United States Office of Publication 9202.1-15A
Environmental Protection Solid Waste and PB94-963216
Agency Emergency Response December 1993
Superiund
<&EPA Status of Regional Superfund
Pilots
End-of-Year Report
-------
Publication 9202.1-15A
PB94-963216
Status of Regional Superfund Pilots
End-of-Year Report
December 8, 1993
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 5, Library (PL-12J)
77 West Jackson Boulevard, 12th Floor
Chicago, IL 60604-3590
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Superfund Revitalization Office
Washington, DC 20460
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i
INTRODUCTION .1-1
INDEX OF REGIONAL SUPERFUND PILOTS AND KEY CONTACTS II-1
ABSTRACTS III-l
SUPERFUND REGIONAL PILOTS
REGION 1
Kearsarge Metallurgical, New Hampshire Site IV-1
"Start'ySACM Initiative: Accelerating the RI/FS Process IV-3
Settlement With Third Party Generators (Murtha Case Settlement) IV-8
Expedite PRP Remedy Implementation IV-9
REGION 2
Accelerate RI/FS Process IV-12
Accelerate Federal Facility Agreements IV-17
REGION 3
Accelerating Cleanup to Reduce Risk IV-20
Innovative Data Validation Approaches IV-23
Bring Sites to Completion by End of FY 93 IV-26
Integrated Site Assessment and Early Enforcement IV-28
Proactive Settlement of De Minimis PRPs IV-31
Accelerate ROD to RD Process Through Early Enforcement IV-33
-------
REGION 4
Early Enforcement Prior to Listing IV-35
Early De Minimis Settlement IV-41
REGION 5
Regional Decision Team IV-44
Early Action Pilot, Better Brite, Wisconsin Site . IV-47
Integrated Site Assessment IV-50
Wisconsin Single Site Assessment IV-53
REGION 6
Lightning ROD Projects IV-56
SACM Demonstration and Regional Decision Team
National Zinc, Oklahoma Site IV-62
REGION 7
Remediation Goals and Presumptive Remedy Initiative IV-64
REGION 8
Accelerated Cleanups Initiative IV-67
RI/FS Acceleration Pilot IV-69
Sandy Smelter, Utah Pilot IV-71
PRP Incentives IV-73
Comprehensive Site Management IV-74
Cross Program/Multi-Media Approach, Annie Creek, South Dakota Site IV-76
-------
REGION 9
SACM Site Assessment Pilot IV-78
Plug-in ROD, Indian Bend Wash South, Arizona Site IV-83
Early De Minimis Settlement, Operating Industries Inc., California Site IV-86
REGION 10
Accelerate Cleanup Through Removal
Yakima Plating, Washington Site IV-90
Allied Plating, Oregon Site IV-93
Demonstration Pilot, Alaskan Battery Enterprises, Alaska Site IV-95
Outreach Specialist IV-97
PRP Search Initiative IV-99
-------
Executive Summary
Status of Regional Superfund Pilots:
End-of-Year Report
Superfund Revitalization Office
December 8,1993
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
STATUS OF REGIONAL SUPERFUND PILOTS: END-OF-YEAR REPORT
In 1991 and 1992, the Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response (OSWER) began major efforts
to streamline and improve the equity of Superfund
response activities. The Superfund 30-Day Study
Implementation Plan (October, 1991) identified
strategies for improving the efficiency, effectiveness
and equity of Superfund. The Superfund Accelerated
Cleanup Model (SACM) emphasized cross-program
coordination and prompt risk reduction through early
actions, within the existing regulatory framework
(February, 1992). All ten Regions began pilots of
these initiatives, and during 1993 have monitored and
evaluated the results of their pilots. Half of the pilots
are completed and half are continuing into 1994.
The Executive Summary provides an overview of
pilot activities to accelerate response activities and
enhance their equity, and draws preliminary
conclusions where possible at this time. The main
body of the report provides an index of pilots and key
contacts, and details the goals of each pilot, its status,
evaluation plan and results to date.
OVERVIEW OF PILOT ACTIVITIES
AND RESULTS
Half of the SACM and Revitalization pilots are
completed (see Index of Pilot Activities), and their
major benefits have been to:
•. Accelerate Superfund and improve its efficiency;
• Improve enforcement equity; and
• Increase the States' role in Superfund.
These benefits are consistent with the goals of the
new Administrative Improvements, which EPA
initiated during June 1993 to further accelerate
Superfund activities to the extent possible under
CERCLA, and to enhance their equity. Several key
goals of the Administrative Improvements are to
enhance cleanup effectiveness and consistency,
enhance enforcement fairness, and enhance the States'
role in Superfund. This report does not address the
new Administrative Improvements, which are
described in the June 23, 1993, "Superfund
Administrative Improvements" and in the July 7,
1993, "Implementation Strategy for Superfund
Administrative Improvements."
Note that in many cases the Regions applied
significant "up-front" resources to achieve the benefits
described above for individual pilots and sites. For
example, the Regions were able to accelerate
assessment and response activities, or enforcement
activities, but used additional staff during the initial
stages of the pilots. The Agency is still evaluating
the potential transferrability of findings at individual
pilot sites to a broader array of sites, and the potential
for net resource savings due to these pilot measures.
The following sections highlight key examples and
findings for each of these areas:
ACCELERATE AND IMPROVE
EFFICIENCY:
Many of the Revitalization and SACM pilots have
served the objective of accelerating cleanups and
enhancing their effectiveness and consistency, as
described below.
SACM Pilots:
The Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model (SACM)
emphasizes cross-program coordination through
"Regional Decision Teams", integrated site
assessments, prompt risk reduction through early
actions, and appropriate long-term cleanup actions.
The following discussion highlights the major
components of SACM, and provides examples of
Regional pilots that started the SACM process.
All Regions have established Regional Decision
Teams (RDTs) to prioritize sites and select
appropriate actions. These teams are composed of
representatives from the removal, remedial, site
assessment, enforcement and community-relations
programs, and from other key offices such as
Regional Counsel. The RDTs facilitate cross-
organizational decisions, and identify early actions for
new sites as well as NPL sites. Regions differ in the
exact structure of these teams; several Regions have
-------
a process by which a management team of Branch
Chiefs or Division Directors reaches decisions based
on the analysis and recommendations of site-specific
teams composed of senior staff. Several Regions
include the appropriate States in their RDT meetings.
A major emphasis under SACM is the streamlining
and integration of site assessments. Regions 2, 5, 8
and 9 have pilots that are continuing to integrate the
assessment activities previously conducted under
different program areas, and to ensure that sampling
strategies and data quality objectives will support
different possible response actions that eventually may
be identified by the Regional Decision Teams.
Another major emphasis of SACM is to identify early
actions to reduce risk wherever possible, using either
removal or remedial action authorities. The RDTs are
instrumental in choosing the most appropriate
authority for early actions (e.g., non-time-critical
removal actions, or accelerated enforcement) and
ensuring that States, other Agencies and the
community are involved in the process as appropriate.
Several Regions (1,3,5 and 10) have completed early
action pilots.
Finally, after immediate risks are reduced, additional
risk reduction will be achieved through longer-term
site remediation activities, such as groundwater
treatment. Throughout all stages of SACM, the
Agency continues to emphasize enforcement activities
and community relations.
Following are results from several completed pilots
that illustrate some of the benefits of the SACM
approach to site assessment and cleanup. (Parts III
and IV of this report provide additional detail on
these and other pilots.)
• Pilots in Regions 1, 3, 5, and 6 established
Regional Decision Teams that are implementing
SACM and ensuring that all major Superfund sites
come through "one door" for decision-making.
Region 5 also combined a section and branch (re-
organized) to implement the "one door" goal, and
is expanding the role of the RDT to include site
funding decisions.
• Early action pilots have been completed in
Regions 1, 3, 5 and 10, making greater use of
removal authorities/contracts and resulting in
significant time and cost savings (e.g., Kearsarge,
N.H.: acceleration of 6 to 12 months and about
$300,000 saved; North Penn #6, Pa.: acceleration
of 3 years; Yakima Plating, Wash. & Allied
Plating, Oregon: acceleration of 15 months and
about $100,000 saved). Much of the accelerations
and cost savings were achieved because the
Regions did not do formal Remedial Designs.
• Region 4 completed a pilot under which the
potentially responsible party (PRP) accelerated site
assessment by more than two years, resulting in
cost savings of about $300,000 (by integrating
different stages of the site assessment process).
This site (Greenback) was referred to the Suite of
Tennessee.
• Under Region 8's integrated assessment pilot
(Sandy Smelters, Utah), assessments occurred
about 2 years sooner, but required twice the
normal intramural resources.
Note that OSWER and the Regions are beginning full
implementation of SACM during 1994, building upon
the lessons learned from the initial pilots. Pilot
results have been shared among the Regions at
National conferences, for example at the SACM
Implementation Conference in August, 1992 and at
the Superfund Branch Chiefs Conference in
December, 1993. Some of the initial pilots are
continuing into 1994, and OSWER and the Regions
will evaluate those pilots upon their completion. For
example, in their integrated assessment pilots, Regions
1, 2, 8, and 9 are continuing to examine issues
concerning sampling strategies, data quality
objectives, and field analysis techniques.
Revitaiization Pilots:
Several important Revitaiization pilots have
demonstrated different approaches for accelerating and
enhancing cleanup effectiveness and consistency. For
example, one of the major goals identified in the
Superfund 30-Day Study was to standardize the
remedial planning process for some categories of
sites, to the extent possible given the variation among
site conditions. These "presumptive remedies" are
generally expected to consist of several remedies
typically selected for specific categories of sites. The
Agency expects that the availability of these standard
choices will accelerate remedy selection for the
-------
specified site types and enhance cleanup consistency.
An additional benefit may be to encourage voluntary
cleanups and enhance cleanup consistency at non-NPL
caliber sites, in addition to saving time for remedy-
selection at NPL-caliber sites. Regions 7 and 9 have
presumptive-remedy pilots for different site
categories.
In another important effort to standardize and
accelerate the remedial planning process, Region 6
undertook "Lightning RODs" (Records of Decision)
where the Region has accelerated all preparation for
the Remedial Investigation/ Feasibility Study (RI/FS)
and Remedial Design (RD) before a pilot site was
proposed for inclusion on the National Priorities List
(NPL); and is accelerating remedy selection through
policy and process improvements (such as the use of
presumptive, or standard, remedies). And, in another
noteworthy example, Region 3 has developed a
streamlined approach to data validation.
Some key results of these pilots are:
• Region 9 developed and published for comment a
"Plug-in ROD" for volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) in soil at an important mega-site (South
Indian Bend Wash, Arizona). This is an example
of a presumptive, i.e., standard remedy that can be
applied at many facilities within a mega-site, with
the potential for very significant savings of time
and resources, and enhancing cleanup consistency.
• Region 7 is continuing its pilot to develop
presumptive remedies for grain storage, coal
gasification, and PCB sites. This is an important
effort, focused on site-categories of special
significance to the Region, that complements
Headquarters' efforts. Potential results of this
Region 7 effort may be to encourage voluntary
cleanups and enhance cleanup consistency at non-
NPL caliber sites (e.g., at some coal gasification
and grain storages sites), in addition to
accelerating remedy-selection at NPL-caliber sites.
• The Region 6 "Lightning RODs" have already
resulted in accelerations of 2 to 3 years in
defining site remedies, and may accelerate the
complete process by 5 years. Intramural costs
were twice the normal utilization in the first year;
however, the Region expects to realize net
resource savings of about 30%. Region 6 has
regularly shared its findings with other Regions,
for example at the Superfund Branch Chiefs
Conference in November, 1992.
• Region 3's Data Validation pilot has resulted in
streamlining turn-around time and costs by more
than 50%, without changing the quality of the
analytic deliverable or customer satisfaction.
Note that several of the pilots described above have
focused on accelerating the Remedial Design (RD)
process, or not doing a formal RD when appropriate.
Regions 1 and 10 found that, by conducting early
actions at NPL sites using the removal program, they
avoided the cost and time of doing a formal Remedial
Design. Region 6 began its RD work prior to ROD
approval, thus accelerating the RD and ensuring that
EPA focused its efforts on the most viable remedial
alternatives. The Agency's development of
presumptive remedies will also lead to a more
standardized RD process for certain site categories,
and is expected to result in cost and time savings.
In addition to the pilots described above, there were
several important enforcement pilots that also
accelerated RD activities. For example, both Regions
1 and 8 found in their "PRP Incentives" pilots that a
major incentive for accelerating PRP activities is to
simplify the administrative procedures leading to final
RDs. Region 1 is emphasizing at selected sites a
performance-based approach under which the EPA
holds the PRPs fully accountable for developing RDs,
but with fewer interim deliverables and less formal
procedures. Region 3 also has a pilot to accelerate
RODs and RDs at PRP-lead sites through early
enforcement planning and also by incorporating
performance standards into RODs, thereby
accelerating Consent Decree negotiations. These
approaches are being demonstrated at a number of
sites and will be evaluated during 1994.
IMPROVING ENFORCEMENT EQUITY:
Several Revitalization pilots, in Regions 1, 3, 4, 8, 9
and 10, have been instrumental in OSWER's efforts
to enhance enforcement fairness. These included
pilots of expanded PRP searches, de minimis
settlements, and incentives for accelerating PRP
activities. Headquarters personnel and Regional
Decision Teams also identified opportunities to
integrate PRP searches, negotiations and other
III
-------
enforcement activities into the appropriate stages of
the SACM process. Key examples of these pilots
include:
• The Region 3 de minimis pilot (Tonolli Corp., Pa.)
has been completed, and served as an important
case study for de minimis guidance development.
This case highlighted that early, accurate cost
estimates are important for de minimis settlements,
and also provided late respondents with a second
opportunity to settle (with penalty). The Region
is recovering about $4 million from de minimis
parties.
• Pilot experiences in Region 3, 4, and 9 have
reinforced that de minimis settlements are
advantageous to the settlers, because their
potential Superfund liabilities at the site are
satisfied. (Region 4 and 9 also found that de
minimis settlements were supported and
encouraged by the "major" PRPs.) However, de
minimis settlements require substantial EPA staff
time (e.g., to develop comprehensive "waste-in"
lists), and this finding contributed to efforts to
streamline these procedures under the new
Administrative Improvements. Region 9 is
continuing its early de minimis pilot (Operating
Industries, Inc., California) as an Administrative
Improvement initiative.
• "PRP Incentives" have been identified and
continue to be piloted in Regions 1 and 8. While
both Regions set out to identify possible financial
incentives for PRPs to accelerate their activities,
the major incentive proved to be simplifying the
administrative procedures leading to Remedial
Design.
• Region 10 defined new "PRP Search" operating
procedures to ensure more comprehensive and fair
PRP searches in the Region.
INCREASING STATES' ROLE:
Several Regions have emphasized in their pilot
activities the importance of increasing States'
involvement in the assessment and remedy selection
process. These have been important efforts leading
up to the Administrative Improvements "State
Deferral" initiative. Several Regions have included
States in the deliberations of their Regional Decision
Teams, e.g., Regions 2, 5, and 6. Key examples of
increased State participation include:
• Regions 5 and 6 are working closely with States
to implement SACM. In Region 5, Wisconsin has
the lead on performing integrated site assessments
at three sites (with estimated time savings of 25 to
75%, i.e, 3 to 18 months). In Regions 5 and 6,
States and Tribes are active participants in RDT
meetings.
OTHER BENEFITS:
During the course of their pilots, several Regions
have identified opportunities to increase public
involvement in Superfund activities. For example, a
number of Regions have included community-
relations specialists on their Regional Decision
Teams, to ensure early and appropriate public
involvement. (These comments focus only on the
pilots, and do not address the many other Superfund
community relations activities that are occurring,
especially under the new Administrative
Improvements initiatives.) Noteworthy examples
include:
• Region 10's Outreach Pilot resulted in better
understanding of SACM and these results were
shared with other Regions at a National
conference on communicating Superfund
successes. In addition, Region 10's "early action"
pilots provided the opportunity for full public
comment.
• In Region 6, the RDT regularly considers
community concerns in a very proactive approach,
including "environmental justice" concerns. The
Region's strategies include using bi-lingual
representatives where appropriate, and working
directly with community leaders. In cases where
there are competing applicants for a Technical
Assistance Grant, the Region facilitates the
development of a joint application.
RESOURCE AND ORGANIZATIONAL
IMPLICATIONS OF PILOT ACTIVITIES
The Regional pilot activities during 1992 and 1993
highlight a number of significant resource and
organizational issues and choices. While it is
IV
-------
premature to draw broad conclusions from these case
studies, the Agency will continue to monitor and
evaluate these issues throughout 1994:
Start-up costs: Several Regions reported that pilot
activities were initially resource intensive. In fact,
OS WER provided "incentive funding" for the pilots in
order to enable the Regions to begin these activities.
For example, meetings of the RDTs initially required
a great deal of management and staff time, and
"fairness" initiatives such as de minimis settlements
and broadened PRP searches required significant
resources. The Agency anticipates that these start-up
costs will level off and result in overall efficiencies,
due to enhanced cross-program coordination, and
early identification of major issues to be resolved.
For example, several Regions are screening sites
before forwarding them to the attention of the full
RDT. Thus, the RDT will focus on those sites that
clearly require cross-organizational decisions, and will
empower site-specific teams and lower levels of
management to address other sites. In another key
example, the early implementation of de minimis
policies proved very resource intensive. The Agency
is streamlining and revising the de minimis procedures
to be less resource intensive.
Contract Vehicles: Several Regions reported that the
use of removal contracts rather than remedial
contracts was an important factor in accelerating their
early actions. Removal contracts are more readily
accessed than remedial contracts. In addition, it is
easier to expand or change the scope of work since
removal contracts are "time and materials" contracts,
whereas the ordering process is more time consuming
for "level of effort" remedial contracts.
Organization: SACM can, and is, being implemented
without major reorganization, because the RDTs
facilitate cross-program coordination. Most Regions
have found it important to establish the function of
SACM Coordinator, or Pilot Coordinator, to facilitate
the work of the RDT and the implementation of
SACM. At least one Region (Region 5) combined a
section and a branch to facilitate integrated site
assessments.
Evaluation of costs and benefits: These preliminary
observations highlight the importance of continuing to
monitor and evaluate pilot activities, in order to better
evaluate their ultimate costs and benefits, and the
potential applicability of pilot findings to other
Superfund sites.
PILOT ACTIVITIES DURING 1994
As described earlier, OSWER is undertaking a
number of new Administrative Improvements to
further improve Superfund during 1994, and has
identified SACM and Revitalization measures as
important continuing Administrative Improvements.
For example, the Region 6 Lightning RODs, the
Region 9 Plug-in RODs and the Region 9 de minimis
pilot are continuing in 1994 as Administrative
Improvements. EPA will monitor and evaluate these
ongoing pilots during 1994, along with the new
Administrative Improvements initiatives. The results
to date make clear that it is appropriate to proceed
with full implementation of SACM in FY 1994.
-------
Part I
Introduction
Status of Regional Superfund Pilots
End-of-Year Report
Superfund Revitalization Office
December 8,1993
-------
STATUS OF REGIONAL SUPERFUND PILOTS: END-OF-YEAR REPORT
I. INTRODUCTION
In 1991 and 1992, the Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response (OSWER) began major efforts
to streamline and accelerate Superfund response
activities. In a statement on October 2, 1991, the
USEPA Administrator approved the Superfund 30-
Day Task Force Implementation Plan (October 1,
1991) which identified aggressive cleanup targets and
strategies for streamlining and "revitalizing" the
Superfund process. OSWER also developed the new
Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model (SACM) for
streamlining and accelerating the Superfund program
within the existing regulatory framework; and on
February 27, 1992, the Administrator approved the
SACM initiative. During March and April, 1992,
OSWER began communicating the new SACM
process to Regions, other EPA offices, and external
groups (Publication No. 9203.1-01, April 7,1992) and
began developing implementation plans for SACM.
During this period OSWER requested that the
Regions identify pilot projects to initiate revitalization
measures identified in the Superfund 30-Day Study;
to begin the SACM process; and to integrate
enforcement activities with SACM procedures.
OSWER targeted special funding to enable all ten
Regions to begin pilot activities, and reviewed the
Regions' pilot proposals to ensure that they met
certain criteria.
The criteria for approval were that the pilots must (i)
have been proposed by the Region, and approved by
the Headquarters Superfund Division Directors; (ii)
have a high potential for benefits such as:
transferability to other sites and Regions, savings in
time and resources, improved procedures resulting in
enhanced equity, or accelerated completions; and (iii)
be conducted consistent with the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA) and the National Contingency Plan
(NCP). Thirty-four pilots were approved by OSWER,
with most beginning during the summer of 1992.
