago conference began with brief presentations by representatives from EPA and the
different constituencies. Attendees then participated in break-out sessions focusing on the three
primary topics:
• Voluntary cleanups
• Accelerated cleanups
• Public involvement.
During each break-out session, attendees were divided into four small groups. Each group
included members of the main constituencies—industry, local government, environmental groups,
and private citizens—and addressed specific questions. Following each break-out session, all of
the attendees reconvened and one member from each discussion group summarized the group's
comments.
This summary report outlines the comments made by the introductory speakers as well as the
conclusions drawn from the group discussions. This report highlights those recommendations that
were strongly endorsed by a large number of attendees. This report also identifies points on which
the different interest groups could not reach consensus.
Opening Remarks
Bill Muno. Acting Division Director. Waste Management Division. EPA Region V
Mr. Muno cited the cleanup of hazardous waste facilities and abandoned sites as one of the
public's top priorities. The goals of Superfund will continue to be a primary concern for the
public and the upcoming administration. Therefore, we must strive to improve the current
process in order to facilitate these cleanups.
Mr. Muno also noted that the Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model (S ACM) will facilitate
several important changes to the current Superfund program over the next few years. SACM
will help streamline the program, eliminate immediate risk, improve decision-making, and
extend the cleanup process for long-term contamination.
-------
Regional Perspective: Implementation of New Initiatives
Jodi Traub. Acting Associate Division Director. Office of Superfund. EPA Region V
Ms. Traub noted that the Superfund program has not lived up to public expectations: the
cleanup process takes too long; is costly and sequential; public perception is that the process
generates little environmental improvement. EPA recognizes the need to change the model
currently used for managing the cleanup of Superfund sites. Therefore, the Superfund
program is shifting its paradigm.
Ms. Traub described the Region V Office of Superfund Mission Statement as including core
values such as innovation, risk taking, better teamwork, expeditious cleanups and enhanced
public service. Region V views S ACM as the philosophy or approach to achieving this
mission, and is excited about the opportunity that change brings.
The region is conducting a number of S ACM pilot projects to accelerate cleanup; including
combined removal and site assessments to eliminate redundant studies by separate branches
within the Office of Superfund. Site assessment teams, composed of a Remedial Project
Manager (RPM), an On-Scene Coordinator (OSC), a site assessment manager, a geologist, an
attorney, and other staff, will share their experience and expertise to characterize each site. A
pilot Regional Decision Team (RDT) is being used to make policy and funding decisions on
each site, to prioritize worst sites, and to recommend short and long-term actions. The pilot
RDT will include the Associate Division Director for the Office of Superfund, removal,
remedial, and site assessment Branch Chiefs, a state official, a Regional Counsel Section
Chief, a Public Affairs coordinator and a Branch Chief from the Environmental Sciences
Division.
Superfund Revitalization: An Overview of Goals and Initiatives
Tim Fields. Director. Superfund Revitalization Office. EPA Headquarters
Mr. Fields noted five major goals of Superfund Revitalization:
• Increase the number of "construction completions." This term refers to the actual
construction of on-site facilities and equipment needed to conduct a cleanup. By the end
of fiscal year (FY) 1991, construction completions numbered 63. The goal for end of
FY92 was 130; 149 were completed. EPA is trying to complete 200 by the end of
FY93.
• Accelerate the cleanup process. Currently, the whole process takes about 8 to 10 years.
EPA is trying to expedite the process through the use of presumptive (or predetermined)
remedies for municipal landfills, wood treating sites, solvent contamination, and
groundwater contamination. EPA is also establishing soil cleanup levels for over 100
chemicals, which would thereby eliminate the current requirement for site specific
analyses on soil. Finally, S ACM, as mentioned earlier, will be used to expedite the
process.
• Improve consistency among risk assessment decisions. EPA's Science Advisory Board
is currently reviewing the Agency's guidance on risk assessment. In 1993, the Agency
-------
plans to release guidance materials on future use and groundwater remediation
schedules.
• Improve contract management. The Agency is currently implementing 32
recommendations on how to improve its remedial contracts.
• Enhance equity within the Superfund enforcement process. The new lender should limit
liability for financial institutions. Municipal settlements, however, will be left up to
Congress. EPA released a new de minimis guidance on June 2 and will release a
guidance on mixed funding in 1993. The Agency is committed to undertaking more
early de minimis settlements.
Additional concerns of the Superfund Revitalization Office include voluntary cleanups,
application of SACM, public involvement, and communication between EPA and all affected
parties.
Superfund Interest Group Perspectives: Potential Improvements
Richard O'Hara. Director of Remedial Projects. Waste Management. Inc.
Mr. O'Hara, formerly with the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, cited the need to
forge a partnership between private parties and regulatory agencies. In his view, private
parties, such as Waste Management Inc., are willing to cooperate and pay their fair share, but
EPA needs to begin to identify environmental contamination, rather than other parties, as the
"enemy."
His recommendations for improving the current Superfund process included the following
comments:
Risk and Financial Resource Management
• The Agency and the nation as a whole need to make a choice between making slow
decisions geared to 100% cleanup and making quick decisions geared to 90% cleanup.
Are we willing to try to accelerate cleanups by doing partial engineering and then
observing the effects?
• Many risks have been overstated, and the resources available are not necessarily being
spent on the greatest risks first. We should maximize efficient use of our resources by
not insisting on restoring every site to pristine conditions.
• We do not have endless resources and should not be working on problems that have
already been solved. Many landfill problems are already rectified, yet we are still
spending money on research studies at similar sites. We need to use our experience from
old sites at new ones.
• The National Contingency Plan (NCP) allows for much flexibility and interpretation.
EPA and the states should be using this flexibility when making decisions about
investigations and cleanups.
• Landfill problems are readily solved and are ripe for the use of standard technologies.
• We need multi-media approaches to area-wide problems, rather than piece-meal solutions
at individual sites.
-------
EPA OversightlHuman Resource Management
• EPA oversight can nearly double the costs of the Superfund process in early stages.
With such tremendous resources being spent, EPA needs to ensure that the Agency and
its contractors bring their best people to a job. Inefficiencies are a financial drain.
• The Agency should obtain detailed cost information from contractors and should
document these costs for participating PRPs.
• EPA needs to employ a management style that reconciles its different organizational goals
and interests rather than allowing conflicting goals to delay decision-making. Currently,
the agency tries to balance its program interests of cleaning up sites with its enforcement
interests of litigating whenever necessary. The process becomes further delayed when
remedial and enforcement staff need to consult with other offices prior to making
decisions.
Enforcement Policies
• The model administrative order on consent and the model consent decree contain too
many requirements and thereby create a disincentive to settle. Parties should be able to
dispute the need for future work in model agreements. Dispute resolution clauses,
stipulated penalties, and perpetual liability are all problematic.
• EPA should help potentially responsible parties (PRPs) identify other responsible parties.
Region I now has a policy whereby it cooperates with involved PRPs to identify and
enforce against other parties. Cooperative use of enforcement power is a low-risk way
for EPA to assist PRPs in lowering their costs.
Better Communication
• EPA needs to educate its staff regarding appropriate attitudes toward PRPs and the
public.
• EPA needs to improve its communication with all vested parties. As one step, EPA
needs to be more open with PRPs and the public about budgets and workplans.
Tanya Cabala. Michigan Director. Lake Michigan Federation
Asa private citizen living near two sites and as the Michigan Director of a non-profit regional
environmental organization, Ms. Cabala stated her long-standing commitment to public
involvement in the Superfund process. Citizens have a right to be involved with the future of
their community. Yet, under the current system, getting involved is very difficult, particularly
for rural residents.
Technical assistance grants are not effective. Citizens do not want to manage grants; they want
to affect cleanup decisions. Furthermore, even people who have an interest and have
committed their time to these issues have lost confidence in the program. The public is
frustrated by the fact that millions have been spent on litigation, while contamination remains.
Unexplained delays in the process increase public dissatisfaction, as in the case of a site that
"slipped through the cracks for five years" according to a representative from Michigan's
Department of Natural Resources.
Ms. Cabala also noted that partial cleanups are unsettling to the public. For instance, a well
was closed and the site therefore may be delisted as a result of that closure even though
-------
contamination is still present. Furthermore, containment is not a sufficient solution; citizens
around the site will worry about whether an installed vault is leaking.
The following points are among Ms. Cabala's recommendations for improving public
involvement:
• The public must be viewed as a partner. In one instance, a community relations
coordinator began working with the community before formal public meetings by
forming a community work group and providing comments and information. If
involved from the outset, the community will be more willing to trust EPA and other
parties later.
• EPA must develop a long-term view and recognize that the community must live with the
site after the cleanup is completed.
• EPA needs to recognize the difference between public involvement and public relations.
If citizens become true partners in decision-making, then they will support the process,
get involved, and be more likely to support the final decision.
• EPA should understand that citizens can be an asset. They can bring valuable
information about the locality to the process and provide a different and valuable
perspective from the agency and the PRPs.
• In order to earn the public's trust, EPA and the states need staff members that provide
straight answers. An ombudsperson may communicate with the public more effectively.
• EPA should consider including Superfund meetings with other government meetings to
improve attendance.
• Speeding up the process will help increase public satisfaction with the program.
John Robinson. Former Mayor of Wausau. Wisconsin: President. John Robinson & Associates
Mr. Robinson began by stating that Superfund has been a failure on everyone's part. In
addition to the general failure of all parties to work together, he noted the following problems:
• Insufficient attention to long-term solutions and future generations.
• Lack of cooperation on the local level.
• Insufficient commitment of resources.
• Antagonistic national policy.
Given these constraints, EPA and the states must utilize limited resources to address unlimited
needs.
After pointing out these failures, Mr. Robinson described how his community undertook a
voluntary cleanup of a local landfill. One key to this success was a cooperative relationship
between the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and the local PRP committee.
All involved parties, including the State, committed staff and resources to the cleanup project.
Furthermore, by forging agreements that protect voluntary contributors from third-party suits,
the State DNR and Justice Department helped create an incentive for responsible parties to
come forward. Finally, decision-making remained flexible and the community was involved
throughout the process.
-------
Based on his experience with EPA Superfund cleanups and this voluntary cleanup, Mr.
Robinson made the following recommendations for reforming the Superfund program:
Information and Communication
• EPA needs to increase public access to information and guidance. Obtaining information
through Freedom of Information Act requests can be frustrating and futile.
• Improved communication is essential between EPA Headquarters, regional EPA offices,
private responsible parties, the public, state agencies, and local governments.
• The state agencies and EPA need to work together more closely to avoid a good guy/bad
guy scenario. Furthermore, EPA needs to decentralize its authority, either through the
regional offices or possibly through EPA offices in each state.
Incentives for Responsible Parties and Alternative Financing
• The Agency needs to create an incentive for parties to voluntarily come into the process.
At this point, it is advantageous to stay out. Companies make business decisions, and
under the current program it is better to stay out. As Mr. Robinson put it, "Don't shoot
the volunteers."
• Take the mystery out of the process: Most companies will pay a share, but do not want to
sign off on an unknown quantity. The Agency should be willing to carve out individual
settlements.
• In order to eliminate the threat of future liability at remediated sites, EPA or another
federal agency should consider designing a federal insurance program to cover future
cleanup needs. Such insurance could be used to pay for contamination found at a later
date or to comply with future standards.
• The program might be more effective if modeled after the Underground Storage Tank
program, where a fund enables states to undertake the cleanup process.
After hearing the broad range of suggestions posed by the introductory speakers, the attendees
divided into small groups to discuss some of these issues in depth. Each group focused on a
specific set of questions, however, their comments did not always correspond directly to each
question. Their recommendations have been reorganized under subheadings in this report.
Comments made in one session, but relating to a different topic, are reported under the appropriate
subject.
-------
BREAKOUT SESSION # 1
VOLUNTARY CLEANUPS
The first break-out groups dealt with voluntary cleanups. EPA, state environmental agencies, and
responsible parties grappled with how voluntary cleanups can be conducted. The groups
considered questions concerning site eligibility, oversight, liability, and incentives.
Group A: Eligible Sites and the Overall Voluntary Cleanup Process
Discussion Questions. Which sites can/should go through a voluntary cleanup process?
National Priorities List (NPL), State-listed, non-listed? Describe efficient and environmentally
sound voluntary cleanup models for each type of sites.
• Should/does the process differ according to this status?
• What role should local governments, industrial responsible parties (PRPs),
environmental groups, citizen groups, the State, and EPA play in these processes?
• What should the EPA role be at sites in States with voluntary cleanup programs?
• What are the potential advantages and disadvantages of voluntary cleanups from the
perspectives of federal, state, and local governments, industry, environmental and
citizen groups?
Recommendations and Comments
Definition of "Voluntary Cleanup"
The group defined "voluntary cleanup" as any cleanup in which a party comes forward to
conduct the cleanup and agreed that any type of site, whether on the NPL or not, should be
eligible for a voluntary cleanup. One purpose of voluntary cleanups is to encourage more
cleanups, in a shorter period of time.
Process for Conducting Voluntary Cleanups
The current guidelines of the National Contingency Plan (NCP) can be used effectively for
voluntary cleanups. The NCP is flexible and does not need to be altered for voluntary
cleanups. Every site should not be taken through the exact same process. Instead, the process
should reflect the nature and severity of each site.
Many of the same concepts that are being developed to revitalize the Superfund process for
conventional sites can be applied to voluntary cleanups. For instance, voluntary cleanups
might combine removal and remedial actions, as suggested in the Superfund Accelerated
Cleanup Model (SACM). Site assessments might be streamlined by using presumptive
remedies, however, citizens insisted that assessments must be thorough. They called for
monitoring requirements, an eventual reassessment of the site, and some sort of stewardship.
-------
Role of Regulatory Agencies
A regulatory agency, either EPA or the state, should be apprised of all voluntary cleanups and
should provide some type of oversight. Private citizens called for oversight to ensure proper
cleanup and avoid actions that conceal real problems at a site. The agency must also be
involved in remedy selection. Some citizens preferred EPA oversight to state oversight. For
EPA oversight, state and local governments should be consulted.
Private sector participants favored regulatory involvement because they wanted some certainty
about expectations for the cleanup. Participants cited the approach taken in Illinois in which
parties pay a $5,000 application fee up front to cover oversight costs, have access to state
guidance during the cleanup, and receive a certificate of completion after the cleanup is done.
Participants also noted that any applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs)
should be clarified up front, as should be the case at any site. Some participants argued that
parties should be allowed to challenge these standards.
Although all participants noted their preference for some oversight, they acknowledged that
EPA and the state agencies may not have sufficient resources to oversee every voluntary
cleanup. Some participants noted that EPA could not possibly be involved in every "10-drum
site" cleanup. Therefore, if a party does not request EPA involvement or assurances, the
Agency should allow independent cleanups at non-NPL sites. The Agency must retain
regulatory control to place previously non-listed sites on the NPL, if new information about the
site justifies listing.
Role of the Public
The public should be involved in voluntary cleanups, as defined by the NCP. This comment
was predicated on the assumption that public involvement at all sites, including non-voluntary
cleanups, needs to be improved. Citizens wanted to have an opportunity to affect remedy
selection for these cleanups. Public satisfaction with the quality of the voluntary cleanup
should not be ignored. Citizens noted some concern over private parties' commitment to
undertake appropriate cleanups, on an independent basis.
Conclusion
A voluntary cleanup program needs to be constructed in a way that assures the public of its
soundness and assures the volunteering parties that their remedial actions will not be second-
guessed at a later date. While resources at EPA and the states may be limited, the group noted
that voluntary cleanups are necessary, given the number of contaminated sites and the need to
clean them up more quickly.
-------
Breakout Session #1: Voluntary Cleanups
Group B: EPA/State Oversight of Voluntary Cleanups
Discussion Questions. What type of oversight is necessary and appropriate for voluntary
cleanups?
• How can/should oversight be tiered? escalated according to need?
• How can EPA or the State define the type of oversight necessary prior to cleanup?
• How can oversight be paid for? Up-front or through reimbursement? EPA or State
funded? Should parties be required to pay some type of deposit? How much?
• Can/should voluntary cleanups be conducted with little or no oversight? Which ones?
What safeguards can be incorporated to ensure that cleanup standards are appropriate
and met with reasonable costs and in reasonable time frames?
• Should parties that do not meet certain deadlines or other criteria be penalized in a
voluntary cleanup process? Should these cleanups follow some type of schedule?
• What are the implications in terms of future liability for voluntary cleanups undertaken
with little or no oversight?
Recommendations and Comments
All of the participants in the group agreed that oversight is necessary and welcome. It protects
the public interest, limits future liability, and attaches credibility to a cleanup. Some
participants suggested that if a state has a credible program, it should take the lead. If not, EPA
should be the lead agency. There should be no dual lead sites.
Tiered Oversight and Criteria for Determining Oversight
Oversight can be tiered if necessary. Escalation and tiering of oversight should be based on the
size, complexity of a site, and probable remedial plans.
A rating matrix of different site factors can be developed to determine the extent and type of
oversight needed. For example, a simple drum removal requires little oversight while an
incinerator set-up requires much more.
Criteria influencing the level and type of oversight might include demonstrated capability of the
volunteering party, volume of waste, type of waste, suggested remedy, estimated cost,
difficulty of cleanup, suggested degree of cleanup, future use, and the motivation of the
volunteering party.
In Minnesota, some of these factors are taken into consideration, but the oversight is generally
dictated by a party's needs. Oversight may be conducted by city or county governments. One
participant suggested developing a guidance manual, as used in Minnesota. This helps
volunteering parties determine the preferred degree of oversight Some citizens voiced concern
over this approach. They were wary of giving the volunteer too much control over the cleanup
-------
and also thought that local governments may allow politics to interfere with the quality of their
oversight.