Through their pilot activities, Regions established the
processes necessary to streamline Superfund, initiated
them for selected sites (both National Priorities List
(NPL) and non-NPL), and began applying SACM
principles to dozens of sites with the objective of
fully implementing SACM during Fiscal Year (FY)
1994. More than half of the Regional pilots were
completed by the end of FY 1993, with the remainder
continuing into FY 1994.
Headquarters and Regions have jointly evaluated the
progress of pilots throughout FY 1993. The
objectives of this effort were to identify benefits,
lessons learned, and appropriate modifications to the
pilot procedures; and to transfer successful procedures
and findings among the Regions and to external
audiences. For each pilot, a team consisting of a
Regional project manager, a Headquarters contact, and
a Regional Counsel representative has been
responsible for identifying milestones, measures of
success, and legal (or other) issues that must be
addressed.
During FY 1993, the Regions reported quarterly on
the status of their pilots. In addition, video
conferences and teleconferences were held in
February and March 1993, between Headquarters and
the Regions to document the goals and expected
benefits of each pilot. The quarterly reports,
conferences and regular followup with the Regions
provided the information for this report.
Following this Introduction, Part II of this report
contains an index of pilot activities and key contacts;
Part III provides abstracts on each pilot; and Part IV
describes in detail the goals of each pilot, its status,
evaluation plan, and results to date.
(Note: In late FY 1993 the Agency began new
"Administrative Improvements" to further accelerate
Superfund activities, to the extent possible under
CERCLA, and to enhance their equitable
implementation. This report does not address the new
Administrative Improvements, which are described in
the July 7, 1993 "Implementation Strategy for
Superfund Administrative Improvements.")
1-1
-------
Part II
Index of
Regional Superfund Pilots
and
Key Contacts
Superfund Revitalization Office
December 8,1993
-------
STATUS OF REGIONAL SUPERFUND PILOTS: END-OF-YEAR REPORT
II. INDEX OF REGIONAL SUPERFUND PILOTS AND KEY CONTACTS
REGION 1
Key Contacts
Dennis Huebner (617) 573-9650
Ira Leighton (617) 573-9610
Pilots to Accelerate Response and Improve Effectiveness
/ Kearsarge Metallurgical, New Hampshire Site
"Start'VSACM RDT Initiative: Accelerating the RI/FS Process
Enforcement Pilots
/ Settlement With Third Party Generators and Transporters of Municipal Solid Waste
(Murtha Case Settlement)
Expedite PRP Remedy Implementation
REGION 2
Key Contacts
Ron Borsellino (212) 264-8667
Vince Pitruzello (212) 264-3984
Pilots to Accelerate Response and Improve Effectiveness
Accelerate RI/FS Process
Accelerate Federal Facility Agreements
/ - Pilots that are complete.
* - Completed pilots pending a final report.
- No marking indicates that the pilot is
ongoing.
-------
REGION 3
Key Contacts
Abe Ferdas (215) 597-8132
Peter Schaul (215) 597-8334
Pilots to Accelerate Response and Improve Effectiveness
/ Accelerating Cleanup to Reduce Risk
/ Innovative Data Validation Approaches
* Bring Sites to Completion by End of FY 93
Integrated Site Assessment and Early Enforcement
Enforcement Pilots
/ Proactive Settlement of De Minimis PRPs
* Accelerate ROD to RD Process Through Early Enforcement
REGION 4
Key Contact
Kirk Lucius (404) 347-5059
Enforcement Pilots
Early Enforcement Prior to Listing
Early De Minimis Settlement
REGION 5
Key Contact
Doug Ballotti (312) 886-4752
Pilots to Accelerate Response and Improve Effectiveness
* Regional Decision Team
* Early Action Pilot, Better Brite, Wisconsin Site
Integrated Site Assessment
State Lead Pilot
Wisconsin Single Site Assessment
/ - Pilots that are complete.
* - Completed pilots pending a final report.
- No marking indicates that the pilot is
ongoing.
-2
-------
REGION 6
Key Contacts
Carl Edlund (214) 655-6664
Betty Williamson (214) 655-2240
Pilots to Accelerate Response and Improve Effectiveness
Lightning ROD Projects
SACM Demonstration and Regional Decision Team, National Zinc, Oklahoma Site
REGION 7
Key Contact
Bob Morby (913) 551-7052
Pilots to Accelerate Response and Improve Effectiveness
Remediation Goals and Presumptive Remedy Initiative
REGION 8
Key Contacts
Diana Shannon (303) 293-1517
Carol Campbell (303) 293-1293
Pilots to Accelerate Response and Improve Effectiveness
* Accelerated Cleanups Initiative
RI/FS Acceleration Pilot
Sandy Smelter, Utah Pilot
Enforcement Pilots
* PRP Incentives
* Comprehensive Site Management
Cross Program/Multi-Media Approach, Annie Creek Mine Tailings Site, South Dakota
Site
/ - Pilots that are complete.
* - Completed pilots pending a final report.
- No marking indicates that the pilot is
ongoing.
-------
REGION 9
Key Contacts
Nancy Lindsey (415)744-1517
Sherry Nikzat (415) 744-2333
Pilots to Accelerate Response and Improve Effectiveness
SACM Site Assessment Pilot
Plug-in ROD, Indian Bend Wash-South, Arizona Site
Enforcement Pilots
Early De Minimis Settlement, Operating Industries Inc., California Site
REGION 10
Key Contacts
Kathy Davidson (206) 553-1088
Carol Rushin (206) 553-7151
Pilots to Accelerate Response and Improve Effectiveness
/ Accelerate Cleanup Through Removal:
Yakima Plating, Washington Site
Allied Plating, Oregon Site
/ Demonstration Pilot, Alaskan Battery Enterprises, Alaska Site
/ Outreach Specialist
Enforcement Pilots
/ PRP Search Initiative
HEADQUARTERS CONTACTS
Superfund Revitalization Office Jan Young (202) 260-1691
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response Sherry Hawkins (703) 603-8896
Office of Waste Programs Enforcement Bruce Kulpan (703) 603-8985
/ - Pilots that are complete.
* - Completed pilots pending a final report.
- No marking indicates that the pilot is
ongoing.
-4
-------
Part III
Abstracts of
Regional Superfund Pilots
Superfund Revitalizatlon Office
December 8,1993
-------
STATUS OF REGIONAL SUPERFUND PILOTS: END-OF-YEAR REPORT
III. ABSTRACTS
REGION 1
Pilots to Accelerate Response and
Improve Effectiveness
Kearsarge Metallurgical, New Hampshire
Site
In this pilot, Region 1 conducted joint removal and
remedial actions at a National Priority List (NPL) site
to reduce the time required for the overall completion
of site remediation. The removal program undertook
an early action at the first Operable Unit (OU) which
consisted of a waste pile and a septic tank and leach
field. The remedial program is addressing the second
OU which consists of the long-term treatment of the
contaminated groundwater through a pump and treat
system.
As a result of the pilot, 6-12 months were saved at
the first OU because a Remedial Design (RD) was not
required. This also resulted in cost savings because
a formal RD was not conducted (the savings were
estimated at $300,000 to $450,000). At OU #2,
remedial work began approximately nine months
earlier than was originally planned because it was
performed simultaneously with work at OU #1.
Substantial field work has been completed at four of
the nine sites identified by Region 1, while file
reviews have been performed at all nine sites. Data
from these four sites is currently being reviewed to
determine if non-time critical removal actions
(NTCRA) can be implemented. By taking advantage
of the time following proposed listing of a site on the
NPL and prior to the RI/FS start to gather data and
develop site strategies the Region will be able to
significantly increase the speed and efficiency of the
RI/FS in the out-years as well as other remedial
pipeline activities. The ability to sustain site work at
a low level until full funding is available to begin the
RI/FS gives Regions additional flexibility in dealing
with sites while not compromising the final product or
increasing the overall cost of the process.
In the second activity, the SACM Regional Decision
Team (RDT) coordinates the Region's implementation
of SACM and facilitates Regional decisions regarding
appropriate actions at NPL-caliber and NPL sites.
The RDT provides a forum for removal and remedial
managers and Office of Regional Counsel to consider
action jointly. The Region also developed SACM
Site Screening Criteria in order to recommend sites to
the RDT. These criteria were applied to the first
twelve sites considered by the RDT and resulted in
the selection of five sites for RDT attention, four pre-
NPL sites and 1 NPL site.
"Start'YSACM RDT Initiative:
Accelerating the RI/FS
This pilot includes two activities designed to
accelerate the Superfund process. Under the first
activity, "Start," the Region develops technical
strategies early in the Remedial Investigation/
Feasibility Study (RI/FS) process that will allow the
RI/FS workplan to be as specific as possible. To
assist with the RI/FS, some site characterization work
is accomplished by EPA personnel or by other
government agencies, such as the US Geological
Survey, through Inter-Agency Agreements (lAGs),
eliminating down time prior to RI/FS start.
REGION 1
Enforcement Pilots
Settlement with Third Party Generators
and Transporters of Municipal Solid
Waste (Murtha Case Settlement)
The Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) issue has been a
contentious issue for the Superfund program.
Beginning in the spring of 1992, the Murtha Case
Settlement Team Pilot sought to examine a strategy
for reducing the transaction costs of third party MSW
generators and transporters.
1-1
-------
EPA considered a site specific method for
determining a fair share of remedial costs to be
assigned to the MSW parties. In August 1993,
however, EPA made the decision not to proceed with
a site specific pilot for the two Murtha sites but to
wait for a formal determination of the issue in the
context of Superfund reauthorization. Based on that
decision, the Region has ceased work on this
enforcement pilot.
Expedite PRP Remedy Implementation
The Expedite Potentially Responsible Party (PRP)
Remedy Implementation Pilot objective has been to
identify and test incentives for PRPs to expedite the
Remedial Design and Remedial Action (RD/RA)
phase of the pipeline. After meetings with groups of
PRP representatives, Remedial Project Managers
(RPMs), and private sector attorneys, the Region
determined that procedural rather than financial
incentives would be most effective and developed a
new "Design Accelerated Remedial Target" (DART)
process. The DART paradigm is a results-oriented
process in which EPA sets clean up standards and a
conceptual remedy. PRPs can then design and
implement the most cost-effective remedy to achieve
the clean up levels. While EPA does not review
multiple interim deliverables leading to the RD, EPA
reviews and approves or disapproves the RD, and
determines whether the constructed remedy meets
specified standards. Using this pilot approach, EPA
can be reasonable and flexible toward PRPs while still
protecting human health and the environment. The
DART paradigm is expected to result in a more
efficient, effective, and equitable approach to the
RD/RA phase.
The two NPL sites where the DART process is being
piloted are: Solvents Recovery Services, Southington,
Connecticut; and Linemaster Switch, Woodstock,
Connecticut. The project is planned for completion in
September 1994.
REGION 2
Pilots to Accelerate Response and
Improve Effectiveness
Accelerate RI/FS Process
This pilot project accelerates the RI/FS process at
NPL-caliber sites so that it can take place prior to the
sites being listed on the NPL. This accelerated
process involves conducting NPL listing activities
concurrently with the sites' assessment, remedial
planning, and removal actions.
The response activities at the sites involve two major
strategies. The first divides the problems posed by
the site into time critical and non-time critical based
on the site's need for a removal action. Time critical
problems, such as piles of contaminated soil and ash,
are being evaluated and addressed by removal actions.
The non-time critical problems, such as temporary
stabilized ash piles and potentially contaminated
groundwater, will be evaluated in the RI/FS workplan
and addressed by future removal or remedial actions.
The second strategy starts the development of the
RI/FS workplan while the Hazardous Ranking System
(MRS) package is under review and prior to the site's
NPL listing.
Region 2 is applying the accelerated RI/FS process at
a site in New York and a site in New Jersey.
Expected benefits include: a decrease in the time
required for the entire cleanup process by expediting
the RI/FS; a decrease in the time necessary to select
a remedy because of the additional quantity and
precision of the data collected prior to site listing;
efficient use of contractors for site
assessment/characterization and remedial/response
activities at the site by eliminating overlapping
activities and sharing information; and removal data
will be used for the RI and the HRS assessment to
avoid duplication.
Accelerate Federal Facility Agreements
This pilot is designed to accelerate negotiations at two
Federal facilities, Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve
Plants (NWIRP), Calverton and Bethpage located in
Nassau and Suffolk County, New York, respectively.
1-2
-------
Under Section 120 of CERCLA, Federal agencies are
required to enter into Inter-Agency Agreements
(lAGs) with EPA for remediation of those sites which
they own or operate and which are on the NPL. In
order to accelerate negotiations, EPA and the Navy
began negotiations for the IAG prior to listing on the
NPL.
The Region expects time and resource savings
because with Federal facility negotiations
accomplished, there is no delay between site listing
and the commencement of cleanup activities. This
concurrent process will accelerate the RD, RA, and
construction completion of a site. In addition, the
Region anticipates efficiencies since lAGs are being
developed for two sites at the same time with the
same Agency. Although the negotiations are not yet
completed, the Region has estimated that if the
approach is successful, time savings from site
investigation to the signing of the ROD may be 1 to
2 1/2 years.
REGION 3
Pilots to Accelerate Response and
Improve Effectiveness
Accelerating Cleanup to Reduce Risk
The goal of this Region 3 pilot was to develop and
implement a systematic approach for identifying NPL
site conditions which could be addressed through
removal processes. The Region has developed
procedures and a checklist to assist RPMs in using
removal authority to conduct early actions at NPL
sites. This approach is based on the removal action
criteria set forth in the NCP and provides a
methodology for identifying candidate sites that can
be addressed through the removal process. Using this
pilot process and checklist, RPMs can more easily
determine if an immediate response action is
appropriate. The checklist may be used to support an
Administrative Order, or can be transformed into an
Action Memo to authorize Superfund monies for a
Fund-lead removal response at NPL sites.
The new procedures have been used at twelve sites
already and have resulted in Unilateral Administrative
Orders and Orders on Consent to have removal work
conducted at NPL or NPL-caliber sites. The
procedures have shown results at Region 3 sites
where removal actions might not otherwise have been
attempted. Significant time savings have been
demonstrated (e.g. North Penn #6, Pennsylvania: three
years saved) and in addition cost savings may be
realized at sites as well. For example, some time and
cost savings can be attributed to the contract vehicle
available to the removal program (already established
time and material contracts, ERCS) versus those
available to the remedial program (individually
negotiated fixed price contracts, ARCS).
Innovative Data Validation Approaches
Region 3 conducted the Innovative Data Validation
Approaches pilot to streamline the data validation
process by defining levels of review which are
relevant to the data uses. The new process consists of
five levels of review (three organic, two inorganic)
which are defined to ensure that the level of data
review is appropriate to the intended data use. Prior
to implementation of the pilot, Region 3 validated 100
percent of the analytical data generated for Superfund
using all of the evaluation criteria in the National
Functional Guidelines for Evaluating Organic and
Inorganic Data. Costs for validation under the
traditional process averaged $4 million annually and
the average turn around time for validation was 70
days. Using the pilot process, RPMs and On-Scene
Coordinators (OSCs) specify the level of validation
required for samples so that resources are conserved.
Results from implementation of the pilot include:
Reduction in the average time for data validation
(receipt of data package to final validation report)
from the current average of 70 days to an average of
21 days; and an estimated reduction in the average
cost for data validation of one sample from $50 per
sample to $15 per sample.
Bring Sites to Completion by End of
FY 1993
Region 3 provided additional management review to
the sites scheduled for completion in FY 93 in order
to ensure proper planning and scheduling of Remedial
Actions find close communication with States to
address outstanding issues. The pilot was applied at
Lackawana Refuse, in Old Forge Borough,
I-3
-------
Pennsylvania, and Ambler Asbestos, in Montgomery
County, Pennsylvania, to ensure completions by the
end of fiscal year 1993. The Region's tracking has
consisted of identifying problems that could delay
completion, committing sufficient resources to the
sites, and maintaining the schedule of the site.
Integrated Site Assessment and Early
Enforcement Activity
This pilot demonstrates the effectiveness of integrated
enforcement and site assessment activities and
explores the use of early actions to accelerate site
activities. After the Preliminary Investigation and
Site Investigation (PA/SI), the Region decided that an
Expanded Site Investigation (ESI) was warranted to
determine whether the pilot site should be listed on
the NPL. Rather than do only an ESI, however, the
Region negotiated that an Extent of Contamination
Study (ECS) be conducted by the PRP. The ECS
combines the sampling needs of the ESI and the
removal assessment and may include data equivalent
to an RI. Under the Administrative Order on Consent
(AOC), the PRP is also required to do an engineering
evaluation and cost analysis (EE/CA) should the
results indicate the need for a non-time critical
removal action.
The Region expects that if the site were to be listed
on the NPL, one to two years could be saved in the
remedial process by eliminating or streamlining the
RI/FS as equivalent Rl/FS data was gathered during
the ECS. Also, the information gathered during the
ECS can be used to support CERCLA Section 106
findings to require further site cleanup. The ECS, if
used at NPL-caliber sites, can save one to two years
time.
REGION 3
Enforcement Pilots
Proactive Settlements of De Minimis
PRPs
Region 3 has piloted a new process to test pre-ROD
de minimis settlements as a means to promote equity,
settle quicker with the major PRPs, and recover
additional funds to cover past costs at the Tonolli
Corporation site in Nesquehoning, Pennsylvania. This
is the first de minimis settlement conducted by EPA
prior to ROD signature. Through this early de minimis
settlement EPA was able to reduce the transaction
costs of the de minimis parties who settled and got
them out of the process early.
One hundred seventy parties signed the order which
contained a 65 percent premium and have agreed to
pay $3.5 million; $2.5 million for past costs and $1
million for future costs. A second offer was made to
the 230 parties who did not sign the first agreement
and included a 10 percent penalty for late settlement
in addition to the 65 percent premium. Thirty three
parties signed the second offer and have agreed to pay
$540,000. The cost to EPA was $825,000 in
extramural and intramural funds and EPA will collect
approximately $4 million from de minimis parties to
partially address response costs. Through this early
de minimis settlement EPA was able to reduce the
transaction costs of the de minimis parties who settled
and to get them out of the process early.
Accelerate ROD to RD through Early
Enforcement Planning
This Region 3 pilot was developed to accelerate the
ROD to RD process through early enforcement
planning. The pilot activities are designed to
overcome time delays and inefficiencies in the
enforcement process and to expedite cleanup at all
enforcement-lead sites. Under the accelerated pilot
process, a search team holds meetings four to six
months before the ROD with the RPM, EPA attorney,
civil investigator, and other interested EPA parties.
These meetings examine various PRP liability issues,
enforcement strategies, natural resource trustee issues,
and investigate how to prepare the Pre-Referral Notice
(PRN) in a timely manner with all information
required for the Department of Justice. Additionally,
100 days after the ROD is signed, decision meetings
are held to determine the optimal way to conclude
negotiations. The effort is labor intensive but has
provided good results. Performance standards are
also being incorporated into RODs to cut down on the
amount of negotiations required for the RD. Parties
are also encouraged to sign an AOC requiring them to
begin RD once the Consent Decree is signed even
though it has not been entered in court. The
1-4
-------
acceleration of the ROD to RD process is being
achieved through additional activities such as monthly
docket reviews; creation of model enforcement
documents; formalization and use of PRP search
procedures; and improved coordination with natural
resource trustees.
REGION 4
Enforcement Pilots
Early Enforcement Prior to Listing
Under this approach to accelerate site assessments, the
PRP conducts a consolidated ESI-RI/FS, with EPA
oversight. Through this early enforcement effort, the
Region is able to use the data collected to prepare an
MRS document. The Region has completed its pilot
activities at one of three sites under this approach
(Greenback Industries, Tennessee). Actual benefits to
date at Greenback include the completion of the ESI-
RI/FS within two years, an acceleration of two years.
Also, the PRP will pay for EPA's oversight of the site
assessment, thereby conserving Fund resources. The
PRP will realize savings of about $300,000 due to the
integration of the ESI-RI/FS. Although the site
proved not to be NPL-caliber under the new HRS, the
approach is applicable to other NPL-caliber sites.
The site has been referred to the state of Tennessee,
which was able to integrate the available RI/FS data
into its RD/RA. Therefore, the State saved time and
money and is now able to start their cleanup process.