Costs, Deadlines, and Penalties
A voluntary cleanup program must use a "carrot and stick" approach. An up-front application
fee forces parties to commit to the process. If parties do not keep on a proposed schedule, then
they should be penalized in some way—perhaps by being threatened with placement on the state
or federal Superfund list. This approach will speed up the process and limit overall costs.
If the cleanup is relatively simple, however, a party should be allowed to conduct it with less
oversight and thereby minimize costs and time commitment.
Conclusion
All of the participants agreed that some type of oversight is necessary. The degree of oversight
can vary according to site specifics such as the demonstrated capability of the volunteering
party, volume and type of waste, difficulty of cleanup, and future use of the site. Fee and
penalty systems might be used to ensure commitment and create incentives for timely cleanups.
10
-------
Breakout Session #1: Voluntary Cleanups
Group C: Possibilities for Reduced Future Liability
Discussion Questions. What type(s) of agreement or assurances can/should EPA, or the
State, offer for voluntary cleanups?
• Should EPA or the State offer to limit future liability under various scenarios?
• What factors will influence the type of agreement available (e.g., degrees of oversight,
types of remedies, types of processes, consistency with the National Contingency Plan
(NCP))?
• Which agreements are enforceable by law? When does the Department of Justice need to
be involved?
• Under what circumstances can EPA provide a covenant not to sue? By consent decrees,
letters, administrative orders, or only through a "formal" approach?
• What types of obligations would parties need to fulfill in order to get a favorable
agreement (e.g. Operation & Maintenance (O&M), five year review)?
• What type of agreement or approval do industrial parties and/or local governments want
if they are going to undertake a voluntary cleanup?
Recommendations and Comments
General Policy Concerns
Many participants were in favor of limiting liability but noted that any limitations should be
based on the nature of the response actions. For instance, if contaminants are removed,
liability should be dissolved. However, if waste is contained on site, then parties should have
longer-term responsibility. Even in these cases, liability should ultimately end. De minimus
parties that enter into a settlement should not face liability at a later date. The group pointed out
that a state guarantee is different from a federal guarantee.
Citizens agreed that limited liability was acceptable as long as the cleanup is "complete." Some
citizens feared that a release from liability would lead to less environmental safety in the future.
In response to this concern, private sector participants noted that common law is still available
to the public if risks remain in the future and affirmed their commitment to eliminating risks to
health and the environment. However, they, only wanted to be held responsible for "real"
risks. Local government officials also vocalized their deep interest in reducing these dangers.
One participant raised the question of whether standing agreements should be grandfathered in
if limited liability is allowed. Some participants stated that we need to move forward even
though parties that have avoided agreements thus far might unduly benefit from a policy that
only limits liability for agreements made in the future.
11
-------
Sharing the Responsibility of Future Liability
Local government participants suggested that landfill user fees might cover some of this
potential liability. Another option might be to ask that the public bear a portion of the operation
and maintenance (O&M) expenses through additional federal taxes.
Benefits of Limited Liability
A limit on future liability will create an incentive for voluntary cleanups and might help
untangle the gridlock in the current process. Many municipalities and industries currently are
barred from undertaking redevelopment projects in "brown fields" for fear of incurring
additional liability. Limiting liability in these instances will encourage the redevelopment of
inner cities. In order to encourage redevelopment, the State of Minnesota provides a statutory
release to developers and prospective buyers who are not liable parties.
Conclusion
Most of the participants favored limited liability—particularly when hazardous substances are
removed from the site. The discrepancy between a state guarantee and an EPA guarantee was
brought into question. Some participants suggested alternative financing schemes, such as
increased landfill fees or additional federal taxes, to pay for future cleanup costs at sites where
liability was limited.
12
-------
Breakout Session #1: Voluntary Cleanups
Group D: Providing Incentives for Voluntary Cleanups
Discussion Questions. What can EPA and/or the States do to encourage voluntary cleanups?
• For unlisted sites in which many PRPs are involved, is there a disincentive for parties to
undertake cleanups independently?
• Can EPA or the States provide some type of assistance which will compel reluctant
parties to join in voluntary cleanups?
Recommendations and Comments
Limiting future liability and clarifying standards
Problems: Private sector participants noted that the combination of unclear standards and
future liability hinders voluntary cleanups. Industry representatives fear that as new standards
and technologies are developed in the future, parties that conduct cleanups now will be asked to
clean up more in the future.
If a party chooses to clean up a site voluntarily, and the cleanup is later deemed insufficient,
EPA has the authority to take enforcement actions against the party. Local government
participants commented that they often do not have the resources to defend themselves in such
instances.
Furthermore, if the voluntary cleanup is conducted under the state's oversight, it may not meet
EPA standards and vice versa. Participants noted that they receive different information from
EPA and state agencies.
The absence of contribution protection, at both the EPA and state levels, creates another
opportunity for incurring future liability.
Solutions: EPA and the states need to define acceptable standards and the extent of future
liability more clearly. From the start of the cleanup process, EPA or the state should clearly
define the extent of oversight that will be used and the standards that will be expected. The
overseeing regulatory agency should issue a certificate of completion when the cleanup is
finished. Volunteer parties need to know what they will face in a voluntary program. Some
participants called for a "clean bill of health" after a cleanup.
Allocating limited resources at EPA and state agencies
Problem: Most voluntary cleanup sites are low priorities for EPA and the state.
Solution: If EPA and the states want to encourage voluntary cleanups as a means to cleaning
up more contaminated sites more quickly, they must devote resources to this issue. Some or
all of this additional regulatory capacity could be paid for directly by oversight payments from
PRPs.
13
-------
If regulatory agencies would use less oversight when dealing with cooperative parties, more
private parties might be willing to conduct voluntary cleanups to avoid higher oversight
expenses.
Bringing other PRPs into the process
Problems: Most regulatory agencies have not been helpful in identifying other parties;
therefore, PRPs have had to pay the cost of investigating other parties. Furthermore, parties
that volunteer to clean up a site may find it more difficult to share costs with other PRPs.
Solutions: EPA and the states need to play a more active role in assisting volunteering parties
in their searches for other responsible parties. At a minimum, the regulatory agencies should
be more cooperative about sharing information and pool resources with the volunteering
parties. EPA's enforcement authority could be a necessary and attractive tool used in
conjunction with the voluntary cleanup.
Facilitating private cost recovery actions
Problem: A volunteering party needs to be able to recover its costs from insurance carriers on
their policies.
Solution: In order for volunteering parties to be able to recover these costs, the remedial
actions need to be formally defined as "necessary" or "mandatory," rather than optional.
Other points and recommendations
If parties are asked to fund the costs of oversight, then the regulatory agency should grant
timely reviews and approvals.
Agencies should have the authority to use contractual agreements, other than enforcement
mechanisms, to work with volunteering parties. The possibility of avoiding the traditional
enforcement process may be perceived as a benefit by parties interested in cleaning up sites.
EPA and the states should encourage cleanups by demonstrating a different mindset when
handling voluntary cleanups. If a written agreement is needed, a unilateral order, rather than a
consent decree, should be used.
Regulatory agencies should give some type of credit or reward to volunteering parties.
Conversely, steps could be taken to shame recalcitrant parties in their communities or in the
market.
A "timeout" in the middle of the standard cleanup process to perform a voluntary cleanup will
serve as an incentive to responsible parties.
If the property values are likely to increase after the cleanup, parties are more likely to
voluntarily clean the site. On a related point, local governments can pledge future taxes on a
site to redevelop it. The ability to use tax increment financing (TIE7) in some cases to cover a
portion or all of remediation costs can help local governments initiate cleanups independently or
encourage developers to conduct them. The connection between economic development and
environmental cleanups should not be overlooked.
14
-------
Conclusion
After identifying many existing disincentives to voluntary cleanups, the groups offered some
solutions to create incentives to volunteer parties. They cited the need for EPA and the states to
define acceptable standards and the extent of future liability more clearly, and to articulate these
from the start of the cleanup process. Furthermore, they asked that these agencies play a more
active and cooperative role in assisting volunteering parties in their searches for other
responsible parties.
The group recognized the limited resources of EPA and the state agencies; some suggested
enhancing the personnel resources by developing a voluntary program financed entirely by
oversight fees. Others suggested that regulatory agencies should use less oversight when
dealing with cooperative parties. In addition to saving the agencies time and money, more
private parties might be willing to conduct voluntary cleanups to avoid higher oversight
expenses.
15
-------
BREAKOUT SESSION #2
ACCELERATING CLEANUPS
The second set of break-out groups considered various methods for expediting cleanups and the
advantages and disadvantages of these approaches. The groups identified and discussed trade-offs
between accelerated cleanups, certainty, and extent of remediation as well as other issues.
Group A: The Extent of Cleanups
Discussion Questions. In expediting short-term cleanups, how can we ensure that sites will
be sufficiently remediated?