Early De Minimis Settlement
The Early De Minimis settlement pilot includes an
emergency removal, a settlement by a group of 100
major PRPs and the settlement with de minims,
parties. Under this pilot, the Region entered into
settlement with the major PRPs before the emergency
removal with the major PRPs agreeing to pay for the
emergency removal up front. In addition, the Region
undertook to recover appropriate cleanup costs from
the de minimis PRPs immediately after the removal
was complete, as opposed to waiting for the site to be
placed on the NPL. This de minimis settlement was
supported and encouraged by the major PRPs. The
pilot process involves the formation of a PRP steering
committee and entering into negotiations with that
committee during the removal but before the site is
listed on the NPL. The site is located in South
Carolina and was a past State and Federal RCRA
enforcement site.
REGION 5
Pilots to Accelerate Response and
Improve Effectiveness
Regional Decision Team
The goal of the Regional Decision Team (RDT) pilot
is to ultimately develop a process within the Region
whereby all components of the Office of Superfund
are fully integrated into a single continuous effort to
efficiently and quickly evaluate and cleanup sites.
The RDT pilot is addressing 19 sites that were
nominated by the six states that are within the
Region. Each site was assigned a core Site
Assessment Team (SAT) that was composed of an
OSC, a RPM, a Site Assessment Manager (SAM),
and a State representative. The SAT determined what
additional personnel were necessary to evaluate the
site; eventually all the sites were assigned an attorney
and a community relations coordinator.
Under the pilot, the SAT reports their findings to the
RDT which makes decisions on what further action,
if any, should be taken at a site to explore innovative
approaches to expedite site evaluation and cleanup.
The RDT does not micro-manage a site. Instead the
RDT reviews status reports and strategy options from
the SAT, establishes response priorities, and provides
advice and direction on appropriate response actions.
The major role of the RDT is to clarify, evaluate, and
prioritize non-time critical early actions. These
actions are intended to achieve site stabilization and
risk reduction. The action may serve as an initial
response or provide final cleanup for the site. The
role of the RDT is to identify the response
opportunities and direct the initiation of the required
support actions. The RDT also has the responsibility
for ensuring that response actions are fully consistent
with the requirements contained in the National
Contingency Plan (NCP). The RDTs meet once a
month. The following actions were taken at the sites
1-5
-------
already reviewed: 4 Site Evaluation Accomplished;
2 RCRA deferrals; and 3 non-time critical removals.
Early Action Pilot, Better Brite, Wisconsin
Site
This pilot project accelerates cleanup by performing
a Federal-lead time-critical removal action through the
coordination of multiple programs. The strategy of
this pilot uses removal authority for addressing
immediate risks, while integrating cross-program
needs in the planning process. The removal action at
the site, when complete, will have addressed the
source areas to the groundwater contaminant plume
and containment of the plume. The pilot process
involves the combination of the time critical removal
and RI/FS. The time critical removal will contain the
contaminated plume and will decrease the amount of
cleanup needed under a remedial action.
Expected benefits from the pilot include: a significant
early reduction of risk from the accelerated cleanup
action; and knowledge and experience for future
multi-program coordination because of the significant
involvement from the removal and remedial programs,
the State of Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources, EPA's Office of Public Affairs, and the
ATSDR.
Integrated Site Assessment
In its integrated site assessment pilot Region 5 is
coordinating the removal program and the site
assessment program to combine elements of
traditional removal assessments with those of the
PA/SI. The Region has developed a team approach
for the pilot involving OSCs and SAMs that result in
the combination of sampling needs at newly
discovered sites for removal and site assessment
purposes and the close coordination of removal and
remedial efforts.
Through this pilot, the Region has defined a new
process (Removal Integrated Site Evaluation, RISE)
for screening and assessing new sites coming into the
Superfund program for removal and/or remedial
considerations. By combining the Site Assessment
Section and the Removal Branch, the Region has
developed the "one door" entry into the Superfund
process as envisioned under SACM. The pilot assists
in designing an effective mechanism to address these
sites prior to the initiation of the remedial process.
Seven sites are being piloted with this new approach
and the results will be assessed after they have
completed all site assessment activities.
REGION 5
State Lead Pilot
Wisconsin Single Site Assessment
The Region is implementing a pilot with the State of
Wisconsin designed to integrate into a single site
assessment the traditionally separate removal and
remedial assessment. The pilot will be conducted by
the State of Wisconsin which has assembled a site
evaluation team to develop a comprehensive approach
for the site evaluation under a cooperative agreement.
Approximately five to six sites are being addressed
through this pilot.
This pilot may assist the Superfund program in
integrating its initial assessments and
removal/remedial assessments to efficiently and
quickly determine the prospects for a site. By using
data for multiple purposes, economies can be
achieved in terms of the amount of sampling needed,
expertise and learning can be shared among agency
officials responsible for the various tasks undertaken
at a site, and the time between data collection and
action or no further action can be shortened. A
preliminary estimate of the savings at the three sites
thus far completed range from 3-18 months and cost
savings of up to 20 percent of the cost of the site
assessment.
1-6
-------
REGION 6
Pilots to Accelerate Response and
Improve Effectiveness
Lightning ROD Projects
In December 1991 Region 6 initiated the Lightning
ROD pilot projects at three hazardous waste sites to
test the effectiveness of a range of improvements
designed to accelerate the Superfund process. Using
intensive staff effort on the sites in the early stages of
the remedial process, the Region estimates that the
time required to move from NPL proposal to RA start
can be reduced from an average of eight years to less
than three. While this approach requires the
commitment of up to twice as many resources in the
first year or work, it is estimated that a savings of
30% can be expected over the course of site work.
This high level of initial effort points to the
importance of carefully prioritizing sites for such an
accelerated effort. The sites selected for the pilot are
two wood treater sites (Popile, El Dorado, Arkansas
and American Creosote Works, Inc., Winnfield,
Louisiana) and an abandoned dump (South Eighth
Street Landfill, West Memphis, Arkansas).
SACM Demonstration
Decision Team
and Regional
At the SACM demonstration site (National Zinc,
Bartlesville, Oklahoma) the Region is employing most
aspects of the Lightning ROD process with the
addition of removal actions prior to NPL listing. The
four goals of the demonstration are: Completion of
all preparations for the RI/FS and RD before the site
is proposed for inclusion on the National Priorities
List; definition of the total site remedy in the first
year through technical, policy and process
improvements; definition of responsibility for
remedial action in the second year after addition to
the NPL; and starting remedial action within three
years of the site's proposal to the NPL.
The second aspect of this pilot is the formation of
RDTs comprised of managers representing the various
elements of the program to screen sites for early
acceleration and integrated action; to integrate
technical requirements for sampling and analysis for
the pre-remedial, removal, remedial, and enforcement
components of the program; and expand the use of
early actions using removal authority to address
obvious problems as early as possible.
Preliminary findings indicate that the coordinated
sampling that was conducted at the demonstration site
will provide over 90 percent of the data needed for
the RI/FS and RD. The RDT organization ensured
project team coordination of all aspects of the process
at this site. The Region anticipates reduced sampling
costs, and reduced time to define the remedy. The
RDT has proven to be an important forum for
communication and integrating activities across
different program areas. The Region has developed
site screening criteria to help staff understand the
Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model (SACM). The
RDT has screened over 60 sites for potential
integrated or accelerated action. Of equal importance
is the increased level of coordination among the
States, Tribes, and EPA.
REGION 7
Pilots to Accelerate Response and
Improve Effectiveness
Remediation Goals
Remedy Initiative
and Presumptive
Under this pilot, Region 7 pilot is developing
guidance on standard cleanup goals, remedy types,
ROD and Statement of Work (SOW) language for
grain storage sites, Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCB),
sites, and coal gasification sites. These sites represent
significant problems in Region 7 as well as other
Regions. There are approximately 1500 grain storage
sites, 50 PCB sites, and 265 coal gasification sites
which may benefit by the application of this initiative
in Region 7 alone. Once the guidance documents are
completed, pilot sites will be selected in Region 7 for
application of the standards to evaluate their success.
1-7
-------
REGION 8
Pilots to Accelerate Response and
Improve Effectiveness
Accelerated Cleanups Initiative
The goal of the Accelerated Cleanups Initiative pilot
has been to identify the best candidates sites for
accelerating existing cleanup schedules to reach
construction completion goals and to evaluate how
obstacles to accelerated completion can be overcome.
During the pilot Region 8 was able to achieve
construction completion at six sites, with time savings
due to Regional initiatives ranging up to six years at
the Libby Groundwater Site.
Region 8 used a Total Quality Management approach
to evaluate a number of sites and to determine which
sites required additional management attention and
resources. In addition to the pre-designation
evaluation, the pilot included constant evaluation to
foster communication and coordination among site
team members. This evaluation has ensured that
obstacles to accelerated cleanup are dealt with
effectively and quickly.
RI/FS Acceleration Pilot
The goal of the RI/FS accelerated pilot is to
demonstrate that for NPL-caliber sites, a more
focused and compressed investigation can yield
considerable time and cost savings. This acceleration
process expedites the overall Superfund cleanup
process by conducting these phases simultaneously.
This pilot concept is designed to accomplish
Superfund phases in a more efficient manner and
deliver results the public will value including quick
reduction of acute risks at all Superfund sites
(removal and remedial) and restoration of the
environment over the long-term. Due to the
intensified site investigations and sampling done for
the HRS package and the RI/FS prior to listing, EPA
will be able to move quickly towards the selection
and implementation of remedial actions after listing.
Only two weeks were needed to prepare the HRS
package for the Summitville Mine site located in Rio
Grande, Colorado, compared to the estimated national
and Regional averages of three to six months. The
final listing is expected to take about six months,
which will be quicker than the national and Regional
averages. It is estimated that the pilot approach will
reduce the time it takes to cleanup the site by more
than one year.
Sandy Smelter, Utah Pilot
The goal of the Sandy Smelter Study pilot is to
integrate the traditionally separate steps of the PA/SI,
RI, RD and if necessary the removal assessment into
one assessment. This combination should require
approximately one year as opposed the three year
average. This site is an abandoned mining smelter in
a residential area and a site investigation has
demonstrated that on-site residential soils have been
contaminated with heavy metals. Where appropriate,
presumptive remedies will be used to implement large
scale remediation through non-time critical removals.
REGION 8
Enforcement Pilots
PRP Incentives
The goal of the PRP Incentives pilot was to identify
PRP incentives that will increase the number of,
accelerate, and improve the quality of PRP-lead NPL
site cleanups. The pilot's early attempts to offer
financial incentives were not completely successful
when attempted at two sites. Given these initial
results and information gathered by a similar pilot in
EPA's Region 1 office, the Region 8 pilot was re-
evaluated. To identify incentives, the Region held a
national conference with PRPs and their
representatives on April 15, 1993. At the conference
EPA gained valuable insight into PRP's views on
incentives. The Region has published a conference
report which describes approaches for streamlining
Superfund procedures to accelerate cleanups and
expedite settlements. These incentives are primarily
administrative and procedural, for example, to
accelerate the RD process.
111-8
-------
Comprehensive Site Management
Region 8 conducted an enforcement pilot for a
comprehensive cleanup covering all activities of the
CERCLA process from discovery of waste areas on
site and investigative studies through cleanup and
operations and maintenance. The goal of this pilot
was to expedite the Superfund process by use of a
single Consent Decree (CD) with the primary PRP.
The pilot's goal was for the PRP to comply with the
CD, and reimburse EPA's oversight costs. Full
compliance with the CD would have superseded the
need for NPL listing. Consent Decree negotiations
were started in November 1991 and were discontinued
in January 1993. The PRP rejected the proposed
Consent Decree in August 1993. However, EPA
hopes to use many of the technical and administrative
innovations from the negotiations in a more traditional
enforcement framework. During the period of
negotiations (1991 - 1993), seven removals under
order and EPA oversight were started, and three are
completed.
Cross Program/Multi-Media Approach,
Annie Creek Mine Tailings Site, South
Dakota
This pilot saved the Region and the PRP time and
resources using Clean Water Act (CWA) and Clean
Air Act (CAA) authority to initiate the remedial
investigations at the Annie Creek Mine Tailings Site,
a site proposed for the NPL. The Region and the
PRP saved time and resources using the CWA/CAA
request to initiate the investigation instead of
negotiating traditional Superfund orders. Further, this
approach created a less adversarial environment and
allowed all parties to focus on technical resolutions to
site cleanup which resulted in the PRP conducting site
work within one month of the request. PRP
incentives were used that included agreeing to initiate
site work under the CWA/CAA request, therefore not
negotiating orders, and not including the Water
Management Divisions oversight of the CWA/CAA as
part of the Superfund costs to be reimbursed by the
PRP. The Region will seek recovery of costs
associated only with Superfund's oversight. Non-time
critical removals are being used to speed the process
as well. The Region estimates that more than six
months have already been saved as compared to the
planned duration for a traditional RI/FS. Savings to
EPA for the entire cleanup are projected to be at least
2 years and $250,000. The PRP may also realize
significant cost savings.
REGION 9
Pilots to Accelerate Response and
Improve Effectiveness
SACM Site Assessment Pilot
In this pilot, Region 9 has developed and is
implementing at 20 sites, an integrated site assessment
process that satisfies the data and sampling needs of
different program areas. The pilot introduces two
phases, the Integrated Assessment (IA) and the
Expanded Site Inspection/Remedial Investigation
(ESI/RI). The IA is a single continuous assessment
that begins with the evaluation of available records
and may also include field sampling to more
accurately determine if a site is NPL-caliber. If the
site may potentially score based on the evaluation of
records, the site will move directly into field sampling
and an IA document is prepared (PA/SI). The ESI/RI
is a much more comprehensive investigation than the
IA and will typically be used on sites that may be
NPL-caliber. For this reason, the Region's RDT has
input on when to use an ESI/RI. The ESI/RI may be
used to gather ESI, RI/FS and/or EE/CA information.
Time and cost savings are expected over the course of
the Superfund process and a full evaluation is being
conducted by the Region.
Plug-In ROD, Indian Bend Wash-South,
Arizona Site
The Plug-in ROD pilot project will demonstrate the
use of two innovative approaches to accelerate
remedy selection at "mega-sites." The use of a Plug-
in ROD allows site managers to complete a "master"
FS for the site as a whole and issue a ROD that can
be used for facilities meeting criteria in the ROD.
Site managers then perform an RI on each facility to
determine whether the facility: a) can "plug-in" to the
site ROD, b) can "plug in" to the site ROD with
minor modifications, or c) requires a different ROD.
The use of a "presumptive remedy" is an essential
component of the Plug-In ROD. A presumptive
1-9
-------
remedy must be selected that is potentially applicable
to most facilities at the site. Preliminary results
include an anticipated saving of time and money by
eliminating the need to conduct a FS for each facility,
and a reduction in transaction costs. The savings
achieved depend on the number of subsites or
operable units in the site that are able to "plug-in" to
the ROD. This pilot creates a new approach to multi-
source-site management for mega-sites if their
individual facilities have similar characteristics, such
as contaminants. The ROD can be completed, and no
single subsite's RI work holds up the overall
Superfund process.
REGION 9
Enforcement Pilots
Early De Minimis Settlement, Operating
Industries, Inc., California Site
The pilot project for Early de minimis Settlement,
Operating Industries, Inc. (Oil) in Monterey Park,
California involves design and implementation of an
early settlement strategy for the 3,500 de minimis
PRPs that disposed of hazardous waste at the Oil
landfill. The goal is to complete the settlement by the
end of the first quarter of FY 1995, before the final
remedy is selected and before the final RD/RA CD
negotiations are initiated in mid-FY 1995. This de
minimis pilot is supported by the major PRPs. The
pilot findings that could best be transferred to other
sites are: 1) the notice strategy which encourages de
minimis PRPs to form steering committees which
assist the Region in better communicating with the
major PRPs; and 2) the volume adjustment process
with a steering committee which develops default
volumes.
REGION 10
Pilots to Accelerate Response and
Improve Effectiveness
Accelerate Cleanup Through Removal,
Yakima Plating, Oregon Site
Region 10 avoided the cost and time of doing an RD
by using removal rather than remedial processes at a
plating site in Washington state. The site remediation
described in the ROD was accomplished as a removal
under the management of an RPM and OSC, using
the combined efforts of ARCS, TAT, and ERCS
contractors (A 30 day comment period was provided
for the RI/FS and Proposed Plan). Time savings were
estimated at over 15 months, 12 of which were saved
by not performing the RD. Cost savings achieved by
not conducting an RD were estimated at $100,000 in
extramural funds based on the size of this response.
The Region also needed only 40 percent of the usual
staff time to complete the action.
Accelerate Cleanup Through Removal
Allied Plating, Oregon Site
At Allied Plating, the Region performed a pre-ROD
removal leading to a No-Action ROD. Again, about
12 months and the cost of an RD were saved by not
performing the RD (estimated to be $100,000 for a
response of this magnitude compared to a national
average of $600,000). In addition, the Region
estimates that $400,000 were saved during the
removal itself by using the US Army Corps of
Engineers Rapid Response Program (actual costs of
$1.1 million, versus estimated costs of $1.5 million
for on-site containment).
Demonstration Pilot, Alaskan Battery
Enterprises, Alaska Site
This pilot project involved pre-ROD remediation
activities. Regional staff conducted pre-ROD
remediation of the site chosen for pilot application via
a Superfund Innovative Technologies Evaluation
(SITE) demonstration project. The SITE program
designated the Alaskan Battery Enterprises site as a
demonstration pilot for a new soil washing technology
111-10
-------
that removes lead contamination from soil. In
September 1992, the SITE demonstration was
completed and all soil above the action level,
approximately 150 cubic yards, had been excavated
and treated. A "No Further Action" ROD was issued
in March 1993. The site will be listed as construction
completed. Actual time required for cleanup was
approximately 12 months as opposed to the 22
months based on FS estimates and best professional
judgement assumptions.
Outreach Specialist
The goal of the Outreach Pilot project was to enable
the public to make informed judgments about the
Superfund program and to develop an understanding
of SACM within the Region. The objective of the
pilot was to develop and oversee a focused outreach
agenda aimed at enhancing the Region's Superfund
outreach efforts. Going beyond site-specific
community relations, the Region also coordinated with
Headquarters to communicate Superfund
accomplishments on a larger scale. Using this
initiative an Outreach Specialist ensured that the
public, broadly defined to include most of EPA's
customers, routinely receive factual information about
Superfund. Under the Outreach Pilot, regional staff
conducted more general types of Superfund outreach,
with emphasis on responding to the public and media
quicker and more efficiently.
procedures and training. It is expected that the pilot
will result in time and cost savings during PRP
searches and result in more effective and efficient
searches.
REGION 10
Enforcement Pilots
PRP Search Initiative
Region 10 developed this pilot project to support its
goal of speeding and facilitating Superfund
settlements. As part of the pilot two civil
investigators were hired, an Enforcement Support
Group (ESG) was established, and a full-time PRP
search coordinator was hired.
The ESG provides assistance to the PRP Search
Coordinator who has the lead responsibility for
coordinating Superfund PRP searches and enhancing
the Region's capacity for investigative and litigation
support including establishment of PRP search
1-11
-------
Part IV
Individual Reports on
Regional Superfund Pilots
Superfund Revitalization Office
December 8,1993
-------
Region 1
Kearsarge Metallurgical, New Hampshire Site
PILOT DESCRIPTION
In this pilot, Region 1 conducted joint removal and
remedial actions at a National Priority List (NPL) site
to reduce the time required for the overall completion
of site remediation. The Removal program undertook
an early action at the first Operable Unit (OU) which
consisted of a waste pile and a septic tank and leach
field. The Remedial program is addressing the
second OU which consists of the long-term treatment
of the contaminated groundwater through a pump and
treat system.
For OU #1, Region 1 conducted a removal action
utilizing Emergency Response Cleanup Services
(ERCS) in place of a full Remedial Design/Remedial
Action (RD/RA). Region 1 concurrently utilized
Alternative Remedial Contracting Strategy (ARCS)
contractor support on the second OU. Using
contractor support in this manner expedited early
actions and hastened the start of long-term action.
The traditional process requires that once a ROD is
written, the OUs identified are remediated using the
RD/RA contracting process. Traditionally, work is
done at one OU at a time so that proper oversight
may be conducted of the ARCS contractor. Using
ERCS contracts to conduct a removal at the first OU
allowed the ARCS contractor to begin work at the
second OU simultaneously.
Demonstrated benefits of using this pilot approach
include the flexibility to undertake early actions using
Removal Authority to conduct certain types of
remediation resulting in more efficient cleanups, and
more effective use of program resources. This in turn
will reduce demand for Fund resources and allow
additional sites to proceed through the remedial
pipeline.
PILOT STATUS
The specific site involved in the pilot was the
Kearsarge Metallurgical site in Conway, New
Hampshire. The nine acre Kearsarge Metallurgical
site is an abandoned foundry in the town of Conway,
New Hampshire. The site is located within the 100-
year floodplain of the Saco River. Pequawket Pond
borders the site to the south. The site contains a
drainage pipe with four open-bottomed catch basins,
two waste piles, a septic tank and leach field, and
forested wetlands. The site was originally operated as
a saw mill, but from 1964 to 1982 was operated as a
foundry. Wastes generated by Kearsarge include
solid substances such as ceramics and metal
grindings, and hazardous substances including caustic
soda, hydrofluoric acid, volatile organic compounds
(including TCE), chromium, and flammable liquids.
A hydrologic study in 1982, revealed contamination
of groundwater in the upper aquifer underlying the
site, a potential drinking water source.
The Record of Decision (ROD), in the first OU,
called for the following activities: removing the
septic tank and contents, followed by off-site
incineration and ash disposal in a Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) hazardous
waste landfill; excavating and dewatering
approximately 250 cubic yards of leach field soil,
followed by off-site treatment and disposal;
excavating 4,650 cubic yards of waste pile materials
with off-site disposal of approximately 4,400 cubic
yards in a RCRA solid waste landfill and off-site
treatment and disposal of approximately 250 cubic
yards in a hazardous waste landfill. The Hazardous
Ranking System (HRS) score for the Kearsarge Site
was 38.45.
This removal took the place of an RD/RA and was
able to meet all cleanup levels specified in the ROD.
The surface contamination was cleaned up 6-12
months quicker using a removal because a Remedial
Design (RD) was not required. The groundwater OU
was not scheduled to be completed before the summer
of 1994 but because work began concurrently with the
removal the groundwater restoration construction is
planned to be completed in early Fiscal Year 1994.
The removal action was completed on December 30,
1992.
IV-1
-------
EVALUATION PLAN sooner than anticipated. Also, the use of early actions
resulted in quicker risk reduction at the first OU.
Evaluation of the pilot improvements reveals that
clean-ups occur more quickly and more cheaply when
early actions are performed (where appropriate) at
NPL sites. This increases the overall efficiency of the
Superfund program. The Region's evaluation focused
on the following measures:
• A reduction in the time required to complete
cleanup at OU#1.
• A reduction in the time required to reach
construction completion at OU #2.
• A reduction in the costs to conduct the cleanup at
OU#1.
RESULTS
Results of this pilot include time savings at both
Operable Units at this site:
• At OU #1, the ERCS contractor has completed the
removal 6-12 months faster than a comparable
RD/RA would have taken by essentially skipping
a formal RD and proceeding directly to
construction.
• At OU #2, an ARCS contractor began work
approximately nine months earlier than was
planned. Construction of the groundwater pump
and treat remedy should be completed by early in
Fiscal Year 1994 as opposed to the originally
planned completion date of the Fourth Quarter of
1994. This reduction is due to the fact that both
the ERCS and ARCS contractors began work
simultaneously at both OUs as opposed to waiting
until OU #1 was completed to begin work at OU
#2.
• At OU #1, the costs of'performing a formal RD
were avoided by conducting the removal. Based
on best professional judgement, it is estimated that
the RD would have cost between $300,000 and
$450,000 for a response action of this magnitude.
In addition, public confidence in EPA has been
heightened because the cleanup will be completed
IV-2
-------
Region 1
"Start"/ SACM RDT Initiative: Accelerating the RI/FS Process
PILOT DESCRIPTION
This pilot encompasses two activities designed to
accelerate the Superfund pipeline process. The first
is known as "Start" and the second is the SACM
Regional Decision Team (RDT).
START
The objective of "Start" is to develop technical
strategies that will allow the Remedial Investigation
(RI)/Feasibility Study (FS) workplan to be as specific
as possible using EPA employees and other
governmental entities; supplemented by Alternative
Remedial Contracting Strategy (ARCS) contractors.
As a result, subsequent pipeline activities should be
accelerated including: focusing investigations toward
promising remedial alternatives; identifying potential
early actions; and eliminating down-time prior to the
start of the RI/FS by working on the site at a low
level of effort The difference between "Start" and
traditional RI scoping is that more in-depth work is
done, and it is a more coordinated approach which
utilizes non-traditional methods for gathering
information (e.g.. US Geological Survey, US Fish and
Wildlife Service).
Traditionally, contractors may conduct preliminary
site characterization work prior to submission of the
RI/FS work plan. A Statement of Work (SOW) is
then developed by EPA followed by the contractor's
submission of a work plan. EPA then circulates the
work plan among the Regional staff for review. EPA
reviews the RI/FS workplan prior to finalization and
comments on deficiencies. This process results in
considerable down time between listing on the
National Priorities List (NPL) and the actual RI/FS
start.
Using the "Start" approach, those who would prepare
the SOW and review the workplan are brought in at
the front-end of the RI/FS process for their input on
what is important, how the work should proceed, and
what are the objectives so the site work proceeds on
a faster track. To assist with the RI/FS, some site
characterization work is accomplished by EPA
personnel or by other government agencies through
Inter-Agency Agreements (lAGs), eliminating down
time prior to RI/FS start. Once RI negotiations begin.
it is often difficult for RPMs and technical staff to do
a full scoping effort because of the time demands
made upon them. Thus these pre-RI/FS activities
allow the RPM and technical staff to reflect on what
is being done and what is needed.
Anticipated benefits using the "Start" process include:
enabling site managers to bring in those who will
review the RI/FS for consultation at the front-end of
the process; and decision making about what is
needed in an RI which will prevent unnecessary
delays and added costs for additional work done at
the end of the process. This will allow RI/FS s to be
completed quicker and at a lower cost. Work done
prior to the RI allows for a more thorough
examination of needed future work resulting in a
more complete, focused, cost effective RI and thus
facilitates the FS, ROD and RD/RA. It should be
noted that this objective can only be accomplished if
the Region is given a budget to start the RI/FS in
subsequent years.
Using lAGs and EPA staff allows a lower cost option
when conducting RI scoping and encourages expert
opinion prior to the RI to give input at a point where
it can be of more use resulting in a complete RI/FS at
reduced cost savings and engendering public
confidence. In addition, using Federal employees
allows an RI to continue at a low level until full
funding is available avoiding the pitfalls of starting
and stopping work at a site. As an example, the
Region has used the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
to conduct detailed geologic and geophysical field
activities at three NPL sites. Not only was the work
completed at less cost (estimated) than using an
ARCS contractor, but the USGS is recognized as the
preeminent organization in this field and as such
Superfund is getting an excellent product.
IV-3
-------
SACM RDT
The second activity, the SACM Regional Decision
Team (RDT), is designed to facilitate Regional
decision making regarding early actions at National
Priorities List (NPL) caliber and NPL sites and to
coordinate Region 1 implementation of SACM. The
Region 1 SACM RDT pilot consists of a multi-tier
approach that will provide both a technical and legal
review component as well as management
concurrence for commitment of staffing, intramural
and extramural funds. The RDT establishes the
following support organizations: a Screening Team
composed of technical, legal and removal and
remedial program staff who will review prospective
candidate non-NPL and NPL sites submitted by the
various Regional program offices; a Core Group
responsible for recommending appropriate response
actions and follow-up activities; a site specific case
team to implement the action; and a Support Group
who will be responsible for providing information,
recommendations, and consultation as needed.
Using the traditional process removal and remedial
program managers considered site specific actions
separately while a management team made priority
decisions for remedial sites only. Early actions were
considered on a site by site basis.
The SACM RDT pilot initiative allows removal and
remedial managers and office of Regional Counsel to
meet together to consider action jointly, and early
actions are considered with a Regional perspective.
The anticipated benefits of the RDT include improved
coordination between the removal and remedial
programs. This new integrated program will
eliminate redundancies between remedial and removal
programs and capture efficiencies inherent in each
program thus allowing for a more efficient and
effective Superfund program. The SACM RDT
approach allows site managers to creatively analyze
how best to handle their site and achieve cleanup in
the most efficient manner. Increased risk reduction
resulting from early actions will be a major benefit of
the RDT as well. This benefit will have a direct
impact on those living near a Superfund site and will
help foster public confidence in the program.
Improved coordination between the program and
states is another anticipated benefit of the RDT. This
initiative allows earlier identification of obstacles and
a reduction in delays to reach construction
completions again resulting in higher public
confidence, a better working relationship between the
suites and EPA and allowing more sites to move
through the pipeline.
PILOT STATUS
START
The START pilot tasked ARCS contractors and the
US Geological Survey (USGS), with support from the
Environmental Services Division (ESD), to conduct
file reviews and field investigations and assist in the
preparation of Data Summary Reports. These reports
were based on the existing listing documentation at
nine NPL sites in Region 1 (which had no RI/FS
starts as of Fiscal Year 93), and selective residential
well sampling, geological surveying, soil
investigations and hydrogeologic investigations.
Substantial field work has been completed at four of
the nine sites, while file reviews have been performed
at all nine sites. Activities at the four sites included
comprehensive file reviews, evaluating and sampling
existing monitoring and residential wells, updating
and expanding topographic maps, conducting
ecological field reconnaissance and stream gaging,
sampling surface water, sediments and surficial soils,
and conducting surface geophysics. Reports on these
activities are completed for one site and are currently
being prepared for three sites. In addition,
negotiations have been completed and the RI/FS has
been initiated for one of the nine sites. Data from all
of these four sites is currendy being reviewed on an
on-going basis to determine if non-time critical
removal actions (NTCRA) can be implemented.
The START team has also initiated work at the
remaining five sites including field review activities
and site visits. Work on all sites is proceeding based
on addressing the worst sites first.
Technical staff continue to meet approximately every
two weeks to discuss site progress. Future activities
associated with this START pilot include: further site
studies at all Region 1 NPL sites where RI/FSs have
not been initiated and selected NPL-caliber sites, and
continuing identification of potential early actions at
all investigated sites. The START initiative is an
ongoing project.
IV-4
-------
SACM RDT
Under the SACM RDT initiative, the Region
established a process for identifying, screening and
evaluating NPL sites and NPL-caliber sites. Periodic
RDT meetings were established to provide removal,
remedial and Regional Counsel staff an opportunity to
meet and discuss issues. One of the first outcomes of
the initiative was a Region 1 Fact Sheet of SACM
Questions and Answers to assist the staff in
implementing SACM. In addition, the Region
developed SACM Site Screening Criteria in order to
recommend sites to the RDT. These criteria were
used on the first twelve sites considered by the RDT
and resulted in the selection of five sites for RDT
attention, four pre-NPL sites and 1 NPL site. These
criteria are currently used by staff to continue to
screen NPL-caliber sites.
The first formal meeting of the RDT was held in
November 1992, to review the five sites selected after
the screening process: 1) a landfill in Rhode Island,
which did not have a significant risk to warrant early
action; 2) a site in Vermont, which led to the removal
program conducting a time critical removal action and
collecting additional data to determine if non-time
critical actions are needed; 3) a site in Maine, which
appeared to not be a NPL-caliber site and was
subsequently referred back to the State; 4) a site in
Connecticut, where the State of Connecticut plans to
take an action; and 5) an NPL site in Connecticut
which was sent to the START program to gather
additional information. With the exception of the site
where the State of Connecticut is taking action, the
Region continues to track these sites to determine if
early actions can be implemented.
Based on the results of the November meeting, the
Region decided that criteria must be established to
determine which sites represent good candidates for
NTCRA. The RDT met on several occasions and the
outcome was the development of Regional NTCRA
criteria.
In December, the RDT met to discuss a NTCRA
consisting of a landfill cap at the Browning Ferris
Industries (BFI) Landfill (NPL site). The RDT
decided to initiate an Engineering Evaluation/Cost
Analysis (EE/CA) and to negotiate with BFI for a
NTCRA. The EE/CA was initiated in February and
concluded in July. The action memo was signed on
September 7,1993, and BFI signed an Administrative
Order on Consent (AOC) to conduct the NTCRA on
September 24, 1993.
In February, the RDT met to discuss the Rose Hill
Landfill (NPL site) and agreed that a time critical
removal action was needed to address gas emissions
from the landfill. The removal action was initiated in
March and construction was completed in May.
In June, the RDT met to discuss a NTCRA consisting
of a building demolition at the New Hampshire
Plating site in New Hampshire (NPL site). The RDT
decided to initiate an EE/CA. The EE/CA was
concluded in October and the action memo is
pending.
During June and July, the RDT met on several
occasions to discuss the Raymark Site. The RDT
established a communication and coordination strategy
to resolve listing issues, removal issues and remedial
issues. The team for this site consists of
representatives from all programs. In order to make
critical decisions in a time efficient fashion, the team
also includes some members of the RDT.
Through the RDT, the Region has begun developing
a process to identify and prioritize one list of sites.
As part of this process, the Region continues to
review the NPL sites and NPL-caliber sites to identify
sites that may be good candidates for NTCRA.
Although started as a pilot during the summer of 1992
and funded only through the end of FY 1993, the
Region will continue to use the SACM RDT as its
official process for managing the Superfund process.
EVALUATION PLAN
START
By taking advantage of the time following proposed
listing of a site on the NPL and prior to the RI/FS
start to gather data and develop site strategies the
Region will be able to significantly increase the speed
and efficiency of the RI/FS in the out-years and the
other remedial pipeline activities. It should be noted
that these gains are dependent upon the availability of
both intramural and extramural budget and staff in the
out-years.
Specific long-term evaluation criteria include:
IV-5
-------
• the cost to complete the RI/FS using "Start"
versus traditional processes (Note: This data may
not be available for PRP-lead sites)
• The time required to complete the RI/FS using
"Start."
The Region will collect this information upon
completion of RI/FSs at the "Start" sites.
SACM RDT
The RDT approach should increase the overall
effectiveness and efficiency of Regional management
of the Superfund program. Exact quantitative
measurement of such results will not be
straightforward. It is anticipated, though, that
decisions about specific sites and the resultant actions
at those sites will be:
• More effective than the past practice because the
most appropriate overall plan for the site will be
proposed earlier in the process since more senior
people from a wider range of removal and
remedial program backgrounds will be involved
sooner. Specifically, sites that may have stayed in
the remedial pipeline may be selected for non-time
critical removals or be referred to the states for
cleanup.
• More efficient - from both a time and cost
standpoint - because:
- Sites will be addressed earlier in the process.
- Assessment, investigation and later remedial
phase costs may be lower because the early
review by both the screening team and the
RDT will enable more focused efforts.
Such site specific savings in time and cost should
offset the increase in oversight time and cost that may
result from the time and effort required for integrated
assessments, screening ' team meetings, review
meetings, and other coordination efforts.
As the Region notes, a purely quantitative evaluation
will not address some key benefits. Thus, the
evaluation may also assess the acceptability of RDT
to Regional staff and State representatives. The
opinions of the RDT members will be an important
indicator of its future effectiveness.
RESULTS
START
Preliminary results of the "Start" initiative show that
an early understanding of Region 1 NPL sites makes
the RI/FS scoping process easier because it reduces
uncertainty regarding site objectives. For example,
the START activities at one site resulted in the
efficient conclusion of negotiations with the PRPs for
the RI/FS. In fact, the PRPs have inquired about
potentially utilizing the technical expertise of the
USGS during their performance of the RI at this site.
In the future, a site that has completed the combined
site assessment and is NPL-caliber could begin "Start"
activities immediately. "Start" could replace or
supplement parts of an expanded site inspection in the
site assessment pipeline. It is important to maintain
continuity when making decisions concerning the
sites. Once the integrated assessment is made for
these sites, technical work should be continued and
accomplished at a sustainable level (not a full RI) by
collecting data from the field. By continuing to work
at a site at a low level of effort, problems such as
misplaced data, community disaffection, and difficulty
re-starting work are avoided.
One initial hurdle which needed to be overcome was
allocating sufficient resources to "Start". Technical
specialists are still expected to review ongoing normal
process activities as well as contribute to "Start"
activities. Another consideration is that using the
USGS can result in a slow delivery of USGS products
because of their strenuous reporting standards.
The "Start" initiative results in the use of government
personnel to perform certain site specific activities as
opposed to ARCS contractors. This will result in
time and cost savings in the long-term over the life of
the project.
The "Start" pilot results in better planning and
scoping and will lead to a better, more complete and
focused RI/FS. This increase in quality will engender
additional confidence in EPA by PRPs and citizens
alike. Additionally, the ability to sustain site work at
a low level until full funding is available to begin the
RI/FS gives Regions additional flexibility in dealing
with sites while not compromising the final product or
increasing the overall cost of the process.
IV-6
-------
SACM RDT
A number of RDT meetings have been held and more
than 30 sites have been reviewed. For a quantitative
evaluation of the RDT, however, analysis must focus
on a year to year comparison. Some tentative
conclusions about the workings of the RDT, however,
are possible at this time.
There are two significant intangible benefits derived
from the SACM RDT: 1) adoption of the SACM
mind-set to think creatively about how to address
sites, and 2) further integration of communication
among all parties in the program, in particular, the
removal and remedial programs which in Region 1
are located in separate divisions and separated
geographically by 30 miles. The quantifiable benefits
are the site specific success stories discussed in the
status section above that have achieved early action to
reduce risk.
Preliminary findings indicate greater coordination
between the programs. This improved coordination
has resulted in early actions conducted at NPL-caliber
and NPL sites. In addition, better coordination with
the states is improving the process of assigning site
lead responsibility and identifying areas where
additional attention is needed. Finally, risk reduction
has been or is being achieved at a number of the sites
that have been already considered by the RDT.
As the Region gains more experience with RDTs, the
Region will continue to refine the process and make
necessary improvements.
IV-7
-------
Region 1
Settlement with Third Party Generators and Transporters
of Municipal Solid Waste (Murtha Case Settlement)
PILOT DESCRIPTION
The Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) issue has been a
contentious issue for the Superfund program.
Beginning in the spring of 1992, the Murtha Case
Settlement Team Pilot sought to examine a strategy
for reducing the transaction costs of third party MSW
generators and transporters.
Under the traditional contribution action process,
municipalities are treated as any other third party
generator and transporter of hazardous waste at
landfill sites, unless a de minimis determination can
be made, and therefore incur significant transaction
costs in determining their share of the cleanup costs
through negotiations or the litigation process. Using
this pilot approach, EPA considered determining a
settlement among EPA, the MSW parties and the PRP
coalitions that would be fair, reasonable, and in the
public interest. Acceptance of a settlement of this
kind by PRPs and municipalities, while difficult to
achieve, would provide a starting point for other
negotiations and thus increase the efficiency of
negotiations.
One of the benefits of the settlement pilot was to
reexamine the MSW issues as Superfund faces
reauthorization. This pilot provided a current
example of the issues faced when dealing with MSW.
between the United States and Beacon Heights
coalition; 3) the settlement between EPA and the
Murthas; and 4) Non-settler litigation in each of two
sites.
At both sites, the settling parties filed third-party
action against MSW generators and transporters, and
various other parties. EPA considered a site specific
method for determining a fair share of remedial costs
to be assigned to the MSW parties.
Before beginning to implement any strategy for the
sites, EPA requested approval from the Department of
Justice (DOJ) in developing a proposed settlement
strategy, and revised the strategy at various times in
response to comments from DOJ.
In August 1993, EPA made the decision not to
proceed with the pilot. Rather than pilot a site-
specific settlement effort, EPA will address MSW
policy in the broader context of the Reauthorization
process.
PILOT STATUS
The Murtha case settlement involves two landfills in
Connecticut, the 19 acre Laurel Park, Inc. Landfill
Site in Naugatuck Borough (accepting industrial and
municipal wastes since the 1950s), and the 34 acre
Beacon Heights Landfill Site in Beacon Falls
(operating intermittently from the 1920s to 1979 as a
minimum cover landfill for mixed municipal and
industrial waste). The sites are owned and operated
by the Murthas. The following legal cases exist: 1)
the Laurel Park Settlement between the United States
and Laurel Park; 2) the Beacon Heights Settlement
IV-8
-------
Region 1
Expedite PRP Remedy Implementation
PILOT DESCRIPTION
The objective of this Region 1 pilot is to identify and
test incentives for Potentially Responsible Parties
(PRPs) to expedite the Remedial Design and
Remedial Action (RD/RA) phase of the pipeline.
Seventy percent of sites in Region 1 are PRP-led and
take much longer to move through the design process
than Fund lead sites. After productive meetings with
groups of PRP representatives, Remedial Project
Managers (RPMs), and private sector attorneys, it was
determined that process rather than financial
incentives would be most effective. The new process
that was developed from this pilot is the Design
Accelerated Remedial Target (DART). The DART
paradigm is a results-oriented process in which EPA
sets clean up standards and a conceptual remedy.
PRPs can then design and implement the most cost-
effective remedy to achieve the clean up levels.