• Under SACM, if regulatory agencies decide to promote early actions to reduce the
greatest risks to human health and the environment, should EPA be concerned that sites
may not be "fully" remediated?
• Are partial cleanups possible under existing law? For which type of sites? NPL or
other?
• If partial cleanups are allowed, what are the implications for future liability? Who may be
threatened with future liability (e.g. States, future owners, current owners)?
• Under what circumstances should regulatory agencies strive for containment rather than
treatment?
• Will parties that partially clean up their sites be able to avoid being listed on the NPL
because they can affect their Hazard Ranking System (HRS) score? Should this be a
concern?
Recommendations and Comments
Goals of SACM
SACM strives to perform short-term remedial actions at sites as quickly as possible.
Participants generally agreed that as a society we should focus first on removing the threat of
source material and later on groundwater contamination. SACM also attempts to speed up the
entire cleanup, including long-term treatment, such as groundwater remediation.
Affecting the hazard ranking system score
A party may be able to affect the hazard ranking system score and avoid listing on the National
Priorities List by undertaking a partial cleanup at a site before a site inspection takes place.
Under SACM, this loop hole will be enlarged because SACM will depend on site inspection
data to a larger extent to determine NPL status.
Trade-offs made by SACM:
Speed vs. Certainty; Immediate Actions vs. Complete Cleanups
Quicker assessments may lead to less accurate assessments. If responsible parties are not
confident that the assessments are accurate, then they will be less willing to settle. More
16
-------
uncertainty in the assessment is directly correlated with more uncertainty in ultimate costs of
cleanup.
Some participants noted that quick action is not always preferable. With regard to long-term
remediation, some citizens are willing to wait for better technology as long as the contamination
is contained temporarily. For example, better on-site treatments might be developed later for
some types of contamination. These comments did not seem to suggest that citizens thought
containment was ultimately sufficient. In fact, one participant stated his belief that containment
goes against the statutory preference for treatment.
Citizens requested that EPA be committed to groundwater and other long- term remediation.
However, they also preferred some type of action over inaction, even if a response constituted
only a partial solution. Some citizens were concerned that the expedited process might lead to
considering fewer options. They wanted regulators to still consider alternative technologies.
Conclusion
SACM faces the following challenges in balancing trade-offs:
• Regulatory agencies and PRPs may move too quickly with too little data.
• Some PRPs may not want to sign up for cleanups due to uncertainty associated with less
thorough assessments.
• While EPA and the states face shortages in resources, and particularly in staff, SACM
places additional demands on the same number of people.
Participants generally agreed on the following:
• Some type of action, even if only a partial solution, is preferable to no action at all.
• Quick action should not be the only goal, particularly if an expedited process leads us to
disregard options such as alternative technologies.
• In some instances, long-term solutions may be best achieved if we wait for more
effective technology.
17
-------
Breakout Session #2: Accelerating Cleanups Through the Super-fund Accelerated
Cleanup Model (SACM), Presumptive Remedies, and Increased Flexibility
Group B: Presumptive and Standardized Remedies
Discussion Questions. Under what circumstances would standardized remedies help make the
cleanup process more efficient and/or fair?
• What are pros and cons of presumptive remedies?
• Who will be affected, and what are those impacts?
• How can such prescriptions be used most effectively?
• To what types of sites should this approach be applied?
• Should PRPs be able to appeal the use of standardized remedies if they do not find them
suitable?
Recommendations and Comments
Advantages of presumptive remedies
Whether one or several remedial options are designated for a specific type of site, presumptive
remedies would streamline the remedial investigation and feasibility study (RI/FS). In addition
to expediting the process, presumptive remedies would help all parties save time and money on
investigations and would provide clearer direction. And, with fewer technologies being used,
the cost of these presumptive remedies might decrease due to competition and enhanced
efficiency.
Parties could avoid the frustration caused by investigating unnecessary options. Presumptive
remedies would also clarify expectations and thereby might promote voluntary cleanups
because volunteering parties would have a clearer sense of what they are undertaking. In terms
of the public's interests, presumptive remedies could clarify the appropriateness of certain
remedies for specific types of sites.
Disadvantages of presumptive remedies
If certain remedies are designated as standard technologies, innovation in new technologies
may be stifled. Participants cited this factor as one of the most serious problems associated
with using presumptive remedies.
While private sector participants expressed concern that EPA might nominate the most
protective alternatives as presumptive remedies and thereby increase costs, citizens were
concerned that better alternatives might be ignored. Most participants agreed that the process
must remain somewhat flexible if predetermined remedies are to be tailored to suit site-specific
characteristics. Some participants were concerned that presumptive remedies may preclude
consideration of institutional controls, such as limiting future land use.
18
-------
Conclusion
While presumptive remedies may ultimately save time and money, some flexibility should
remain in the process in order for site-specific information to be considered in the remedial
plans. The regulatory agencies should ensure that remedies will not be systematically applied
to sites where they might not be appropriate.
Some participants suggested that presumptive remedies be used as tools to approach the
investigation and remediation at a site and should remain optional. At complicated sites,
remedial investigations will still be necessary.
As a corollary to this topic, participants requested that data be collected on the costs of
remedies. A database, which includes information on after-construction costs, would help
parties share more accurate information on remedies. Both public and private parties could
provide such information. While EPA representatives suggested that such data is not available,
industry participants disagreed and thought that parties would be willing to share such
information. The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality requires monthly cost updates
from private parties. This might provide a useful model.
19
-------
Breakout Session #2: Accelerating Cleanups Through the Superfund Accelerated
Cleanup Model (SACM), Presumptive Remedies, and Increased Flexibility
Group C: Risk Assessment/Remedy Selection
Discussion Questions. How can the risk assessment process be improved so that it takes into
account the costs and benefits of remedial strategies?
• How can we define "real" risks?
• Should institutional controls, such as designating future land use, be taken into account
in the remedy selection process?
• To what extent should local governments and/or other local decision-makers be able to
affect remedy selection?
Recommendations and Comments
Allocating Scarce Resources on Risk Reduction
An industry representative noted that returning a site to pristine conditions is not always
possible, nor sensible. Society as a whole must decide how best to use its resources. If it
needs to spend 50% of its resources to eliminate the last 5% of risk, society must consider
whether this is a worthwhile use of those resources. Participants also voiced frustration over
the fact that higher risks such as vehicle emissions and agricultural runoff receive little
attention. The group recognized that society, as a whole, needs to make tradeoffs regarding
risks and resources. However, one participant pointed out that Superfund sites pose
involuntary risks to citizens, and therefore should not be treated in the same way that we treat
other risks.
Risk assessments are based on hypothetical risks and worst-case scenarios. For instance,
groundwater must be considered as potential drinking water in risk assessments, even though
the water may never be used for that purpose. Some participants felt that many risk
assumptions by EPA are unreasonable. They questioned whether hypothetical risks ever reflect
reality. EPA should have more reasonable maximum exposure levels.
Remedy Selection - Land Use Restrictions
Some participants suggested that local governments use land restrictions to put a barrier
between risks and the public. By changing land use, we can influence exposure pathways and
thereby reduce risk. They argued that some problems can be put on hold until better
technology is available. Other participants were not in favor of such an approach, because it
would indefinitely delay the agency's goal of permanent remedies.
More fundamental than the question of timing were issues of jurisdiction over cleanup and
long-term enforceability of land-use restrictions. Some citizens felt that land-use restrictions
do not suffice as a means of treating a site. While restrictions might be necessary, other
remedial actions should be taken as well. Others advocated restoring property to the extent that
would be required to reuse the land for a particular future purpose. In some cases, a certain
amount of residual risk might remain depending upon the type of use. On the issue of long-
term use, some participants questioned whether institutional controls will continue to be
20
-------
enforced in the future, while others pointed out that some of these issues should be left up to
future land-use planners.
One participant raised the question of whether imposing land-use restrictions constituted "a
taking" of private property. In such an instance, owners should be compensated for property
restricted or taken over. Another participant suggested that a property owner could be
presented with the choice of paying cleanup costs or containing contamination and giving up
certain property uses through a deed restriction.
Health vs. Ecological Risks
In the EPA report Unfinished Business. Superfund risks were ranked as a low public health
threat, but a high environmental threat. However, the public perceives Superfund as a high
public health threat as well.
The group discussed the difference between ecological and public health risks. The current
risk assessment process is driven by health risks, even though ecological risks are less
understood and actually may be a greater area of concern. The inclusion of ecological risks in
the risk-assessment process will not necessarily lead to more stringent action plans, but might
target remediation more effectively.
A representative from the state of Minnesota suggested that health agencies concentrate on
health risks while the environmental agencies handle environmental risks. However, such a
stratification is not provided for in the current statute and most health agencies are not well
prepared to work on Superfund cases. Minnesota is beginning to consider environmental risks
more closely and recently hired a staff member to focus on natural resource damages.