While EPA does not review multiple interim
deliverables leading to the RD, EPA does retain its
role as the sole arbiter of whether or not the PRP
design is acceptable, and whether the constructed
remedy meets specified standards. Using this pilot
approach, EPA can be reasonable and flexible to
PRPs while still protecting human health and the
environment. As important, the DART paradigm will
result in a more efficient, effective, and equitable
program.
The DART paradigm has four major components:
1) The DART Record of Decision (ROD) is more
flexible than a traditional ROD. The DART ROD
outlines a remedy, selects a general technology type,
establishes Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
Requirement (ARARs), sets a general timeline with
compliance points, contains a general description of
how EPA will judge performance, or clearly indicates
that the PRPs must design a plan. The primary
difference from a traditional ROD is the flexibility in
technology selection.
2) Under the DART Administrative Order on Consent
(AOC) the RD is separated from the RA. Under the
AOC, PRPs and EPA hold periodic consultive
meetings leading to the design submission. PRPs are
empowered to choose the most cost effective
technology for cleanup, while EPA approves only the
final design, with purely consultative meetings during
the development. The burden is on the PRP to design
a remedy that achieves Agency mandated ARARs.
3) The DART RD results in a 100% design package
and a demonstration of compliance plan that explains
how the effectiveness of the remedy will be
measured. These documents would independently
serve as a Statement of Work (SOW) for RA
negotiations.
4) The DART Consent Decree (CD) governs the
Remedial Action (RA). EPA negotiates the CD for
the RA with RD construction plans and timetables as
the SOW. The DART CD covers only the RA.
Using the traditional process, the remedy is specified
in the ROD, Acceptable Contamination Levels
(ACLs) are often not objectively stated, and PRPs and
EPA negotiate a CD for both RD and RA together.
Additionally, EPA reviews PRP progress during the
RD by providing extensive oversight and requiring
multiple deliverables.
PILOT STATUS
Because PRPs had often stated their desire for the
type of flexibility offered in the DART process, the
Region felt it could be rather selective when choosing
pilot sites. In essence, the DART process could be
used almost as a reward for cooperative PRPs. This
provides the Region with incentives as well as
disincentives to encourage PRP cooperation. In
addition, the Region wanted the concept of DART
widely understood in the PRP community at large and
so chose sites with prominent and/or numerous PRPs.
IV-9
-------
The two National Priorities List (NPL) sites where the
DART process is currently being implemented are:
Solvents Recovery Services (SRS), Southington,
Connecticut: Because there are numerous PRPs at
this site (a four acre solvent recycling facility from
1955 through 1982) the Region determined that this
would be a good candidate for the DART pilot in
order to get the word out to a large segment of the
PRP community. The AOC and SOW have been
drafted and are currently being reviewed by the PRPs.
Linemaster Switch, Woodstock, Connecticut: The
PRPs at Linemaster Switch (a 92 acre electronic and
electrical equipment manufacturer) had been very
cooperative and had worked well with EPA. The
Region saw this site as an opportunity to reward a
cooperative PRP and test this new process. The ROD
for Linemaster Switch is a "DART ROD" and was
completed in June 1993. The consent decree and
SOW are currently being drafted.
This pilot project is expected to be completed in
September 1994. Once each site has been completed
a full analysis of the time and cost savings to EPA
will be made based on actual experience. EPA will
ask PRPs to keep records of the time and money
spent on the clean-ups enabling future PRP savings
calculations.
EVALUATION PLAN
- Enabling EPA staff and contractors to oversee
more sites since the oversight requirements at a
typical PRP led site will be dramatically less than
it has been to date.
These efficiency improvements should increase the
overall effectiveness of the Superfund program in that
the number of construction completions per year
should increase significantly using the DART
approach.
The Region has identified specific quantitative
measures they will collect that will address the
expected time and cost savings. These are as follows:
• Time duration from ROD signature to RD sum
• Time required for RD
• Time duration from RD completion to RA start
• Cost of RD oversight
• Cost of RA oversight.
The baseline for comparison of efficiency measures is
listed in Table 1.
In addition to the quantitative analysis, the Region
will examine the acceptance of the DART process by
the Department of Justice, EPA Office of
Enforcement, EPA Office of Waste Programs
Enforcement, the local communities, and the State.
The Region will also identify the factors and
circumstances for which this process is appropriate.
The purpose of this pilot has been to develop a better
approach for negotiating with and overseeing PRPs.
The evaluation plan identifies measures to be
monitored when the DART approach is tested at the
three selected pilot sites.
The DART approach is expected to improve the
efficiency of PRP-led cleanups at individual sites as
well as the overall efficiency of Superfund Regional
management as follows:
i
• Speeding up the process at individual PRP led
sites by:
- Making negotiations easier; and
- Decreasing the number and complexity of
reviews by EPA staff while the site is in the
pipeline.
IV-10
-------
MEASURE
Time from ROD to
RD Start
Time duration of RD
Time from RD
completion to RA start
Cost of RD oversight
Cost of RA oversight
National
Averages
3.3 Qtrs
9.4 Qtrs
To Be
Detennined
(TBD)
N/A
N/A
Regional Averages
3.9 Qtrs
10.2 Qtrs
TBD
Region to gather TES and ARCS
costs at pilot and other sites
Region to gather TES and ARCS
costs at pilot and other sites
TABLE 1
RESULTS
The meetings with RPMs, PRP attorneys and PRP
representatives resulted in a number of suggestions
that may substantially impact the RD/RA process. By
listening to its customers, the Region may have found
a process that dramatically improves on the traditional
RD/RA process.
The Region has determined that to be successful, EPA
should: identify the remedial concept; implement a
procedure to accomplish the design; and retain
authority to determine whether the remedy achieves
the clean-up standards. EPA should redefine the
PRPs mission to designing and implementing a
remedy at as low a cost as possible while fulfilling
EPA's standards. In meetings with EPA PRPs
expressed that this can best be accomplished by
allowing PRPs to produce a product in the shortest
possible timeframe, unimpeded during the design and
planning phases, and ultimately judged on the
performance of the final product. Because the new
process is less antagonistic, a cooperative relationship
between EPA and PRPs should occur, resulting in a
smoother process with fewer delays. Under the
DART process, negotiations for the RD and RA will
be easier, significantly reducing the cost for both EPA
and PRPs at each site. In addition, this incentive may
serve to encourage other PRPs to be more cooperative
in order to use the DART process, thus facilitating
quicker and easier operations at other sites.
Because final responsibility for the remedy rests with
the PRP and fewer deliverables are required from the
PRPs, less oversight of the RD process will be needed
from EPA. This streamlined oversight could lead to
several possible results. EPA could oversee more
RAs with the same level of staff. Other sites which
are not using the DART process may receive
additional attention because of the reduced demand
for oversight from DART sites. Another potential
outcome is the possibility of sustaining the current
level of site oversight with fewer resources, allowing
other phases of the pipeline to receive more attention.
The time required between ROD signature and RA
completion will be reduced significantly as well.
There are, however, some potential negative
consequences to the DART process. States or citizens
may see the DART process as providing too much
latitude to PRPs, therefore EPA must assure interested
parties that clean-up standards will be enforced.
Finally, PRPs take a risk by investing significant
resources and work prior to receiving any official
approval from EPA in return for reduced costs if the
process works.
IV-11
-------
Region 2
Accelerate RI/FS Process
PILOT DESCRIPTION
This pilot project accelerates the Remedial
Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS) process at
National Priorities List (NPL) caliber sites so that it
can take place prior to the sites being listed on the
NPL. This accelerated process involves conducting
NPL listing activities concurrently with the sites'
assessment, remedial planning, and removal actions.
Traditionally, under the phased approach to Superfund
cleanups, the RI/FS workplan would not be developed
until the Hazardous Ranking System (MRS) screening
was completed and the site was officially listed on the
NPL.
The response activities at the sites involve two major
strategies. The first divides the problems posed by
the site into time and non-time critical based on the
site's need for a removal action. Time critical
problems, such as piles of contaminated soil and ash,
are being evaluated and addressed by removal actions.
The non-time critical problems, such as temporary
stabilized ash piles and potentially contaminated
groundwater, will be evaluated in the RI/FS workplan
and addressed by future subsequent removal or
remedial actions. The second strategy starts the
development of the RI/FS workplan while the HRS
package is under review and prior to the site's NPL
listing.
This acceleration process expedites the overall
Superfund cleanup process by conducting these early
phases simultaneously. This pilot concept is designed
to accomplish Superfund phases in a more efficient,
expeditious manner and deliver results the public will
value including quick reduction of acute risks at all
Superfund sites (removal and remedial) and
restoration of the environment over the long-term.
Due to the intensified site investigations and sampling
done for the HRS package and the RI/FS prior to
listing, EPA will be able to move quickly towards the
selection and implementation of remedial actions after
listing.
PILOT STATUS
Region 2 is applying the accelerated RI/FS process at
the two sites; one in New York and one in New
Jersey.
Site One site consists of an inactive 1940's saw mill
and wood treating facility and three active light
manufacturing companies (a sawmill, a laminated
wood manufacturing company, and a calendar printing
company), located in New York. Contamination at
the site includes: on-site contamination of soils and
surface water with creosote components; a suspected
release to groundwater based on poorly contained
waste sources; a large quantity of wast6; and shallow
water table. A release of contaminants to surface
water is also suspected as creosote components have
been detected in an on-site pond that drains to the
Susquehanna River. Wetlands may be within
contaminant boundary and nearby workers may be
impacted by the waste sources. There is also a
suspected release of contaminants to air.
The remedial work is divided in two parallel units.
The first unit (Unit One) deals with the portion of the
site originally targeted for time critical removal
activities (referred to as the Site property) and the
second unit deals with the remainder of the site
(referred to as non-Site property) and any other
activity not covered under Unit One. Unit One
removal activities to dispose of drummed material
have been completed. As actions under the removal
activities a fence was installed to limit site access;
approximately 41,360 gallons of creosote from storage
tanks and associated piping, floors, pressure tanks,
sumps, etc. were removed and treated and disposed
off-site. In addition, approximately 190,000 pounds
of creosote solids, 23,000 pounds of creosote sludge
and 20,000 pounds of creosote contaminated piping
were disposed of off site, while 3,482 gallons of
Number 2 fuel oil and 165 tons of scrap metal were
recycled. Off-site migration was controlled via
drainage ditches. Approximately 4,000 cubic yards of
debris were screened and staged pending final
treatment/disposal. Additional soil, sediment, and
IV-12
-------
surface water samples were collected and analyzed.
In addition, soil mounds and debris piles were
stabilized via temporary liners and covers.
The contaminated soils in Unit One were originally
being investigated for potential remediation under
EPA's removal authority. A composting treatability
study was initiated to determine its applicability at
Site One for a possible removal action. Under
SACM, the potential remediation of these soils will
be investigated to meet removal and remedial cleanup
levels. While this modification to the strategy to
address the contamination at the site has slowed down
the initiation of the remediation, it is expected that the
final remediation will be more complete and would
not require further response. The initial approach to
be taken to investigate the nature and extent of
contaminated soils was to take soil samples using
removal contractors. However, because of budgetary
and contracting issues, this approach needed to be
revised. This work was added to the RI/FS
contractors scope of work and is currently ongoing.
The combined sampling approach will take into
consideration all the data needs for remedial and
removal purposes. The determination as to whether
the cleanup of these soils will be performed using
EPA's removal or remedial authority will be made at
a later date.
The Rl/FS for Unit Two was initially funded on
September 1992. The FS has, however, not yet
begun. It will begin after the RI is complete. The
accelerated RI/FS characterizes site conditions which
have not been investigated as part of the phase one
investigation (e.g., groundwater, soils on the non-Site
property) and evaluates overall long-term response
alternatives to non-time critical risks posed by the
site. The RI/FS work plan was approved in February
1993. The Field Operations Plan was approved in
April 1993. All analytical data critical for the
completion of the HRS package was collected. An
NPL letter was prepared on November 1992, and
submitted to Headquarters for comment. A draft NPL
package was completed on December 1992, and
reviewed by the Region and Headquarters. A revised
package was completed in July 1993, and sent to
Headquarters for review and comment.
The State of New York has been consulted and is an
active participant in the development of the remedial
approach being taken at this site. EPA representatives
have met with local officials to discuss the time-
critical removal. EPA is currently in the process of
performing additional community relations activities,
including the modification of the community relations
plan and holding a public meeting to discuss EPA's
response at Site One. EPA has been conducting PRP
search activities since 1990 on this site.
Site Two, located in New Jersey, consists of seven
non-contiguous sub-sites which have resulted from
copper reclamation activities between 1960 to 1990.
The waste sources are contaminated soil and ash
piles. The site related contaminants include heavy
metals, PCBs, dioxins and furans. There is a possible
release of contaminants to the groundwater.
Approximately 25 people obtain potable water from
within the area of potential groundwater impact.
There is also a potential release to surface water.
There is a wetland that may be located with in the
contaminant boundary. In addition, 25 people live
within 200 feet of the waste sources. While there
was the potential for contaminants to escape from the
site in paniculate form during dry and dusty periods,
subsequent removal actions have eliminated this threat
temponirily at sub-sites 1 and 2 and entirely at the
other sub-sites.
Using the accelerated approach, long-term response
activities have been initiated while the HRS package
is being prepared. The package was completed in
September 1992, and is undergoing review by the
Region and Headquarters for final submittal and
proposal. A contractor workplan is currently under
review for conducting the RI/FS for the site. The
accelerated RI/FS approach will characterize site
conditions which have not been investigated as part of
the removal activities (e.g., temporarily stored ash
piles, groundwater/surface water contamination). The
accelerated RI/FS will also evaluate long-term and
non-time critical response alternatives in order to
respond to risks posed by the sub-sites. These
accelerated actions are in contrast to previous
practices of conducting these investigations farther
along in the cleanup process.
The description of the time critical responses is
broken down by the seven sub-sites. All of the time
critical responses were completed May 25, 1993.
Completed removal actions at sub-sites 1, 2 and 3
included consolidating and stockpiling ash on site.
The consolidated ash was covered with an
IV-13
-------
impermeable vinyl liner to prevent rain water
infiltration. These actions were necessary to
minimize migration of contaminants off site, and to
eliminate threat of direct contact with contaminated
ash. Sub-sites 1, 2 and 3 are surrounded by a fence
to prevent unauthorized access.
A time critical removal action was initiated at sub-site
4 in October 1992 for the removal of contaminated
ash/soil. Approximately 614 cubic yards of
contaminated ash/soil has been excavated and
transported to an off-site disposal facility. The
Emergency Response Team (ERT) has performed post
excavation sampling to verify that EPA cleanup
objectives have been met. Post excavation results
show that no contamination remains above the EPA
risk based cleanup levels. Backfilling has been
completed and revegetation of the excavated areas
will commence shortly.
At sub-site five, a time critical removal action for the
removal of contaminated ash/soil was initiated in
September 1992. Approximately 1,000 cubic yards of
contaminated ash/soil has been excavated and
transported off-site for stabilization and landfilling at
a RCRA permitted facility. ERT's post excavation
confirmation sampling of the soils indicate that
cleanup levels have been met over most of the site.
However, some contamination remains above EPA
risk based cleanup levels, below the water table. EPA
determined that it was not feasible to excavate
contaminants below the water table. Ground water
monitoring wells to be installed during the RI will
determine the extent to which these contaminants are
impacting the ground water quality. Backfilling is
completed and the excavated areas have been
revegetated.
The time critical removal at sub-site six for the
removal of contaminated ash/soil was initiated in
October 1992. Approximately 1,300 cubic yards of
contaminated ash/soil have been excavated and
transported to an off-site disposal facility where it will
be stabilized and landfilled. As in the case of sub-site
5, ERT's post excavation sampling indicates the
cleanup levels have been met over most of the site.
However, some contamination remains above cleanup
levels below the water table. Ground water
monitoring wells to be installed as part of the RI
activities will determine the extent to which these
contaminants are impacting the ground water quality.
The sub-site has been restored and hydroseeded.
A time-critical removal was initiated at sub-site 7 in
January 1993. Approximately 700 cubic yards of
contaminated soil/ash has been excavated and
transported to an off-site RCRA facility for
stabilization and disposal. ERT's post excavation
indicates that cleanup levels for target metals have
been met. The site has been restored and
hydroseeded.
The State of New Jersey has been consulted and has
concurred with the overall approach to the site and
with the time critical removal actions, and has been
involved in developing the RI/FS workplan. A
meeting with the town's manager was held to discuss
the time critical removals and the overall approach.
In addition, public availability sessions were
conducted by the Region to discuss the cleanup
actions. These meetings resulted in overall
community acceptance and understanding of the
pursued approach. A family living on sub-site five
was temporarily relocated by the Army Corps of
Engineers for the duration of the removal actions at
sites four, five, and six. The family has now been
returned to their home.
The pilot project's completion date will be determined
at a later date. The expected benefits from the pilot
include: a decrease in the time required for the entire
cleanup process by expediting the RI/FS; a decrease
in the time necessary to select a remedy because of
the additional and more precise data being collected
prior to the site listing; efficient use of contractors fen-
site assessment/characterization and remedial/response
activities at the site by overlapping activities and
sharing information; and removal data will be used
for the Remedial Investigation and the HRS
assessment to avoid duplication.
IV-14
-------
EVALUATION PLAN
The evaluation plan includes measuring improvements
in efficiency and effectiveness expected from a pilot
process that accelerates the RI/FS process by
conducting investigations prior to NPL listing, while
also addressing time-critical problems at potential
NPL sites in an expeditious manner. Additional
efficiencies later in the pipeline are expected because
the intensified site investigations and sampling done
for the HRS package, the time-critical removal
actions, and the RI/FS prior to listing will enable
quicker selection and implementation of remedial
actions after listing. The anticipated decisions about
specific sites and the resultant actions at those sites
will likely be:
• More effective because the most appropriate
remedy will be chosen earlier in the life cycle of
the site.
• More efficient - from both a time and cost
standpoint - because:
- Sites will be addressed earlier in their life
cycle.
- Data needed for several phases, e.g., removal
assessments, HRS ranking and RI, are
coordinated and combined when possible.
Other efficiencies might accrue in oversight
and related costs because of the compression
of the time duration for activities at sites.
Region 2 will monitor and measure the following:
• Anticipated reduction in the time required for the
RI because of site characterization performed prior
to NPL listing and better RI scoping.
• Anticipated reduction in the time duration from
listing on the NPL to remedy selection because of
the parallel activities.
• Cost of the total investigations.
The baseline for comparison of efficiency measures
for acceleration of the RI/FS is listed in Table 2.
Measure
Time for RI
(Fund Lead)
Time from listing to RI/FS
completion
Time from listing to ROD
Extramural Cost of RI/FS
National
Average
8.7 Qtrs
18.5 Qtrs
18.9 Qtrs
$938,980
Regional
Average
7.1 Qtrs
17.9 Qtrs
20.6 Qtrs
$1,143,297
TABLE 2
IV-15
-------
Effectiveness improvements resulting from this
process will be assessed by comparing results against
clean-up goals for removals and remedial actions,
highlighting risk reduction.
RESULTS
When this pilot has been completed the Region will
have additional findings and good ideas which will
contribute to the approach's success. At this point in
the pilot's progress the Region has identified several
lessons learned and has gained valuable experience.
Among them, the Regional staff must be flexible and
creative when funding and contractor problems arise.
Flexibility in directing contractor work assignments is
essential to enabling EPA to revise response actions
as new information is received and evaluated.
The close working relationship between the On-Scene
Coordinators (OSC) and the Regional Project
Managers (RPM) has facilitated information
exchange. There is now a team approach to site
management. The site managers have approved site
work as a total response rather than in terms of
remedial and removal. It is anticipated that this
approach avoids duplications, contractor efforts are
minimized resulting in time and money savings, and
in response actions decisions that are appropriately
efficient and effective.
Accelerating the RI/FS to take place while the MRS
package is being prepared and before the site becomes
listed on the NPL eliminates delays or waiting periods
in site investigations. Coordinated preremedial,
removal, and remedial planning and investigations are
initiated prior to NPL listing, resulting in shared
information, integrated use of contractor efforts which
can save time and money.
At Site One this accelerated approach to the cleanup
process contrasts previous practices because the
expanded amount of data collected and studied before
the site becomes listed on the NPL. The Region may
achieve their goal of accelerated efficient actions,
reducing risks quicker and restoring the environment
by using this new approach. Intensified sampling and
analysis earlier in the process decreases the likelihood
that contaminants will be discovered late in the
process and the need to rewrite workplans and repeat
work already accomplished.
At Site Two this accelerated pilot process has the
effect of shortening the cleanup process by reaching
the RD phase faster than compared to the traditional
process. The RI/FSs under the pilot process will be
more focused, thereby saving costs and time through
reduction of unnecessary sampling and other work.
In addition, the ROD that is produced will be more
comprehensive than would traditionally be done and
will therefore supplant the need for some RD
analysis. Therefore, this should lead to a decrease in
the extramural dollars that will be spent during the
ROD and RD phases. The RD will be done more
effectively and efficiently because of the more
comprehensive data collected early in the process.
IV-16
-------
Region 2
Accelerate Federal Facility Agreements
PILOT DESCRIPTION
This pilot approach is designed to accelerate
negotiations at two Federal facilities by beginning
negotiating the Inter-Agency Agreement (IAG) prior
to listing on the National Priorities List (NPL).
Under Section 120 of CERCLA, Federal agencies are
required to enter into lAGs with EPA for remediation
of those sites which they own or operate and which
are on the NPL.
Proceeding with IAG negotiations in advance of
potential proposed listings will benefit all parties by
demonstrating a mutual commitment to addressing the
environmental concerns at the sites and by actually
facilitating a more expeditious cleanup of these sites.
EPA's experience negotiating Federal facility lAGs
has been that they are often prolonged and can cause
delays in response activities at sites prior to a site's
proposal and listing on the NPL. This pre-NPL
listing negotiation is a significant difference from the
traditional process for negotiations of Superfund sites.
The Region anticipates time and resource savings
because there is no delay after the sites are listed to
begin cleanup activities with Federal facility
negotiations accomplished. This accelerated process
will affect the RD, RA, and construction completion
of a site because these phases will occur sooner. In
addition, the Region anticipates efficiencies since
lAGs are being developed for two sites at the same
time (with the same Agency).
PILOT STATUS
This pilot project concerns the accelerated Federal
facility agreement negotiations at two Naval Weapons
Industrial Reserve Plants (NWIRP), Calverton and
Bethpage located in Nassau and Suffolk County, New
York, respectively. Bethpage and Calverton are both
sites on the Federal facilities docket and are regulated
by both Federal and State Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) and Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability
Act (CERCLA) programs. Each site has an actual or
potential release of contaminants to the groundwater
(a sole source aquifer), soil and surface water.
Ongoing restoration of the groundwater is being
conducted by the Navy at NWIRP Calverton. The
Navy has submitted Preliminary Assessments and Site
Investigations (PA/SIs) for both sites which are
currently under review by EPA. The review
comments will be coordinated with the RCRA
program to ensure that information needs to support
the SI will be consistent with information requested
from the ongoing RCRA Facility Investigation under
the RCRA permitting process.
At the Calverton Navy plant, some areas of the site
are already in the Remedial Investigation (RI) stage,
while others are concluding their Sis. The PA began
on December 21, 1988 and was completed on
December 29, 1988. At the Bethpage Navy plant, the
PA began December 21, 1988 and was completed on
December 29, 1988. The SI was completed on
September 30, 1992. Phase II of the RI was
completed at the Bethpage Navy plant and the Region
is currently working towards the RI completion.
As of September 1992, Calverton and Bethpage had
been preliminarily evaluated and the potential existed
for proposed inclusion on the NPL. EPA proposed
and encouraged the Navy to commence negotiations
with EPA and the State of New York for lAGs at
these facilities in advance of any proposed NPL
listing. The Navy agreed to participate in the early
negotiations for the sites and in addition, began RI
work at these sites, prior to their listing on the NPL.
The site completion dates for these sites has not yet
been determined.
The lAGs have been crafted to require the Navy to
work with EPA and New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) to evaluate
areas of concern, prioritize these areas, and utilize the
most appropriate response authority to address
problems. The Agreement will also attempt to limit
duplication of documents and redundant reviews of
the documents.
IV-17
-------
The draft agreements were sent by the Region to
NYSDEC in March 1993, for comment prior to
issuance to the Navy. After the State comments were
incorporated, the draft agreements were sent to the
Navy April 26, 1993 for review. The start dates for
interagency negotiations is measured from the date the
draft agreement is sent to the Federal agency.
A Technical Review Committee (TRC) was
established and meetings were held at both sites to
discuss the status of the sites. The meetings included
the Navy, Grumman (the contractor operating the
facilities), citizens, and representatives of the RCRA
and Superfund programs from EPA and NYSDEC.
The discussions included the integration of Superfund
program requirements such as the RI, into the
ongoing RCRA work. Follow up conference calls
between the Navy, EPA, and NYSDEC have
occurred. The TRC meeting raised groundwater
issues which may be suitable for a time critical
response at NWIRP Bethpage. The Navy is obtaining
additional data about the sites. After the
supplemental data is received the Navy, EPA, and
NYSDEC will evaluate the need for expedited
response.
This pilot is expected to be completed in the third
quarter of FY 1995.
EVALUATION PLAN
Evaluation of this pilot centers on the expected
improvements in efficiencies in three areas:
• Accelerating up the process -- and therefore
cleaning up the sites more quickly - by:
- Beginning negotiations prior to listing and
- Simplifying remedy selection by cooperatively
establishing priorities and being flexible in use
of response authorities.
• Realizing time and cost savings through improved
data sharing with the RCRA program and the
state.
• Reducing EPA oversight costs by negotiating for
two Federal facilities at the same time.
Because of the difficulties in attempting comparisons
using intramural cost data, the evaluation will focus
on improvements in efficiency as shown in
comparisons using the following time measures that
will be collected by the Region:
• Time duration of IAG negotiations
• Time from SI to ROD
• Time for RI/FS
• Time from NPL listing to RD start or removal
action
• Time from ROD to RD Start
The baseline for comparison of efficiency measures
can be found in Table 3.
Measures
Time for IAG
Time for RI/FS
Time from SI to Listing
Time from listing to ROD
Time from ROD to RD start
National
Averages
TBD
14.5 Qtrs
TBD
18.9 Qtrs
TBD
Regional
Averages
TBD
15.5 Qtrs
TBD
20.6 Qtrs
TBD
TABLE 3
IV-18
-------
Comparison of actual time frames versus these
baseline figures will illustrate time savings possible
with this approach.
Although data limitations make sound evaluation
difficult, reductions in cost are expected as follows:
• Reduction in intramural cost of EPA oversight of
the RI/FS because the negotiations will have
resolved some issues during early negotiations.
• Reduction in EPA personnel effort expended on
IAG negotiations because two negotiations are
being conducted simultaneously.
RESULTS
Although the negotiations are not yet completed, the
Region has estimated that if the approach is
successful, time savings from site investigation to the
signing of the ROD may be 1 to 2 1/2 years:
• The typical time from site investigation to the
signing of the ROD in Region 2 is estimated at 5-
6 years.
• Estimates for the accelerated approach are that this
time duration will be 4-5 years for the Calverton
Navy plant, and 3 years for the Bethpage Navy
plant.
After the accelerated negotiations take place and the
sites are cleaned up, many results will be realized
from this pilot process. Preliminary results include
the integration of the RCRA and CERCLA activities
and staff which have resulted in an efficient use of
resources and the utilization of individual expertise.
The Region has also learned that they can effectively
conduct an RI/FS without having to wait for the site's
listing on the NPL. While the RI is close to
completion at the Bethpage site, it would not have
progressed as quickly, or may have only focused on
RCRA regulated areas if it were not for the
implementation of this pilot project. It is projected
that a great deal of time will be saved by this
accelerated approach once these sites are listed and
the negotiations are completed, as the sites may move
right into their FS without any delays. Specifically,
it will shorten the period of time from the SI to the
signing of the ROD by potentially two years because
of the accelerated negotiation time.
Early negotiations are beneficial for coordination
among different programs and activities, for
contractor planning and commencement, and for suite
involvement and community relations through early
actions. Early negotiations can effectively handle
issues early in the cleanup process and provide a clear
plan for the future working relationship between the
parties. An effective Federal facility agreement will
"give credit" for work done prior to the effective date
which will prevent duplication of efforts and allow
faster response decisions.
The Region anticipates time savings by negotiating
two Federal facility agreements concurrently, thus
spending the same amount of time and effort that
would be used under the traditional process for one
negotiation.
Accelerating IAG negotiations can conceivably
decrease the time required for the overall cleanup
process by two years. This pilot has the effect of not
only making the cleanup process proceed more
efficiently but also more effectively by encouraging
Federal agencies to work together on their own terms
and without having to strictly follow negotiation
standard operating procedures. Using this accelerated
approach to conduct negotiations and the RI/FS
concurrently does create additional responsibilities for
the project managers, to oversee both activities
occurring simultaneously at one site, but at the same
time it creates an efficient process.
Proceeding with IAG negotiations in advance of
potential proposed listing will benefit all parties by
demonstrating a mutual commitment to addressing the
environmental concerns at the sites and by actually
facilitating a more expeditious clean up of these sites.
The State and community also benefit by participating
in the early negotiation by ensuring that their interests
are incorporated in the agreement.
IV-19
-------
Region 3
Accelerating Cleanup to Reduce Risk
PILOT DESCRIPTION
The goal of this Region 3 pilot was to develop and
implement a systematic approach for identifying
National Priority List (NPL) site conditions which
could be addressed through removal processes. An
interdisciplinary team, consisting of On-Scene
Coordinators (OSCs), Remedial Project Managers
(RPMs), and Regional Counsel representatives, has
developed procedures and a checklist to assist RPMs
in using removal authority to conduct early actions at
NPL sites. This approach borrows the removal action
criteria set forth in the NCP and provides a
methodology for identifying candidate sites that can
be addressed through the removal process.
Using this pilot process and checklist, RPMs can
more easily determine if an immediate response action
is appropriate. The checklist may be used to support
an Administrative Order (AO), or can be transformed
into an Action Memo (AM) to authorize Superfund
monies for a Fund lead removal response at NPL
sites. An RPM does the first screening and the site is
rescreened by an OSC which may result in an early
action. If a removal is not conducted, the Region
proceeds with the remedial process.
PILOT STATUS
The procedures described above for integrating
removal and remedial activities, identifying immediate
responses, and using the checklist have been
developed, and after some clarification by the
Regional Decision Team (RDT), are now being used
Regionwide. The pilot project was completed in 1993
and the procedures developed as a result have become
standard operating procedures.
Typical actions may include the development of
source control techniques, excavation, and/or other
responses that would likely be part of a final remedy.
The procedures to implement the early actions were
issued on January 13, 1993 and clarified on July 7,
1993. RPMs are being trained in using the checklist
and are becoming familiar with the use of removal
authority. The checklist has been used at the
following sites with the stated results:
Spectron: A study conducted under the removal order
found that groundwater contained Dense Non-
Aqueous Phase Liquids (DNAPLs), and pumping and
treating would not be effective. Now that the site has
been added to the NPL, a focused Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) will be
conducted under the existing removal order, saving
time in the notice and negotiation of a separate RI/FS
order.
Westinghouse-Sharon: An action memo has been
signed that requires operation of a groundwater pump
and treat system to recover PCB-contaminated oil on
the water table. An Administrative Order on Consent
(AOC) or a Unilateral Administrative Order (UAO)
will be issued soon, however, if the PRPs do not
perform the response action, EPA is able to do so
immediately.
Dixie Caverns: Located in Salem, Virginia, has had
an AOC issued for sedimentation/erosion control
measures adjacent to a stream at the site to mitigate
the environmental threat to a federally endangered
species and one candidate species.
Delaware Sand and Gravel: Located in New Castle,
Delaware, drums discovered during a pre-Design
investigation are being excavated pursuant to an AOC.
North Penn Area 6: An AOC has been signed, and
construction to extend a waterline has started at this
Montgomery County, Pennsylvania site. A no further
action ROD is expected as a result of this action.
Rentokil: Sedimentation/erosion control measures to
stop the migration of hazardous substances into
adjacent wetlands have been implemented pursuant to
an AOC at this Virginia site.
Maryland Sand and Gravel: An Action Memo, based
on the Endangerment Determination was prepared to
support the issuance of a UAO for removing
IV-20
-------
subsurface sludge. The RPM also prepared a consent
order for negotiation that will require removal and
disposal of the buried sludge, thereby alleviating the
health risk to those drinking the water and if the AOC
is not finalized, the Region would be prepared to
issues the UAO or fund the response.
Mid Atlantic Wood Preservers: The checklist was
used to assess the need for sediment excavation
within a tidal inlet. Sediments are a continuing
source of contamination to the Elizabeth River. An
AOC was submitted to the RPs and an Action Memo
was subsequently prepared to fund work if an order
is not complied with.
Du Font-Newport: This former landfill site in New
Castle County, Delaware is the source of a discharge
of a hazardous substance into the adjacent Christina
River. The PRP has signed a consent order and is
currently developing a means to capture the toxic
substance before it enters the River.
Boarhead Farms: A consent order for the removal and
disposal of a few recently discovered, labeled, buried
drums was issued to a PRP during the conduct of an
EPA-funded removal action at this Bucks County,
Pennsylvania NPL site. Removal work was
completed at the site shortly thereafter.
EVALUATION PLAN
The Accelerating Cleanup approach should increase
the overall effectiveness and efficiency of Regional
management of the Superfund program. It is
anticipated that decisions about specific sites and the
resultant actions at those sites will be:
• More effective because the most appropriate
remedy will be chosen earlier in the life cycle of
the site. In particular, sites that might have stayed
in the remedial pipeline may be selected for non-
time critical removals.
• More efficient ~ from both a time and cost
standpoint -- because:
- Sites will be addressed earlier in their life
cycle.
- Less expensive removal actions rather than
remedial actions may be performed when
appropriate.
- Later remedial phase costs may be lower
because the early review will enable more
focused efforts.
Effectiveness within the program is also expected to
improve as well. The pilot method for determining
when to conduct a response action will result in
additional response actions being undertaken, thus
resulting in quicker risk reduction and allowing for
more focused RI/FSs and possibly no further action
RODs. As a result, the Region will be able to
designate more sites as construction complete, better
protect human health and the environment and
increase public confidence in the program.
A concern is that this approach may increase demand
on removal resources. The Region is currently
examining this area and adding conditions regarding
when to use the new procedures at Fund lead and
enforcement lead sites. The Region will gather data
on the above mentioned measures as the new
procedures are implemented at individual sites.
RESULTS
This completed pilot has resulted in actual findings.
The procedures have shown results at Region 3 sites
where removal actions might not have been
attempted. Perhaps as important, however, is that the
checklist is making the integration of the removal and
remedial programs a reality in Region 3 and clarified
the requirements, decision points, and necessary
conditions for undertaking immediate response
actions.
There can be no dispute that conducting any action
that results in an improvement in human health or
welfare is beneficial and is of paramount concern in
the implementation of CERCLA. Further, the benefits
derived from action to mitigate an environmental
threat by directly improving site conditions or
circumventing further environmental deterioration
cannot be understated, either in cost savings or
ecological responsibility.
While expedited actions are normally discrete portions
of the remedial action that may be deemed necessary
IV-21
-------
at a site, it is possible that a final remedy may be
performed, thereby only requiring a subsequent "No
Action" ROD to fulfill remedial requirements and
initiate site delisting. This is the case at the North
Penn Area 6 Site (NP#6). At NP#6, extensive
groundwater contamination related to past disposal
practices of trichlorethylene (TCE) by local industries
necessitated the placement of carbon filters on the
water supplies of numerous residents, and resulted in
the naming of the Site to the NPL. While treatment
of the aquifer is certainly a consideration during the
RI/FS, the likely remedy will be the connection of
those residents to an existing public water supply.
Extension of a public water supply was required
under a removal order on consent prepared by the
RPM in accordance with the Regional procedures
developed under this pilot. Subsequently, the PRPs
have developed a plan and have initiated construction
of the system even before the RI/FS for the site had
been completed. Time savings is estimated to be, at
a minimum, three years, since the moratorium for
negotiation of the RD/RA was not invoked, a consent
decree was not necessary, and the RD was replaced
by a workplan required to be submitted within 20
business days under a removal order.
In addition to time savings, significant cost savings
may be realized at sites as well. Some of those cost
savings can be attributed to the contract vehicle
available to the removal program (already established
time and material contracts, Emergency Response
Cleanup Services [ERCS]) versus those available to
the remedial program (individually negotiated fixed
price contracts, Alternative Remedial Contracting
Strategy [ARCS]). Other more obvious costs
associated with the more stringent requirements of
remedial action that are avoided by using removal
processes include: the application of more rigorous
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
(ARARs) compliance; the minimization of residual
risk; mitigation of natural resource damage;
acquisition of public support; and obtaining State cost
share. Many, if not all of these requirements are,
however, addressed during removal.
Finally, there is little doubt that increased public
confidence will result because of the conduct of
removal actions at NPL sites. The public actually
witnesses construction and response efforts during
what would normally be "down time" spent by EPA
staff investigating, developing the ROD, negotiating
a Consent Decree and/or designing the remedial
alternative. Performance of removal response actions,
or any physical on-site work invariably elicits
tremendous public support.
IV-22
-------
Region 3
Innovative Data Validation Approaches
PILOT DESCRIPTION
Region 3 conducted the Innovative Data Validation
Approaches pilot to streamline the data validation
process by defining levels of review which are
relevant to the data uses. The pilot process consists
of five levels of review (three organic levels and two
inorganic levels) and is defined to ensure that the
level of date review is appropriate to the intended
date use. Using the pilot process, Regional Project
Managers (RPMs) and On-Scene Coordinators (OSCs)
specify the level of validation required for samples so
that resources are conserved.
Prior to implementation of the pilot, Region 3
validated 100 percent of the analytical data generated
for Superfund using all of the evaluation criteria in
the National Functional Guidelines for Evaluating
Organic and Inorganic Data. Costs for validation
under the traditional process averaged $4 million and
the average turn around time for validation was 70
days. The data validation function was a
decentralized operation performed by the sampling
contractor. Approximately 20 FTEs were used to
support this effort.
The two primary goals of the project were to reduce
data review time and cost, and to provide the data
user with an appropriate and useful product. Time
and cost savings have been achieved.
PILOT STATUS
In order to implement this pilot process, several tasks
were undertaken within the Region. After the
implementation plan was developed, it was presented
to the Hazardous Waste Management Division. With
this new system, Data Quality Objectives (DQOs)
drive the data review. Thus, when selecting the level
of review, the data user would consider such elements
as: qualitative Quality Control (QC) measures,
quantitative QC measures, degree of importance of
the detection limit, concern with detectable
concentrations, false negatives, false positives, and
use of invalid data.
Environmental Services Division (BSD) staff and
Environmental Services Assistance Team (ESAT) data
review team were briefed on the new procedures and
implementation process. A directive was issued to
Regional Alternative Remedial Contracting Strategy
(ARCS) contractors describing the new process and
its requirements and Remedial Project Managers
(RPMs) were briefed on the new validation process.
Implementation of the data validation streamlining
process was completed in June 1993. Standard
Operating Procedures were revised based on pilot
results. As a result of the revisions, all data
validation functions are now performed centrally by
the ESAT staff using 10 FTEs.
Each level of review involves:
ORGANICS
Level Ml Detects only;
Level M2 Quantitative assessment of data quality,
false negatives, and detection limits;
and
Level M3 Full validation using current
procedures.
INORGANICS
Level IM1 Quantitative assessment of data quality,
false negatives, and detection limits;
and
Level IM2 Full validation using current
procedures.
Table 4 indicates the suggested uses of the new data
validation levels of review.
EVALUATION PLAN
To evaluate this pilot, the Region collected data on
time and cost savings realized since full-scale
implementation of the pilot in June 1993. Since
investigations throughout the site life cycle wait for
data validation, a faster validation process will allow
sites throughout the Region to move through the
pipeline faster. In addition, data users will be
provided with opportunities to comment on the quality
and usability of the product they are receiving.
IV-23
-------
INNOVATIVE DATA VALIDATION APPROACHES AND
SUGGESTED DATA USES*
Data Uses
Oversight
Action Level Comp.
Initial Investigation
Nature and Extent
Preliminary Risk Assessment
Risk Assessment with Known High Level Toxics
Feasibility Study
Preliminary Study
Treatability Study
Contamination Sources
Initial Cleanup Verification
Risk Assessment with Marginal Risk
Low-Level Contamination, Nature and Extent
Cleanup Near Detection or Action Levels
Organics
M-l
X
X
M-2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
M-3
X
X
X
Inorganics
IM-1
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
IM-2
X
X
X
TABLE 4
* The indicated data uses are not definitive or all inclusive. Data uses indicated for lower levels of data review are
included in the upper-level data uses.