Risk communication and education
Risk communication and public education are fundamental to effective implementation of
environmental decisions. EPA could help support the agency's shift from enforcement to
prevention by undertaking a campaign to educate the public about its policies and
environmental priorities. Participants noted that people fear what they do not understand. At
this point, the public is not certain whether decisions are based on financial considerations or
on public health concerns.
The public needs to have access to reliable information. Information from industry and local
governments is suspect, according to some citizens. A community team approach to risk
assessment with different interests involved and early involvement by responsible parties may
be helpful in communicating risk. EPA Headquarters representatives noted that EPA has
developed a risk assessment workshop designed for citizens. This workshop is available
through the EPA Regional offices.
Conclusion
The group acknowledged the need to make tradeoffs regarding risks and resources. On the
topic of future land use of sites, some participants questioned whether institutional controls will
continue to be enforced in the future, while others pointed out that some of these issues should
be left up to future land-use planners. The group also discussed the difference between
ecological and public health risks and how both should enter into the risk assessment process.
The group generally agreed that risk communication and public education are fundamental to
effective implementation of environmental decisions.
21
-------
Breakout Session #2: Accelerating Cleanups Through the Superfund Accelerated
Cleanup Model (SACM), Presumptive Remedies, and Increased Flexibility
Group D: Soil Cleanup Levels
Discussion Questions. Under what circumstances would soil cleanup levels make the process
more efficient and/or fair?
• Are the various State cleanup levels reasonable?
• Can current technologies meet these standards in all cases?
• What actions should EPA take in this area?
• Should PRPs be allowed to appeal these standards? Through what type of process?
Recommendations and Comments
Some participants thought that state soil cleanup levels should be based on protection of human
health and the environment rather than best available technology or economic feasibility. One
participant stated that current technologies are likely to meet current standards. In some cases, land
use controls may be appropriate to limit the effects of residual contaminants.
The group generally agreed that responsible parties should be able to appeal standards. However,
they should be required to plug additional data into an accepted risk assessment model to justify
their request for a waiver. The public should be allowed to comment on any deviations from the
standard.
Oregon, for example, has set conservative, presumptive soil cleanup levels which usually lead to
soil excavation. These standards generally apply to small sites. In cases where the presumptive
levels do not apply, a more site-specific analysis—similar to an RI/FS—is used. A party can opt
to use presumptive levels, but retains the option to consider site-specific data to justify applying a
different standard.
EPA can provide standards and formulas to help states and other parties with the risk assessment
process. EPA needs to develop additional resources to make risk assessment more accurate.
Conclusion
The group generally agreed that while standards might be useful in expediting the process,
responsible parties should be able to appeal these standards. Appealing parties might be
required to supply supporting data to justify their request for a waiver. On a more general
point, EPA should work to make the risk assessment process more accurate.
22
-------
BREAKOUT SESSION #3
How TO INVOLVE ALL PARTIES MORE EFFECTIVELY
The final set of break-out groups considered the issue of how regulatory agencies can involve all
parties more effectively. The groups discussed how EPA and the states can improve their outreach
efforts as well as how all affected parties might work together more cooperatively.
Group A: Resource Issues
Discussion Questions. At different types of sites (e.g., NPL, state listed, non-listed), what
roles should EPA Headquarters, EPA Regional offices, State agencies, Department of Justice,
local governments, citizens, and others play in the process to achieve the most cost-effective and
timely results?
• How can Regional Decision Teams improve the current system?
• Are there other ways to improve consistency, continuity, and use of existing resources?
Recommendations and Comments
Possible improvements under SACM
Under SACM, EPA is trying to expedite cleanups while attempting to involve the public earlier
in the process, however, some tension exists between these two goals. SACM attempts to
create a contiguous assessment process by using a regional decision team and a site assessment
team. The regional decision team, which includes a public information staff person, should be
aware of public concerns throughout the process.
Local governments noted that they are often left out of the decision-making process. In fact,
the regional decision teams formed under SACM create no role for local government
representatives, despite EPA and state participation. EPA should rely more on local
governments to organize the public and to disseminate information to citizens. Some citizens
recommended having citizen representation on these decision teams as well.
While local government participants stressed the need for their input, some citizens noted that
they were sometimes uncomfortable with the interaction between local governments and PRPs.
They maintained that local governments do not always represent their entire communities,
particularly in rural areas.
Set up local advisory committees
Many participants favored the establishment of voluntary committees within the community.
Such a committee should be involved from the onset of the process and should have the
authority to affect cleanup decisions. They could be modeled after those used effectively in
solid waste planning.
These local advisory committees should include responsible parties, environmental groups,
both elected and appointed local government officials, and citizens. With early input from all
of these interest groups, EPA will be able to consider such important considerations as future
use from the onset, rather than waiting until too late in the process to take such factors into
23
-------
account. A neutral party, such as a university expert, could act as the spokesperson for the
group and interact frequently with the lead regulatory agency.
EPA could facilitate the organization of such committees by redirecting its resources to assist
these volunteers. The group pointed out that technical assistance grants (TAGs) are neither
effective nor sufficient. Some other mechanism—such as financing a local voluntary
committee to track the process and provide input—should be developed. The committee, in
turn, could serve as a resource to the process and help free up some of the regulatory agencies'
limited staff resources.
Citizens and other non-PRPs need to have a decision-making function in the process. If a
mixed-interest local advisory committee is not effective, citizens might act as members of PRP
groups. Otherwise, they might serve on a separate citizen advisory committee that would report
back to the PRP group or to the regulatory agency.
Participants agreed that community groups should meet regularly, whatever the format.
Responsible parties might help fund these groups. However, if industry pays to fund these
meetings or other activities associated with public involvement, steps must be taken to assure
the public that no one is being "paidoff."
Conclusion
With regard to S ACM, participants noted the absence of local government representatives and
citizens from the decision teams. In general, the group called for improved representation and
involvement for all affected parties. Many favored the early establishment of voluntary
committees within the community. Such local advisory committees should have the authority
to affect cleanup decisions and should include responsible parties, environmental groups, both
elected and appointed local government officials, and citizens. By gaining early input from all
of these parties, EPA would be able to consider all of these interests from the onset rather than
learning of dissent and criticism after cleanup decisions have been made more exclusively.
24
-------
Breakout Session #3: How to Involve the Public and Other Parties More Effectively in
the Cleanup Process
Group B: Dispute Resolution
Discussion Questions. Should/can alternative dispute resolution (ADR) techniques be more
widely used in the process?
• How can mediators be involved more effectively?
• At what stage of the process and in which cases would they be useful?
• Are mediators best suited for negotiations between PRPs and EPA or among PRPs
themselves?
Recommendations and Comments
Definition of ADR
For the purpose of this report, the terms "mediator" and "facilitator" are used to refer to a
neutral party who discusses issues with a group of PRPs and/or EPA and helps them reach an
agreement over their dispute. The term "arbitrator" is used to describe a neutral party who
considers the issues of a case and then provides either a non-binding or binding decision to
settle a group's issues.
Preferred application of ADR
While the group thought that ADR techniques can be helpful, they thought that PRPs and EPA
should attempt to come to agreements either on their own or with the aid of a facilitator or
mediator. Participants were somewhat opposed to the use of arbitrators—neutral parties that
formulate binding decisions for the parties. This form of ADR should only be used when the
parties cannot reach a settlement independently or with the help of a more informal mediator.
Effective uses of mediators and facilitators
A mediator can help parties listen to each other or can act as an intermediary between parties.
By hearing each party's perspective, a facilitator can elucidate points of agreement and issues
where compromise can be achieved. Effective facilitators can help the parties set goals and
objectives, particularly if they are involved early on in the process. By encouraging
cooperation and honesty, a mediator can expedite the process.
Although early involvement is preferable, mediators can also enter the process after disputes
have already arisen to try to break stalemates. Since parties generally would rather not go to
court, mediation can be used as a "last resort". The group also suggested that mediators play a
role in community relations.
Mediators might be used to settle debate over technical questions, although technical experts
will still need to provide information. The State of Illinois is using a panel of three experts—
one chosen by the state, one chosen by the responsible party, and one chosen jointly—to
consider technical disputes on a trial basis. If the parties are dissatisfied with the panel's
25
-------
decision, they can appeal the decision in court. Under this process, however, some parties
may use ADR to reinterpret the law and state requirements.
Mediators are most effective when they work with PRPs, regulatory agencies, and the public.
Some participants claimed that EPA usually takes the lead with ADR and then dictates the
process because they know the law and the process. Participants called for EPA and the states
to rethink their traditionally authoritative roles in the process and be more open to using
mediators/facilitators as truly neutral parties who can manage the process.
One local government representative expressed concern over whether the mediators were
qualified. EPA participants attested to the qualifications of mediators listed by the agency.
Some participants also felt that outside mediators, perhaps identified through the American
Arbitration Association or other groups, might be more impartial than those used or identified
by EPA.
Conclusion
The group thought that ADR techniques can be helpful, however, participants were somewhat
opposed to the use of arbitrators—neutral parties that formulate binding decisions for the
parties. The group called for EPA and the states to rethink their traditionally authoritative roles
in the process and be more open to using mediators/facilitators as truly neutral parties who can
manage the process, from the onset when possible.