IV-24
-------
Pilot Results
June - September 1993
Level of Review
M-l
M-2
M-3 (Full Functional
Guidelines - Organic)
IM-1
IM-2 (Full Functional
Guidelines - Inorganic)
Average Time for Review
- Per Sample (Days)
12.7
19
31.9
20
28.7
Average Review
Cost Per Sample
$15.24
$20.31
$27.32
$7.80
$11.38
TABLE 5
RESULTS
Partial implementation in the Region began on March
1, 1993, with full implementation occurring in June
1993. The Region had the results indicated in Table
5 during full implementation.
Time and cost savings identified to date include:
• Reduction in the average time for data validation
(receipt of data package to final validation report)
from the current average of 70 days to an average
of 21 days.
• An estimated reduction in the average cost for
data validation of one sample from $50 to $15 per
sample.
Given historical levels of sampling and validation, the
Region estimates that at least $2 million per year can
be saved in Region 3 by implementing this approach:
• Approximate annual costs for data validation for
the Region have been $4 million.
• With the new approach, costs for the same
number of samples should be less than $2 million.
In addition, sites can move through the pipeline more
quickly, thereby reducing oversight costs.
This improvement in efficiency has not come at the
expense of effectiveness. While the level of review
may be reduced, the analytical deliverable is
unchanged. The process design requires full CLP
deliverables for each analysis scheduled through the
CLP. This approach allows flexibility to users of the
new process, should a more comprehensive data
review be required at a later date.
Results from customer feedback forms indicate that
customers are very satisfied with the new product
they are receiving. Based on customer feedback,
some changes that affected which Quality Control
criteria are evaluated for a given level of review were
made. Changes were made without disruption to data
validation operations, which have helped fine-tune this
process.
IV-25
-------
Region 3
Bring Sites to Completion by End of FY 93
PILOT DESCRIPTION
Under the Construction Completion Pilot, Region 3
provided additional management review to the sites
scheduled for completion in FY 93 by ensuring proper
planning and scheduling of Remedial Actions (RAs)
and close communication with States to address
outstanding issues.
The goals of this pilot were accomplished by
surveying Remedial Project Managers (RPMs) to
develop a schedule for completion and identifying
events, situations, and/or problems that could cause
delays. These surveys were coordinated with state
agencies and included the following issues: expediting
the Record of Decision (ROD) for any remaining
phases; exploring the possibility of no action RODs;
reexamining risk assessments of outstanding RODs
and using the latest science to explore the possibility
of reducing the actions required; using municipal and
Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCB) policies to expedite
cleanups; emphasizing use of Publicly Owned
Treatment Works (POTWs) to shorten construction
times; and developing incentives to encourage
Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs) to shorten
project times.
Under the traditional process, achieving completion
targets are the responsibility of each individual RPM,
and State concerns must be addressed by the RPM or
passed up the management chain for resolution.
Using the pilot process, a Regional coordinator
ensures that when obstacles arise where sites are
nearing completion, they are handled swiftly. Region
3 met its specified completion goals for the fiscal
year. In addition, keeping these sites on schedule
assures that the resources required for these sites will
be available for other commitments when scheduled.
PILOT STATUS
The Region 3 Construction Completion pilot was
applied at Lackawana Refuse, in Old Forge Borough,
Pennsylvania, and Ambler Asbestos, in Montgomery
County, Pennsylvania, to ensure completions by the
end of fiscal year 1993. The Region's tracking
consisted of identifying problems that could delay
completion, committing sufficient resources to the
sites, and maintaining the schedule of the site. The
Region has established several initiatives based on the
observations of tracking these sites to completion.
These initiatives have been incorporated into the
tracking for future completions. The Region is
pursuing four initiatives that should facilitate the
adherence to construction schedules. They are as
follows:
1. Coordination with the State where the State plays
a pivotal role in the Superfund process that continues
after the ROD is signed. For a Fund lead site, the
State is responsible for 10 percent of the capital cost
and all of the Operation and Maintenance (O&M)
costs. Accordingly, the Region involved the State in
the review of the Remedial Design (RD) so that the
RA incorporated the features necessary to facilitate
O&M. In addition, the coordination with the State
ensured that the State's Applicable or Relevant and
Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) were
incorporated into the design. In this way, the State
was in agreement with the direction of the RA and
was confident of a successful transition to O&M.
2. Oversight of the Remedial Action Contractor. For
enforcement lead sites, the Region must supervise the
PRP's compliance with the CD or unilateral order.
The Region has emphasized the importance of
adhering to the schedule in order to have timely
project completion.
3. Adequate planning for the final construction
activities and Initiation of the O&M. Preparation for
flie final construction activities included site
inspection with the remedial contractor, site visits
with the State, correspondence with the remedial
IV-26
-------
contractor listing the outstanding construction items,
and initiation of the activities necessary to transfer
responsibilities to the State. For enforcement lead
sites, this includes coordination with the PRPs
construction manager for the proper execution of the
paperwork necessary to document the completion of
the project.
4. Good Community Relations. Once the RA has
started, the public generally becomes concerned with
the impact of the action on the community. The
community routinely focuses on damage to vegetation
and roadways. The Region has recommended that the
surrounding area is videotaped prior to the initiation
of the RA. The videotape can then be used to
facilitate discussions with the community to ensure
that the surrounding area is repaired similar to its
original condition.
The Region is also examining other efforts to speed
the remedial process and hasten completions. For
example, using Administrative Orders on Consent
(AOCs) to start Remedial Designs (RDs) so that PRPs
may begin the RD as soon as a Consent Decree (CD)
is lodged in court. Once the CD is entered in court,
it supersedes the AOC. Another effort involves the
application of Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model
(SACM) and the use of early actions to hasten the
final RA.
This pilot was completed on September 30, 1993.
EVALUATION PLAN
In its pilot evaluation, the Region will highlight those
factors that were most pertinent in accelerating
construction completions, focusing on: State
coordination issues, PRP incentives, expediting RODs,
community relations, and the role of the coordinator.
In addition, the Region will project the effect of these
improvements on the number of construction
completions, and will examine the time and cost
savings that may occur at the sites that have been
accelerated to meet the completion goal. Thus the two
measures evaluated are:
• Number of construction completions in FY 93; the
"baseline" to surpass is two completions.
• Time duration from RA start to RA completion;
national baseline is 11.5 Quarters; Region 3
baseline is 7.3 Quarters.
Evaluation of actual results is being conducted by the
Region.
RESULTS
Region 3 met its specified completion goals for the
fiscal year. This benefits not only the program in its
effort to achieve 650 completions by the year 2000
but also engenders confidence from the public that
EPA fulfills its commitments.
All of the activities implemented during the pilot will
be evaluated upon completion of the pilot to
determine the most effective methods for ensuring
construction completions in a timely manner. The
Region has realized several preliminary findings to
date, including experience with the impact of State
concerns on nearly all aspects of the RD/RA on
O&M. Meetings with State representatives, RPMs,
and PRPs have yielded substantial information that
will help ensure timely completion of the affected
sites. Equally important, the Region has a better
understanding of these groups and will be more
effective in the future at preventing delays in
construction timetables.
This pilot will provide evidence as to whether
concentrating responsibility for completions with one
person is more effective than having such authority
diffused throughout the Region.
IV-27
-------
Region 3
Integrated Site Assessment and Early Enforcement Activity
PILOT DESCRIPTION
This pilot demonstrates the effectiveness of integrated
enforcement and site assessment activities and
explores the use of early actions to accelerate site
activities. Using the pilot process, after Preliminary
Investigation and Site Investigation (PA/SI) the
Region decided that an Expanded Site Investigation
(ESI) was warranted to determine whether the site
should be listed on the National Priorities List (NPL).
Rather than do only an ESI, however, the Region
negotiated that an Extent of Contamination Study
(ECS) be conducted by the Potentially Responsible
Party (PRP). The ECS combines the sampling needs
of the ESI and the removal assessment and may
include data equivalent to a Remedial Investigation
(RI). Under the Administrative Order on Consent
(AOC), the PRP is also required to do an engineering
evaluation and cost analysis (EE/CA) should the
results indicate the need for a Non-Time Critical
(NTC) removal action.
Under the traditional process, a PA/SI is conducted
followed by an ESI to determine whether the sites
will be listed on the NPL. If the site is listed, an
RI/FS follows. A removal assessment may also be
done to determine if a removal is necessary.
This pilot approach ensures that should the site be
listed on the NPL, data gathered through the ECS will
be sufficient for an RI/FS and will thus eliminate the
RI/FS data gathering and analysis phase, saving from
one to two years time. This time savings will result
in a faster completion and more resources available to
other projects in the Region.
PILOT STATUS
The site is a former rail switching and maintenance
yard operated from 1906 until 1990. During the
operation of the maintenance facility, the PRP
serviced coal fired, steam powered, electric and
diesel-electric locomotives. A Preliminary
Assessment and Site Investigation (PA/SI) was
performed during 1988 and 1989 by the Virginia
Department of Waste Management (VDWM) at the
site, and an Environmental Assessment (EA) was
completed by the PRP at the northern portion of the
site in February 1990. The EA indicated the presence
of Poly-Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs), Total
Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPHs), metals and low
levels of Poly-Chlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) at
several locations on-site. It was determined that an
ESI was necessary to determine whether the site
would be named to the National Priorities List (NPL).
The PRP signed an AOC with EPA on September 22,
1992, whereby the PRP agreed to conduct an ECS,
which will include an ESI. The PRP signed the AOC
and is proceeding with work on the site.
The AOC originally required the PRP to conduct the
ECS in three phases, an investigation of one specific
area of the site (Area Al); subsequent cleanup of that
area, if warranted; and an investigation of the balance
of the site (Area A). The AOC was developed at the
time the PRP was negotiating to have a football
stadium built on the site. The stadium proposal called
for the stadium to be built on Area Al of the site.
Area A of the site was to be addressed under Phase
III of the AOC. During Phase I, the PRP was
required to investigate the nature and extent of
contamination which may be present within
designated Area A-1 of the site. However, because
the stadium proposal was cancelled and a stadium will
not be built on the site, EPA and the PRP are
currently re-negotiating the AOC to comprehensively
address Areas Al and Area A in Phase I and
eliminate Phase HI. If the Phase I study and the
PRP's risk assessment, which is based on the ECS
results, indicates that additional removal actions are
appropriate, EPA will require that the PRP, under
Phase II will conduct an engineering evaluation and
cost analysis (EE/CA). An EE/CA is an analysis of
removal alternatives for a site.
This site was chosen as a SACM Pilot because it was
recognized that the ECS, if performed to the
satisfaction of EPA, would possibly supplant an
additional PA/SI as well as a RI/FS for the site. Most
importantly, the ECS information could determine if
IV-28
-------
the site will be listed on the NPL. Also, any removal
actions undertaken as a result of the information
gathered during the ECS could also be considered
when EPA decides whether or not to pursue NPL site
listing at a later date. Because the PRP is performing
the ECS, and not EPA, Superfund money has not
been expended to the extent it would have been had
EPA performed the ECS.
This site was brought to the forefront during the
summer of 1992 when construction of a new stadium
at the site was proposed. The site had been
envisioned before the stadium proposal as a prime
location for industrial or residential development,
however, the stadium proposal stimulated the interest
in reducing or eliminating any environmental or
public health threats from the site as soon as possible.
The PRP actually submitted a sampling plan to EPA
before the AOC was signed by EPA on September
22, 1992. EPA reviewed the initial ECS work plan
and submitted comments to the PRP on December 8,
1992. Comments on the revised ECS work plan or
approval of the plan were submitted to the PRP on
February 17, 1993. Subsequent meetings and
discussions led to EPA approving the ECS work plan
on April 21, 1993. An addendum to the work plan
will be submitted to EPA for Area A within thirty
days of the effective date of the revised AOC. The
revised AOC will allow the PRP to perform the risk
assessment for the site, instead of EPA. EPA will
review the ECS report for Areas A and Al of the site,
and the risk assessment to determine whether an
EE/CA is needed for the site. It is anticipated that
the pilot will be completed in June 1994.
EVALUATION PLAN
Combining removal and remedial sampling with
Rl/FS data gathering in an ECS should prove to be an
effective and efficient method for handling NPL-
caliber sites. Although the ECS will not be
completed until later this year, the expected benefits
of conducting an ECS are:
• Data from the ECS will be used to score the site
on the Hazardous Ranking System in order to
determine if the site should be listed on the NPL.
• Any removal actions undertaken as a result of the
information gathered during the ECS could be
considered when EPA decides whether or not to
pursue NPL listing for the site.
• A more efficient remedial process should the site
be listed on the NPL because the data gathered
through the ECS may be sufficient for an RI.
• ECS data can be used to support CERCLA
Section 106 findings to require future site cleanup,
as would be the case with and ESI and RI.
Evaluation measures the Region will provide include:
• The time and cost of the ECS approach compared
to an ESI;
• The time required for the RI/FS (should it be
needed) compared to the traditional approach; and
• EPA oversight levels.
Comparison with baselines time and cost measures
will be conducted after the pilot is completed. The
national average for an enforcement lead RI/FS is 15
quarters and in Region 3, an enforcement lead RI/FS
lasts 13.4 quarters, on average. The time savings
expected from conducting the ECS, should an RI/FS
be needed, are from four to eight quarters because the
data collection for an RI will have already been
completed.
RESULTS
No quantitative results are available yet; however, the
PRP has signed the AOC to conduct the ECS and is
proceeding with work on the site. The AOC is
currently being re-negotiated to include Area Al of
the site in the ECS. The amended AOC will allow
the PRP to perform the risk assessment, in lieu of
EPA, at the site. EPA will review the ECS report
and the risk assessment.
A preliminary expectation is that if the site were to be
listed on the NPL, one to two years could be saved in
the remedial process by eliminating or streamlining
the RI/FS, as equivalent RI/FS data was gathered
during the ECS. Also, the information gathered
during the ECS can be used to support CERCLA
Section 106 findings to require further site cleanup.
The ECS, if used at NPL-caliber sites can save one to
IV-29
-------
two years time. The accelerated scheduling afforded
by an ECS will lead to more construction completions
and quicker risk reduction at Region 3 sites.
By using this pilot approach, more widespread use of
ECSs may result in increased demand for site
assessment resources and a decrease in demand for
remedial resources, such as the RI/FS.
IV-30
-------
Region 3
Proactive Settlements of De Minimis PRPs
PILOT DESCRIPTION
Region 3 has piloted a new process to test pre-Record
of Decision (ROD) de minimis settlements as a means
to promote equity, settle more quickly with the major
Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs), and recover
additional funds to cover past costs. This is the first
de minimis settlement conducted by EPA prior to
ROD signature. Under the traditional process, de
minimis settlements are pursued after the ROD is
signed.
Through this early de minimis settlement, EPA was
able to reduce the transaction costs of the de minimis
parties who settled and got them out of the process
early. For this settlement, parties who had
contributed less than one percent of the waste to the
site were defined as de minimis.
PILOT STATUS
The Region undertook this pilot project at the 20 acre
Tonolli Corporation site located in Nesquehoning,
Pennsylvania. Tonolli operated a" secondary lead
smelter and battery recycling facility from August
1974 to January 1986. Batteries were stripped for
lead content. Contaminants identified at the site were
cadmium, chromium, copper, lead and arsenic. The
site was listed on the National Priorities List (NPL)
on October 4, 1989.
In all, almost half of the 405 de minimis PRPs that
EPA contacted chose to settle. EPA is currently
negotiating with 10 of the 30 de maxlmls PRPs for
the Remedial Design and Remedial Action (RD/RA).
In addition, 28 de minimis parties joined those
negotiations for a total of 38 PRPs in negotiations.
The de minimis pilot is complete and the Region is
awaiting receipt of the final payments from de
minimis PRPs scheduled for 12/31/93.
EVALUATION PLAN
This pilot addresses effectiveness, efficiency and
equity. Clean up at many sites has been delayed
because of de minimis issues; thus, demonstrating
better ways of addressing this issue will increase
program effectiveness. This acceleration will also
increase program efficiency as will the collection of
money from the settlements. But, the most important
aspect of this pilot addresses equity. The limited
liability for minor contributors who agree to the
settlement is one of the primary benefits of de
minimis settlements. This protection of small
businesses from predatory litigation by larger
companies is a key issue in promoting equity within
the Superfund program.
In addition, major PRPs may be more likely to settle
with EPA because of the increased perception of
fairness. Easier settlements may then result in lower
legal costs for settlements. This possibility must,
however, be balanced with the increased demand for
resources that de minimis settlements require.
Quantitative evaluation of pilot results addressing
equity and effectiveness is difficult; a subjective
assessment of relative resource use and its effect on
overall Regional effectiveness should be discussed
after the pilot is complete. However, the results of
the increased effort expended on de minimis parties
has been assessed.
RESULTS
Over $4 million from de minimis parties will be
collected for past and future costs. Although extra
staffing was required to collect this money, the money
collected far exceeds EPA intramural and extramural
costs of approximately $825,000.
This is the first pre-ROD de minimis settlement
conducted by EPA. The bulk of the de minimis work
was done between December 1991 and July 1992.
The original settlement was offered to 405 de minimis
IV-31
-------
Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs). One hundred
and seventy parties signed the order which contained
a 65 percent premium and have agreed to pay $3.5
million; $2.5 million for past costs and $1 million for
future costs. A second offer was made to the 230
parties who did not sign the first agreement and
included a ten percent penalty for late settlement in
addition to the 65 percent premium. Thirty three
parties signed the second offer and have agreed to pay
$540,000. The cost to EPA has been $725,000 in
extramural resources and approximately 3,300 EPA
staff hours (approximately $100,000 in intramural
resources). From an expenditure of over $800,000
EPA will collect approximately $4 million from de
minimis parties. Through this early de minimis
settlement, EPA was able to reduce the transaction
costs of the de minimis parties who settled and got
them out of the process early. For this settlement,
parties who had contributed less than 1 percent of the
waste to the site were defined as de minimis.
The single most critical element that led to the
success of this settlement was that the enforcement
team (RPM, attorneys, and Civil Investigator) was
committed to completing the settlement in a proactive
manner. The team worked very well together. Other
factors that helped make the settlement a success
included EPAs investigation of all challenges to the
waste-in-list (approximately 70 challenges), which
improved EPAs credibility and gained the trust of the
PRPs. Being flexible and establishing a 65 percent
premium helped the settlement process as did adding
a second settlement offer with a ten percent penalty.
The penalty again improved EPA's credibility by
being fair to those who settled with the first offer.
One lesson learned was the importance of accurate
cost estimates at the time of settlement. This
settlement was based on earlier cost estimates of$34
million which were subsequently revised to $16
million when the remedy was chosen.
The demand on the enforcement team's time was
extraordinary. For several months, the case
demanded 60 to 80 percent of the team's time to the
detriment of other cases. The lack of information on
de minimis settlements accomplished by EPA
nationwide prior to Tonolli hindered the team's
negotiations with de minimis PRPs. A lack of
continued support from the Office of Enforcement on
the trust agreement prolonged the time between
receiving signature pages and notifying PRPs of the
trust agreement terms.
In the future, the Region will more thoroughly brief
management prior to beginning settlement activities,
including case strategy and rationale, to be sure of
their complete understanding of the project. This will
also aid in responding to inquiries from outside EPA,
Headquarters, and upper management. The Region
will also be prepared to handle a large volume of
documents that may be contaminated (the original
documents had roughly 3500 ppm of lead) as this led
to some problems with the contractor. Prior
notification of Congressional offices of settlement
activities may help reduce the number of
Congressional inquiries which consumed staff time at
critical points in the process. The second offer with
a penalty worked well and may be used again,
although it will be made clear in the first settlement
package that any second settlement offer will include
a penalty for the delay in settling. Finally, the Region
may be more active in suggesting tiers of settlers.
While it was made clear that EPA would listen to
proposals about tiers, no specific proposals were made
by the PRPs. Tiering would have allowed more
flexibility for the PRPs.
IV-32
-------
Region 3
Accelerate ROD to RD through Early Enforcement Planning
PILOT DESCRIPTION
This Region 3 pilot was developed to accelerate the
Record of Decision (ROD) to Remedial Design (RD)
process through early enforcement planning. The pilot
activities are designed to overcome time delays and
inefficiencies in the enforcement process and to
expedite cleanup at all enforcement lead sites.