26
-------
Breakout Session #3: How to Involve the Public and Other Parties More Effectively in
the Cleanup Process
Groups C & D: Public Involvement
Discussion Questions. How can the public be included more constructively in the process?
• What are examples of EPA/State successes in this area in the past?
• In local government cases, how do we balance public concerns about human health and
the environment with taxpayer concerns about paying for environmental protection?
• Can technical assistance grants be used more effectively and easily?
• Can we create a method by which the public can be involved from the onset? Does this
make sense?
Recommendations and Comments
Involving the public and local governments more effectively
All of the participants agreed that EPA and the states need to conduct more public outreach
early in the process to involve local governments and the public. Regulatory agencies need to
include local governments, citizens and other interested parties before the investigation begins.
The public should have a role in the investigation and communication needs to be maintained
through the final stages of the remedy. Citizens stressed that they deserve equal representation
in the process.
Reactive community relations does not work. Regulatory agencies need to take their message
to the community rather than wait for citizens to make inquiries. Incomplete disclosure of
information breeds distrust. Furthermore, the regulatory agencies need to seek out community
groups that truly represent the public. Communication with the public must be an ongoing and
frequent part of the process.
Public education and dissemination of information
Community involvement should include educating both the public and the media. Many people
do not understand the Superfund process and law. Citizens are dissatisfied with inaccessible
and incoherent information. Furthermore, the press needs to be contacted early and kept
informed in order to ensure accuracy and to guard against misinformation.
Agencies should consider publishing a periodic site-specific newsletter which avoids technical
jargon and acronyms. An early survey of interested parties in the community can improve
participation. Community interviews are another useful tool, though they can be over-
formalized.
EPA should use widely read newspapers, electronic media, mass mailings, and pamphlets to
notify the public of contaminated sites and any investigations. Cable and public access
television and radio channels may be effective means of reaching the public.
27
-------
The use of mass mailings was a controversial suggestion. Distribution within a five-mile
radius of the site might be cost effective, but citizens may not read the information. Some
participants suggested a brief notice before investigations begin; otherwise, EPA's message
may cause undue alarm.
Regulatory agencies should conduct community hearings at regular town or county meetings.
This will ensure additional media coverage and may get the message to more people, although
some participants noted that coordinating hearings with town meetings might present legal
problems.
Train all EPA and state personnel in community relations
Community relations is everyone's business. All personnel, especially project managers,
should be trained to interact effectively with the public. Citizens are interested in talking
directly with project managers. Since EPA and state community relations coordinators carry a
heavy workload, other personnel should play a more active and responsible role in community
relations. The ability to work well with citizens and the media should be a requisite for all
agency personnel. However, improved relations is not sufficient; regulatory agencies must
remember that public relations is not equivalent to community involvement.
Restructure public meetings and other interaction with the public
Public meetings need to be more interactive, perhaps through a roundtable format. Regulatory
agency representatives need to talk with the community, rather than aj them. Participants
remarked that EPA representatives frequently speak for too long and lose the public's interest.
EPA might have more success if they met with industry and community leaders before public
meetings. Community meetings should also be held on an "as-needed" basis.
Improving the Technical Assistance Grant program
Technical Assistance Grants (TAGs) should be smaller and simpler to apply for and manage.
Less reporting should be required and forms should be shorter. Smaller amounts of money at
more frequent intervals would be preferable to the current method of allocating resources. EPA
noted that the TAG Final Rule, dated October 1,1992, significantly simplifies the TAG
Program; TAG guidance is being revised to reflect these changes.
Conclusion
The group agreed that both the quality and quantity of outreach needed to improve. All
participants agreed that EPA and the states need to conduct more public outreach early in the
process to involve local governments, the public, and the media. Some suggested that local
governments, citizens, and other interested parties should be involved even before the
investigation begins as well as through the final stages of the remedy. All EPA and state
personnel, especially project managers, should be trained to interact effectively with the public.
28
-------
Closing Remarks
Jodi Traub. EPA Region V
Ms. Traub noted that while each of these parties brings different interests to the table, they all
share a common agenda of cleaning up contaminated sites. EPA alone can not fulfill that goal.
All of these groups have a role to play.
She noted that Region V would conduct a follow-up meeting about six months after the
summary report has been issued and after further progress has been made on the pilot studies.
Tim Fields. EPA Headquarters
Mr. Fields discussed EPA's public meeting, led by Clean Sites, on June 24,1992. The
meeting led to ten primary recommendations, including the need to formulate a policy on
voluntary cleanups. EPA has begun to act on those recommendations and intends to act on the
conclusions drawn from this meeting as well. The report from the June meeting, publication #
PB 92-963-288, is available from the National Technical Information Service (NTIS) at 1-800-
553-6847.
29
-------
EPA's Follow-Up Actions
As a result of the input received from participants at the Superfund Revitalization Conference, EPA
has developed the following list of actions to take with respect to attendees' suggestions.
1. EPA will review its current policies for communicating with potentially responsible
parties, e.g., the policy revisions implemented last year by EPA Region I.
2. EPA will examine mechanisms to get citizens involved earlier in the Superfund
cleanup process, and will examine its community involvement policies in this
regard.
3. EPA will continue its efforts to develop a national voluntary cleanup strategy,
utilizing the suggestions contained in this report.
4. In implementing SACM, EPA must find ways to assure sufficient data is collected
to provide adequate certainty in accelerated cleanups to address the concerns of
potentially responsible parties and affected citizens.
5. In developing presumptive remedy guidance, EPA will assure that it does not stifle
the use of innovative technologies.
6. EPA will work with States and private parties to develop a construction cost data
base, in order to obtain more accurate information on the cost of remedies.
7. EPA will develop and implement a strategy for better communicating Superfund
risks and cleanup progress.
8. EPA will conduct a special meeting with representatives of local governments on
SACM and other Superfund revitalization initiatives.
9. EPA will explore the feasibility of providing additional support, beyond the existing
Technical Assistance Grant mechanism to the establishment of local advisory
committees to better involve affected interest groups in the Superfund cleanup
process.
10. EPA will assure that all Regional Superfund personnel, not just Community
Relations Coordinators, are properly trained in community involvement procedures.
30
-------
APPENDIX A
EPA/ICMA Regional Focus Group
Voluntary Cleanups, the Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model, and other Superfund Reforms
Chicago, IL
November 12-13, 1992
Final Agenda
Day I
8:45-9:15
Registration/Breakfast
9:15-9:30
Opening Remarks
Joan Glickman, Project Manager, ICMA
Bill Muno, Acting Division Director, Waste Management Division, EPA Region V
9:30 -10:00
Superfund Revitalization: An Overview of Goals & Initiatives
Tim Fields, Director, Superfund Revitalization Office, EPA Headquarters
Regional Perspective: Implementation of New Initiatives
Jodi Traub, Acting Associate Division Director, Office of Superfund, EPA Region V
10:00-11:00
Superfund Interest Group Perspectives: Potential Improvements
Richard O'Hara, Director of Remedial Projects, Waste Management, Inc.
Tanya Cabala, Michigan Director, Lake Michigan Federation
John Robinson, Former Mayor of Wausau, Wisconsin
11:00-11:15
Break
11:15-12:45
Break-out Session #1
• Voluntary Cleanups
12:45 -1:45
Lunch/Wrap Up #1
• Nominated teams from each focus group — the facilitator and one or two elected group
members -- work together to summarize comments.
• Other attendees have lunch on their own.
1:45-2:45
Summary Presentations
• One representative of each focus group team will speak for no more than 10 minutes.
Discussion will follow presentations.
2:45 - 3:00
Break
31
-------
3:00 - 4:30
Break-out Session #2
• Accelerating Cleanups Through SACM, Presumptive Remedies, and Increased Flexibility
4:30-5:15
Wrap Up #2
• Elected teams from Session #2 groups meet to summarize comments.
• Other attendees adjourn for the day.
Day II
8:00 - 8:30
Breakfast
8:30 - 9:30
Summary Presentations
9:30-11:00
Break-out Session #3
• How to Involve the Public and Other Parties More Effectively in the Cleanup Process
11:00-11:30
Break/Wrap Up #3
• Elected teams from Session #3 groups meet to summarize comments.
11:30-12:30
Summary Presentations
12:30 -12:45
Closing Remarks
32
-------
APPENDIX B
EPA/ICMA Regional Focus Group Meeting
Superfund Revitalization
Chicago, Illinois
November 12-13,1992
Final Attendee List
Kathy Andria
1729 Maple Street
Granite City IL 62040
Phone 618/452-4119
Beth Aschinger
DPRAInc.
E. 1500 1st National Bank Building
StPaul MN 55101
Phone
Terry Ayers
Manager, Federal Sites
Illinois EPA
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield IL 62794-9276
Phone 217/785-9407
Susan Bacon
City Attorney
Granite City
910Esic Drive
Edwardsviile IL 62025
Phone 618/692-1724
Thomas J. Baechle
Senior Counsel, Environment
Eaton Corporation
Eaton Center, 1111 Superior Avenue
Cleveland OH 44114
Phone 216/523-4101
Rich Bartelt
Director. CERCLA Services
Geraghty & Miller, Inc.
35 E. Wacker Drive, Suite 1000
Chicago IL 60601
Phone 312/263-6703
Rodney Beats
NE District Office
Ohio EPA
2110 East Aurora Road
Twinsburg OH 44087
Phone 216/425-9171
Elaine Black
Staff Attorney
Ford Motor Company
Suite 728 E, One Parklane Blvd.
Dearborn Ml 48126-2493
Phone 313/594-0096
Linda Boornazian
Deputy Dir., CERCLA Enforcement
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, SW
Washington DC 20460
Phone
Bob Bowden
Chief, Emergency & Enforcement
U.S. EPA, Region V
77 West Jackson Blvd. (HSE-5J)
Chicago IL 60604-3590
Phone
Bi Bradford
Superfund Section Chief
State of Michigan, DNR
P.O. Box 30028
Lansing M 48909
Phone 517/335-3393
Nancy Briscoe
Environmental Scientist
U.S. EPA
401 M Street SW
Washington DC 20460
Phone 703/603-8755
Tanya Cabala
Michigan Office Director
Lake Michigan Federation
425 W. Western, Suite 201
Muskegon Ml 49440
Phone 616/722-5116
Dennis Callahan
County Commissioner
3900 Watertand Drive
Metamora M 48455
Phone 313/797-4901
George Carpenter
Unit Chief, Pro-Remedial
Michigan DepL of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 30028
Lansing M 48909
Phone
Pat Carrasquero
Superfund Section Chief
Indiana Oept. of Environmental Mgmt
105 South Meridian Street
Indianapolis N 46206
Phone 317/243-5053
Chris Christenson
U.S. EPA - Region V
77 West Jackson Blvd.
Chicago IL 60604
Phone
Roz Clarke
Administrative Assistant
ICMA
777 N. Capitol St. NE. Suite 500
Washington DC 20002-4201
Phone 202/962-3672
Paul Conner
Chief, Enforcement Action Section
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, SW
Washington DC 20460
Phone 703/603-8848
TomCrause
Illinois EPA
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield L 62794-9276
Phone 217/785-9407
Doug Day
Unit Supervisor
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
520 Lafayette Road North
St. Paul MN 55155
Phone
33
-------
Patricia DeMoss
Officer
North Area Citizens Conference
4455 Baldwin
Metamora Ml 48455
Phone 313/678-3352
Suzanne OiPasquale
Managing Editor
Superfund Report
Phone
Ann Dougherty
Senior Engineer
McLaren/Hart Environmental
1000 Town Center, Suite 600
Southfield Ml 48075
Phone 313/358-0400
Jan Felthous
N 568 Main St., P.O. Box 363
Ashippun VM 53003
Phone 414/474-4508
Tim Fields
Director, Superiund Revitalization
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, SW
Washington DC 20460
Phone
John Fischer
Research Assistant
ICMA
777 N. Capitol St. NE, Suite 500
Washington DC 20002-4201
Phone 202/962-3582
Michelle Fisher
Attorney
General Motors Corporation
New Center One, 3031 W. Grand Blvd.
Detroit M 48202
Phone 313/974-1963
Roberta Frigo
29 N. 100 Morris Ct.
Warrenviile IL 60555
Phone 708/393-1666
Mark Giesfeldt
Chief, Environmental Response
State of Wisconsin. DNR
P.O. Box 7921
Madison W 53707
Phone 608/267-7562
Joan Gfickman
Project Manager, Superiund
ICMA
777 N. Capitol St. NE, Suite 500
Washington DC 20002-4201
Phone 202/962-3663
Lewis Goldfarb
Asst General Counsel
Chrysler Corporation
12000 Chrysler Drive
Highland Park M 48288-1919
Phone
Janet Grubbs
Chief, Site Assessment Branch
U.S. EPA
401 M Street. SW
Washington DC 20460
Phone
Ken Haberman
Unit Supervisor
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
520 Lafayette Road North
St. Paul MN 55155
Phone 612-296-0892
Kay Hager
28 N. 733 Morris Ct.
Warrenviile L 60555
Phone 708/393-7212
Diana Hammer
U.S. EPA
401 M Street. SW 5203G
Washington DC 20460
Phone 202/308-8337
Jim Jansen
Manager, Remedial Project
Illinois EPA
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield IL 62794-9276
Phone 217/785-9407
Martha Judy
Attorney
Vermont Law School
Environmental Law Center
South Royalton vT 05068
Phone 802/763-8303
Rick Karl
Chief, IL/IN Remedial & Enforcement
U.S. EPA - Region V
77 West Jackson Blvd. (HSRL-6J)
Chicago IL 60604-3590
Phone
John Kelley
Chief, MN/OH Remedial/Enf. Branch
U.S. EPA - Region V
77 West Jackson Blvd. (HRSM-6J)
Chicago IL 60604-3590
Phone
Cindy Kelly
Director, Environmental Programs
ICMA
777 N. Capitol St. NE, Suite 500
Washington DC 20002-4201
Phone 202/962-3669
Patricia Kenworthy
Director. Regulatory Affairs
Monsanto Washington
700 14th St., NW - Suite 1100
Washington DC 20005
Phone 202/783-2460
34
-------
Claudia Kerbawy
Unit Chief, Supariund Section
Michigan Oept. of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 30028
Lansing M 48909
Phone 517/373-8448
Thomas Kern
Remedial Projects Manager
Waste Management of North America
Two Westbrook Ctr., Suite 1000, Box 7070
Levonia M 48152
Phone 313/462-6928
James Kilby
Manager of Remedial Projects
Monsanto Agricultural Co.
800 N. Lindbergh Blvd. - N3F
St. Louis MO 63167
Phone 314/694-6279
Gary King
Division Manager of Remedial Mgmt.
Illinois EPA
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield IL 62794-9276
Phone 217/785-9407
Giesela King
9601 Fish Lake Road
Holly Ml 48442
Phone 313/634-7668
John Kuhns
U.S. EPA - Region V
77 West Jackson Blvd.
Chicago IL 60604
Phone
Marianne Lament
Special Assistant to AA, OSWER
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, SW
Washington DC 20460
Phone
Craig Lawler
Director of Public Works
City of Belvidere
210 Whitney Street
Belvidere IL 61008
Phone 815/544-9256
Jane Lemcke
Superfund Remedial Leader
State of Wisconsin, DNR
P.O. Box 7921
Madison VM 53707
Phone
Keith Lerminiaux
Dickinson, Wright, Moon et al
500 Woodward Ave., Suite 4000
Detroit M 48226-3425
Phone 313/223-3500
Toni Lessor
U.S. EPA - Region V
77 West Jackson Blvd.
Chicago IL 60604
Phone
Tom Mateer
Chief, Superfund Prgm Mgmt Brnch
U.S. EPA - Region V
77 West Jackson Blvd. (HSM-5J)
Chicago IL 60604-3590
Phone
JimMayka
Chief, MI/WI Remedial & Enfrcmrtt
U.S. EPA - Region V
77 West Jackson Blvd. (HRSW-6J)
Chicago IL 60604-3590
Phone
Margaret McCue
U.S. EPA - Region V
77 West Jackson Blvd.
Chicago L 60604
Phone
Bruce Means
OERR
U.S. EPA
401 M Street. SW
Washington DC 20460
Phone
TimMott
Group Leader. SRO
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, SW
Washington DC 20460
Phone
Patrick Murray
Huntingdon Consulting Engineers
2345 Commerce Drive
New Berlin \M 53151
Phone 414/789-7800
Richard OHara
Director of Remedial Projects
Waste Management of North America
3003 Butterfield Road
Oak Brook IL 60521
Phone 708/572-2466
WilamC.OIasin
Environmental Engineer
Ashland Chemical, Inc.
5200 Blazer Parkway
Dublin OH 43017
Phone 614/889-3065
Linda V. Parker
Attorney
Dickinson, Wright, Moon, et al
500 Woodward Ave, Suite 4000
Detroit M 48226-3425
Phone 313/223-3609
Sue Pastor
U.S. EPA - Region V
77 West Jackson Blvd.
Chicago L 60604
Phone
35
-------
Frank Patrizio
City Manager
City of Piqua
219 West Water Street
Piqua OH 45356
Phone 513/778-2051
John Perrecone
U.S. EPA - Region V
77 West Jackson Blvd.
Chicago IL 60604
Phone
Ed Peterson
Staff Engineer
General Motors Corporation
30400 Mound Road
Warren M 48090-9015
Phone 313/947-1657
Rory Peterson
Mayor
City of Belvidere
119 S State Street
Belvidere IL 61008
Phone 815/544-3726
Reed Philips
Asst. City Manager, General Services
City of Saginaw
1315 South Washington Avenue
Saginaw M 48601
Phone 517-759-1610
Pam Phillips
Prgrrn & Enforcement Group. SRO
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, SW
Washington DC 20460
Phone
Mike Pis ant
Principal
ERM - Southwest
3501 N. Causeway Blvd., Suite 200
Matairie LA 70002
Phone 504/831-6700
C.H. Porter
Environmental Control Engineer
Ford Motor Company
15201 Century Drive #608
Dearborn M 48121
Phone 313/322-1918
Ralph Pribble
Public Information Officer
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
520 Lafayette Road North
St. Paul MN 55155
Phone
John Robinson
President
John Robinson & Associates
101 Grand Ave.. P.O. Box 31
Wausau W. 54402-0031
Phone 715/842-4655
Tom Rogers
Assistant City Manager
City of Janesviile
18 N.Jackson Street
Janesviile W 53545
Phone 608/755-3177
Mice Rosen
Oregon DEQ
811 SW Sixth Avenue
Portland OR
Phone 503/229-6712
Robin Schmidt
Site Evaluation Leader
State of Wisconsin, ONR
P.O. Box 7921
Madison VM 53707
Phone
Tom Schuh
Special Services Manager
City of Champaign
702 Edgebrook Drive
Champaign L 61820
Phone 217/351-4400
Marie Stuart
Wisconsin Dept. of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 7921
Madison W 53707
Phone
JanTarpy
U.S. EPA - Region V
77 West Jackson Blvd.
Chicago L 60604
Phone
Keeley L Taylor
AA for Environmental Affairs
City of Kalamazoo
241 West South Street
Kalamazoo M 49007
Phone 616/337-8044
David Thomas
Executive Director
West Chicago Park District
30 W. 150 Wilson Road
West Chicago IL 60185
Phone 708/231-9474
Jodi Traub
U.S. EPA - Region V
77 West Jackson Blvd.
Chicago IL 60604
Phone 312-353-9773
Demch Vallance
Project Manager
Browning-Ferris Industries
P.O. Box 3151
Houston TX 77253
Phone 713/584-8102
Myron Wahts
19031 Livemous
Detroit Ml 48221
Phone 313/865-1778
36
-------
GeriWendorf David Wendtland Thomas Wieczorek
Program Assistant City Manager City Superintendent
Grand Cal Task Force City of Muskegon City of Ionia
2400 New York Avenue PO Box 536, 933 Terrace St. 114 N. Kidd Street
Whiting N 46394 Muskegon M 49443-0536 Ionia M 48846
Phone 219/473-4246 Phone 616/724-6724 Phone 616/527-4170
37
-------
APPENDIX C
EPA/ICMA Regional Focus Group
Voluntary Cleanups, the Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model, and other Superfund Reforms
Chicago, IL
November 12-13,1992
Readings List
1. Environmental Fact Sheet - The Superfund Enforcement Process: How it Works
2. Regional Pilots and Applications of Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model (SACM)
3. Promoting Voluntary Site Cleanups
4. DEO Explains Cleanup Program
5. Improving Superfund Remedy Selection
6. Do Superfund Settlements Make Sense Anymore?
7. The Process of Selecting a Remedial Action Under CERCLA
39
-------
APPENDIX D
GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND ACRONYMS
ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution) — A process which uses a neutral third party to help
resolve disputes. ADR methods include facilitation, mediation and arbitration.
AOC (Administrative Order on Consent) — A legal agreement signed by both EPA and a
responsible party that is used to agree on the roles, responsibilities, and payment for conducting
removal and RI/FS actions.
ARARs (Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements) -- The federal and
state standards that are legally applicable or relevant and appropriate under the circumstances.
ARARs include standards for cleanup, control and prevention.
CD (Consent Decree) — A legal document, approved and issued by a state or federal district
court, that formalizes an agreement between EPA and PRPs in which the PRPs agree to perform all
or part of a site clean-up. A CD details the actions the PRPs are required to perform and must be
used in settlements dealing with remedial action.
CERCLA (Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act) -- The formal name for "Superfund". This law was originally passed in 1980 and then
reauthorized and amended in 1986 under the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
(SARA). Reauthorization is due again in 1994, and observers expect many significant changes to
be proposed.
ESD (Environmental Sciences Division) — An EPA regional division that provides data
validation and quality control functions.
HRS (Hazard Ranking System) — The method EPA uses to determine which sites belong on
the National Priorities List. The HRS ranks sites by means of a score (between 0 and 100), based
on risks to human health and the environment. A site scoring 28.5 or above may be listed on the
NPL.
NCP (National Contingency Plan) -- The primary federal policy framework guiding the
Superfund program. It outlines the hazard ranking system as well as the procedures and standards
for responding to releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, and contaminants.
NPL (National Priorities List) — An EPA list enumerating the toxic waste sites in the nation
that warrant long-term remedial responses. Any site with a Hazard Ranking System score of 28.5
or greater is a candidate for placement on the NPL. As of October 1992, the list numbered 1,208
final and 28 proposed sites.
PRP (Potentially Responsible Party) ~ Any individual, local government, or company that
is potentially liable at a Superfund site. PRPs include past or present (1) owners or operators of a
site, (2) generators of hazardous substances disposed at a site, or (3) transporters of such
substances to a site, when the transporters selected the site for disposal.
PA/SI (Preliminary Assessment/Site Inspection) - The initial two-phase study of a
potential Superfund site. The preliminary assessment, conducted by either EPA or the state
environmental agency, gathers data on how the public could be exposed to hazardous substances at
a site, determines if any short-term clean-up work is needed, and eliminates from further
consideration sites that do not pose risks to public health or the environment. The SI builds upon
the data collected in the PA and includes on-site and off-site sampling and field investigation.
From this data, EPA scores the site according to the Hazard Ranking System.
41
-------
ROD (Record of Decision) — A government document published after the completion of the
remedial investigation/feasibility study explaining which cleanup alternative(s) will be implemented
at a Superfund site. The ROD is pan of the written administrative record.
RDTs (Regional Decision Team) -- (RDTs) are being used as part of the Superfund
Accelerated Cleanup Model (SACM) to assess whether a team approach will expedite the process.
These RDTs might consist of a team leader; senior remedial, removal, and site assessment
representatives; a community relations coordinator, and representatives from regional counsel, the
Environmental Sciences Division (ESD), and the state environmental agency.
RD/RA (Remedial Design/Remedial Action) - The two phases in the Superfund cleanup
process following the record of decision, consent decree, and remedial investigation/feasibility
study. In the remedial design, engineers develop technical drawings and specifications for
subsequent long-term site cleanup. In the remedial action, the remedial design is implemented.
RI/FS (Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study) - Two distinct but related studies,
conducted by either the government or PRPs. The remedial investigation determines the type and
extent of contamination at a Superfund site and establishes criteria for clean-up. The Feasibility
Study identifies and evaluates clean-up alternatives (consistent with the National Contingency Plan)
and their costs.
SACM (Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model) ~ A model process designed by EPA to
help streamline cleanups at Superfund sites. SACM separates remediation into short-term and
long-term response actions, uses Regional Decision Teams (RDTs) to help manage cleanup
decisions, and integrates site assessment activities.
TAG (Technical Assistance Grants) — Grants available to citizen groups which provide up
to $50,000 to help them obtain information and technical assistance at a site.
42
-------
APPENDIX E
INTERNATIONAL CITY/COUNTY MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION (ICMA):
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
ICMA is the professional and educational association for top appointed administrators in local
government. For 78 years, ICMA has worked to strengthen the quality of local government
through its support to professional local government administrators with a wide range of
publications, training programs, and research and information services.
With assistance from foundations and federal and state agencies, ICMA has established its
Environmental Programs Division to help local government managers with their environmental
problems. The Superfund Assistance Program, funded in part by an EPA grant, plays an
important educational and support role for local governments facing potential liability under
Superfund. The program also strives to enhance communication between federal, state, and local
governments, the private sector, environmental groups, and private citizens.
In addition to mixed interest group conferences, such as the one summarized in this report,
Superfund Assistance Program offers seminars, written materials, and one-on-one meetings for
local government managers and other interested parties. In 1992-1993, ICMA conducted four
Superfund conferences in Boston, Chicago, San Francisco, and Portland to provide local
government officials an opportunity to learn more about how Superfund can affect their
communities. A seminar on "Developing Contaminated Properties" will be held in Chicago on
April 1-2,1993. Additional seminars will be offered on a continuing basis.
In January 1993, a manual titled Managing Superfund"s Impact: A First Aid Kit was published as a
ICMA MIS Report to help local government managers and others effectively manage their
involvement in Superfund. Finally, the Superfund Peer Exchange Program enables elected
officials and top managers to obtain free advice from local government peers in one-on-one
meetings.
For more information, contact Joan Glickman, Project Manager, Superfund Assistance Program,
at (202) 962-3663.
*U.S. G.P.O.:1993-341-835:82033 43
------- |