Through traditional processes, challenges by
Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs) lead to
extended negotiations. Under the accelerated pilot
process, a search team holds meetings four to six
months before the ROD with the Remedial Project
Manager (RPM), EPA attorney, civil investigator, and
other interested EPA parties. These meetings include
brainstorming on PRP liability issues, enforcement
strategy, natural resource trustee issues, and
investigating how to prepare the Pre-Referral Notice
(PRN) in a timely manner and to ensure that all
information required by the Department of Justice
(DOJ) is ready when the PRN is sent (around the
time of the proposed plan issuance). Additionally,
100 days after the ROD is signed, decision meetings
are held to determine the optimal way to conclude
negotiations - whether to cut off Consent Decree (CD)
negotiations and prepare a Unilateral Administrative
Order (UAO) or whether request an extension of the
moratorium. The effort is labor intensive but has
provided good results. Performance standards are
incorporated into RODs. Parties are encouraged to
sign an AOC requiring them to begin RD once the
CD is signed even though it has not been entered in
court.
The acceleration of the ROD to RD process will also
be achieved through activities such as: monthly
docket reviews held with the program, the Office of
Regional Counsel, EPA Headquarters representatives,
and DOJ staff; creation of model enforcement
documents; formalization and use of PRP search
procedures; and improved coordination with natural
resource trustees.
Under the traditional process, RODs are written
without specific performance standards and are
therefore negotiated to some extent during the RD.
The RD is not started until the CD is entered in court.
The biggest problem under the old system was that
negotiations became drawn out when PRPs brought
up legitimate issues with respect to PRPs, including
the identification of additional PRPs who were not
given notice. PRP searches were not always
comprehensive or effective. Often there was no
review of the search before the deadline for settlement
after a ROD was finalized.
The Region anticipates that sites will move from
ROD to RD start in a shorter period of time, and
there will be resource savings because EPA is better
prepared for litigation and enforcement cases.
PILOT STATUS
All pilot activities have been implemented and are
being used in the Region. The early RD start AOC
received approval from DOJ and the Region. The
Region is currently evaluating the impact of pilot
activities on Regional operations.
EVALUATION PLAN
The Region is in the process of conducting an
extensive evaluation of the pilot and its impact on
regional enforcement operations. Regional averages
for the various stages in the enforcement process
(Special Notice Letters sent, CDs signed, etc.) as well
as the overall time from ROD to RD will be
measured and compared for the period prior to the
fourth quarter of FY 1991 and the period after the
fourth quarter of FY 1991. It is anticipated that the
differences in the averages will show a significant
increase in enforcement efficiency.
The number of initiatives being implemented as part
of the pilot will make it very difficult to measure the
impact of any single initiative. As such, the
IV-33
-------
evaluation will measure the impact of the initiatives
as a whole, and will qualitatively highlight those
initiatives which the Region recommends be adopted
by other Regions, and why.
The qualitative improvements in the enforcement
process will not be easily measured but Regional staff
have already expressed support for the new initiatives.
Regardless of the level of efficiency improvements,
the Region will continue to use the new initiatives
because of the higher quality they provide.
RESULTS
Results anticipated by Region 3 are that sites will
move from ROD to RD start in a shorter time period.
The Region anticipates reduced litigation costs
because EPA is better prepared for cases. More
focused attention on enforcement sites can lead to
quicker cleanups at a reduced cost to the program.
The Region's findings result in thorough planning and
preparation for the negotiation process which leads to
a more effective and efficient process.
The ROD Remedy component of this pilot provides
an additional success story. By incorporating
performance standards as part of the ROD, it helps to
ensure that there is no question as to whether or not
a PRP has performed their obligations. The effect of
this change, however, will be difficult to document in
the short term.
All of the above mentioned initiatives have been
implemented in the Region and appear to be having
a positive effect. Further evaluation will be necessary
to determine their actual impact.
IV-34
-------
Region 4
Early Enforcement Prior to Listing
PILOT DESCRIPTION
The goal of the SACM early enforcement pilot is to
speed up the Superfund process, accelerating the
remedial process, where there is a willing and
financially viable Potentially Responsible Party (PRP)
at a site that will likely be placed on the National
Priorities List (NPL). The pilot accelerates the
cleanup of the site based on the elimination of the
time lapse between the site assessment and remedial
investigations. Rather than taking the traditional
approach (Expanded Site Investigation [ESI] followed
by the preparation of a Hazardous Ranking System
[MRS] package, NPL listing then a Remedial
Investigation [RI]) the Region has consolidated the
Expanded Site Investigation (ESI), with the RI/FS.
The PRPs are conducting these assessments
concurrently with the Region's development of the
Hazard Ranking System (HRS) package. The pilot
encourages early involvement under an administrative
Order on Consent (AOC) under which PRPs perform
the combined ESI-RI/FS. Through the early
enforcement effort, the Region is able to use the data
collected during the ESI-RI/FS to prepare an HRS
document. At the end of a project, the Region is
ready to propose a site for the NPL if the data show
that the site merits being listed, and go on to
Remedial Design/Remedial Action (RD/RA). At any
point in the process, removal action could be taken if
necessary.
The pilot project is complete at one of the three sites
where it is being applied. Completion at the other
two is expected in 1994.
PILOT STATUS
The pilot is being applied at three sites: Greenback
Industries; a site in Florida (referred to as Site One);
and a site in South Carolina (referred to as Site Two).
The pilot is complete at the Greenback site and will
be completed at the other two in early 1994. Until
the sites are listed on the NPL, however, the names of
the sites and PRPs will not be presented.
Greenback Industries, Inc.. located in Eastern
Tennessee, about 30 miles south of Knoxville, was
the first SACM Early Enforcement pilot site in the
Region. The site is a metal processing plant where
metal powders are produced for use in aircraft
engines, brake pads, and such. Operation began in
the mid-1940s, and ended recently. Most of the
contamination results from a time when environmental
controls did not exist. The primary contaminants
were copper, lead, and barium, which were deposited
over the years through regular plant operation,
primarily through air deposition and discharge into the
stream through waste-water.
The site was discovered in 1980 as a result of a
CERCLA Section 103(c) notification. The State of
Tennessee, under a cooperative agreement with
Region 4, performed a preliminary assessment (PA)
in 1984 and recommended further action, and an SI
was conducted in 1987. During the SI, Greenback
Industries hired a contractor to take samples. The
results showed a high level of contamination on the
plant property soil and stream-sediment, and the
company asked EPA for guidance. Greenback began
as a Regional enforcement pilot. Due to the
company's continued interest, approval was received
to conduct an early enforcement pilot to accelerate the
cleanup process at the site.
As a result of negotiations in 1991, a CERCLA § 106
administrative order was signed with the PRP to
conduct an RI/FS and reimburse EPA for all oversight
costs for the Greenback site. The Region agreed to
do the community relations coordination, and the
contractors were responsible for the required risk-
assessment.
In October 1991, the first public meeting was held at
the site which allowed the discussion of activities,
including the results of well-samples. In July 1992,
the RI was completed. The site scored a 48 on the
earlier HRS system. With the new HRS, and the
change in the site conditions (the county laid water-
lines in the area), the score dropped to 17. Under the
previous HRS, the groundwater pathway was the
primary factor, while under the present HRS, the
IV-35
-------
surface water pathway is the primary factor. The
surface water stream is not used for fishing or
drinking water due to its small size, and many people
changed from private well water to public drinking
water supply because the county laid new water lines.
The risk assessment concluded that the existing threat
was for future potential residential use at the site.
Groundwater contamination was only found on the
site. In January 1993, the FS was completed. It
determined that the best remedy was to perform a soil
removal from the site, and sediment removal from the
stream. The site was not placed on the NPL since the
HRS (revised) score was only 17, but the site was on
the State's Superfund list and the State of Tennessee's
Division of Environment and Conservation agreed to
conduct further oversight and assume the site lead.
In February 1993, the final public meeting was held
at the site, where the public and the press were
informed about the site's activities. The public
agreed with the process because the State could be
more efficient in this cleanup, due to the
establishment of a local field office.
In March 1993, there was a cost recovery AOC
drafted to recover the $235,000 spent by EPA on the
site. EPA has now ceased all activity at this site as
it has been referred to the state.
The second site addressed by this pilot is a 5 acre site
located in Florida which operated as a pesticide
blending facility from 1949 to 1976. Contaminants at
the site included pesticides such as chlordane and
DDT as well as solvents used for pesticide
formulation. The current PRP sold the property in
1978 to an individual who operated a truck service-
facility. The truck company is responsible for waste-
oil, solvents, and motor fuel contamination at the site.
In 1987, the trucking company went bankrupt. The
individual who operated the trucking company
retained ownership of the property until 1993, when
the PRP repurchased the property.
EPA concluded a SI in June 1989. High levels of
pesticides and other organics were discovered in the
groundwater and soil. Chlordane was found in the
groundwater at concentrations of 530 parts per billion
(ppb) (the Maximum Contamination Level [MCL] for
Chlordane is 2 ppb). As a result of the elevated
levels of pesticides in the soils, the site was referred
to EPA's Emergency Response Removal Branch.
In May 1990, an AOC was executed for removal
action. In December 1990, the PRP completed the
contamination assessment report, installed 22
monitoring wells, and collected an additional 35 soil
samples. This data was used to score the site under
the HRS. The removal action began in December
1991. The facility was demolished, including the
office building, water tower and warehouse. The site
is now a vacant lot. A total of 22,000 tons of
contaminated soil were removed and transported off-
site. The amount of soil removed was based on
cleanup levels established by Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) for the
protection of human health, not for the protection of
the aquifer, which was based on a chlordane level of
50 parts per million (ppm) in the surface soil and 100
ppm for subsurface soil. The PRP is anticipating
NPL listing and went beyond the reqdired levels of
cleanup.
EPA accepted the removal action report in January
1993. Simultaneously, the RI/FS-AOC began.
Groundwater is the major pathway of concern because
of the local geology and the presence of two
municipal well systems and private wells within a
four-mile radius. The PRP work plan has been
approved by EPA. The baseline risk assessment is
being conducted by EPA, and the HRS package is
under Regional review. Community relations
interviews were conducted in Orlando during the
week of June 21, 1993. The baseline risk assessment
has been assigned to EPA's Alternative Remedial
Contracting Strategy (ARCS) contractor.
The focal point of the signed AOC is groundwater
contamination. When chlordane limits were set, the
purpose was to protect human health, not the aquifer.
More removal of the soil may be needed in the future
to protect the area against further groundwater
contamination.
The PRP was pleased that this site was selected as a
pilot because remedial standards for the removal
actions will be set. In this way the PRP may avoid
the cost of additional soil removal if the site is listed
on the NPL. The PRP has negotiated for a 300 day
RI/FS, while EPA conducts the risk-assessment.
IV-36
-------
The Region anticipates that the RI/FS will be
completed next year, when it is proposed for the NPL.
A ROD can then be signed, and RD begun. Once the
site is listed, there will not be any "down time" or
delay in this process. In July 1993, the RI/FS kickoff
meeting was held in Florida. Field work began in
August 1993 with the installation of an additional 18
monitoring wells.
While the sampling is being conducted for the RI/FS,
an EPA representative is on-site. Samples (10
percent) are split with the contractor. The objective
of EPA's oversight and split sampling is to provide
QA/QC assessment of the PRP contractors sampling
procedures and chemical analysis. The PRP has
agreed to pay 100 percent of the oversight costs.
Based upon the preliminary results from the soil
analysis of samples collected from the neighboring
trailer park, an elevated level of chlordane, which is
believed to have migrated via drainage from the site,
was detected. This resulted in the need to expand the
existing RI Scope of Work, and a delay in the final
RI/FS Report by approximately 4 months.
On November 17,1993, an additional 44 soil samples
were collected from the trailer park to define the area
of contamination and to evaluate the risk. The results
of analyses should be available in December. If the
results of the data analyses warrant, a removal action
will be conducted in January under the existing
removal AOC.
The PRP has offered the residents of the two mobile
homes, where the highest concentration of chlordane
was detected, assistance in relocating in anticipation
of a forthcoming removal action.
The third site covers an area of over 25 acres, and is
located on the shore of the Cooper River, which is
bounded on one side by a peninsula. The source of
the contamination was a coal gasification plant, which
operated for over 100 years, between the early 1800s
and mid-1900s. Part of the site was occupied during
World War II by the U.S. Navy. Based on site
history, it is possible that other additional
contaminants are present from other industries, such
as a wood-treating plant and dry docks.
The area of concern is a park in the middle of the
site. The coal gasification plant was demolished, and
the site is now an electrical sub-station. Next to the
park is a low-income housing project. Across the
street from the site is the future location of an
aquarium and a tour boat dock facility.
The South Carolina Department of Health and
Environmental Control (DHEC) conducted an SI on
the site during 1991-1992. The site was discovered
and put on the Region's inventory in 1990. This is a
high priority site for the State of South Carolina. The
State introduced SACM with this site, and performed
a PA/SI in 13 months. The SI results showed
Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) in all
environmental media on the site, including sediments
in the Cooper River, surface water, groundwater,
surface soil and sub-surface soil. There was also a
six-foot thick layer of coal-tar residues in a
monitoring well on the site. The main migration
pathway for the PAHs was a mid-1800s brick-lined
storm drain, which at high tide, is full of water from
the Cooper River. The brick-lined drain was acting
as a French drain in allowing the subsurface
contamination to leach into the storm drain, and then
into the Cooper River. The primary pathway of
concern is surface water due to the fact that the site
is so close to the tidal water.
The groundwater is not potable, and is not used for
drinking water. The deep aquifer is used for drinking
water. The nearest public wells are 2.5 miles away,
across the river. The park was closed by the city in
1989 due to soil contamination. The low-income
housing was vacated during 1991-1992 due to soil
contamination and damage that occurred during
Hurricane Hugo in 1989. The draft HRS scores are
above 28.5. This is a surface water pathway driven
score, with human food-chain contamination being the
major consideration.
The three PRPs for this site are the utility which
operated the coal gasification plant; the municipality,
which operated the park; and the municipal housing
authority, which owns the property the City leases for
the park, and owns the low-income housing property.
On January 19, 1993, the three PRPs signed an AOC
with the Region prior to NPL listing. According to
the schedule, this will be a two-year RI/FS, and
should be completed by 1995.
Since the site has a high profile in the municipality,
the public will be involved early. The risks of the
IV-37
-------
site, such as human health, food chain contamination,
and ecological risks, can be identified early, after the
site assessment is complete.
The construction on the tour boat facility can be built,
with the remedial process taken into consideration.
The remedial design can be incorporated into the
construction. With the pilots approach to site
assessment information, the new construction will not
be done in a vacuum, causing releases to the river or
the need to later remediate construction. There is a
chance that a part of the brick-lined storm drain, that
runs through the most contaminated area will be
removed. The city plans to remove and upgrade the
storm drain. It remains to be seen whether the
removal will occur under EPA authority.
There is no habitation of the old low-income housing
units that trigger removal immediacy. It is
conceivable that during the investigation they could
find an old, underground, sludge-filled tank used for
coal gasification, that might prove to be a gross
source of contamination needing early removal. As
the city copes with the storm sewer as part of the
aquarium construction, it is possible they might come
across some contaminated soil, accidently triggering
what would be considered a removal action. At this
point, those are the two most likely options requiring
a removal.
EVALUATION PLAN
The Region has developed a sound evaluation plan
that will assess the improvements in effectiveness and
efficiency expected at the three sites being addressed
by this pilot. The categories of measures proposed
that the Region will collect include:
• Construction Completion goals: by speeding up
the process at sites and saving Fund money, -
through both cost efficiencies and PRP
reimbursement - this pilot approach can help
achieve the 650 site construction completion goal.
• Time savings: by integrating some steps, e.g.,
ESI and RI/FS, and eliminating time delays
between steps, the Region expects to save a
minimum of 24 months from the beginning of
investigation activities (ESI-RI) to the signing of
the ROD or an enforcement document.
• Resource savings:
- Fund resources will be saved since the PRPs
are conducting the ESI/RI/FS;
- EPA oversight costs will be reduced since
EPA will not have to oversee a separate ESI,
the whole process will be shortened, and the
PRP will reimburse EPA oversight costs;
- PRPs will also realize savings due to the
integration of the ESI with the RI/FS.
The baseline for comparison of these measures is as
follows:
• Completion goals - improvement in fulfillment of
SCAP targets with the same or declining Fund
resources will indicate improved effectiveness and
efficiency in the overall regional approach.
• Time and cost savings ~ the time measures
compiled by the Site Assessment Branch, HSED,
are an excellent standard for comparison, as
suggested by the Region and shown in Table 6.
As a further standard, the average time and cost
measures listed in Table 7 are also appropriate as
further measures of the pilot's success.
The Region has identified a number of qualitative
measures such as early community involvement and
early baseline risk reduction that can also be assessed.
IV-38
-------
Activity
RI activities
ESI activities
NPL proposal to
NPL final listing
NPL listing to RI
start
ESI completion to
RI start
ESI start to RI
completion
Average
(Months)
23
16
18
8
16
54
Range
(Months)
12-38
4-26
9-26
0-22.5
0-35
25-76
TABLE 6
Activity
Time from listing to
RI/FS
Time from listing to
ROD
Extramural costs of
RI/FS
Extramural costs of
ESI
Intramural cost of
oversight activities
National
Average
4.4 Qtrs
18.9 Qtrs
$938,980
$250,000
N/A
Region 4
Average
4.6 Qtrs
17.3 Qtrs
$765,002
N/A
Region to
estimate
TABLE 7
RESULTS
Greenback Industries: The actual benefits to date at
the Greenback site include the completion of the ESI-
RI/FS within 25 months (1/91-1/93) instead of the
national average of 54 months, an acceleration of over
two years. The PRP will reimburse EPA oversight
costs of about $250,000 and EPA resources are
available for use at other sites. The PRP will realize
savings of approximately $330,000 due to the
integration of the ESI and the RI/FS. While the site
proved not to be NPL-caliber under the new HRS, the
approach is potentially applicable to other NPL-
caliber sites. The site has been referred to the State
of Tennessee, which was able to integrate the
available RI/FS data into an RD/RA. Therefore, the
State saved time and money, and is now able to start
their cleanup process. This project is complete now
that it has been referred to the state.
At the second site, if all goes according to plan, the
RI/FS will be completed next year when the site is
IV-39
-------
proposed for the NPL. Once the site is listed, there
will not be any "down time" in the process from NPL
listing to ROD. If the site has a proposed ROD 0.5
years after NPL proposal, four years will have been
saved from the National average of 4.5 years.
At the third site, the benefits include a possible two-
year time savings. The time line for the RI/FS
process and the ESI, if they are integrated, ranges
from 22-29 months to complete.
IV-40
-------
Region 4
Early De Minimis Settlement
PILOT DESCRIPTION
The Early De Minimis settlement pilot includes an
emergency removal, a settlement by a group of 100
major PRPs and the settlement with de minimis
parties. Under this pilot, the Region entered into
settlement with the major PRPs before the emergency
removal under which the major PRPs agreed to pay
for the emergency removal up front. In addition, the
Region undertook to recover appropriate cleanup costs
from the de minimis PRPs immediately after the
removal was complete, as opposed to waiting for the
site to be placed on the NPL. This de minimis
settlement was supported and encouraged by the
major PRPs. The pilot process involves the formation
of a PRP steering committee and entering into
negotiations with that committee during the removal
but before the site is listed on the NPL.
In addition, the Region hired additional employees, an
On-Scene Coordinator (OSC) to oversee the cleanup
at the site and a paralegal/lawyer to conduct a PRP
investigation. The additional employees also allowed
senior employees to work on other sites. Work on
the settlement is continuing.
PILOT STATUS
The pilot Site is located in South Carolina and was a
past State and Federal RCRA enforcement site. The
site was an active Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) disposal site which achieved
interim status in 1980. It was bought by the most
current operator in 1989. Site conditions improved
when they first took over the site, but then began to
worsen when the company began laying off some of
its employees. The State of South Carolina
(hereinafter referred to as the State) took over the site
in 1991. The State terminated the interim status of
the facility in September 1991, and RCRA
involvement no longer exists. The previous operator
is now bankrupt. The State has spent $2 million at
the site. In January, 1992, EPA took over the site.
EPA performed a quick enforcement action offering
about 50 PRPs a unilateral order and the other 50 a
de minimis settlement. However all 100 entered into
the unilateral order (this group of 100 PRPs became
the PRP steering committee). The PRP steering
committee took over the site in early April 1992.
EPA spent about $1.6 million dollars on the cleanup
before the PRP steering committee took over the site.
The enforcement action has progressed well. Funding
for the pilot has allowed the Region to hire two
additional employees. A paralegal (now an attorney),
has worked on the site for 6-8 months; and an OSC,
was hired on a one year temporary basis to work full
time on-site. The additional OSC has allowed: the
PRPs to finish the removal without any down time
due to the absence of an OSC; the other Regional
OSCs to work on other areas; and EPA to monitor
and facilitate removal at the site. The OSC
performed significant research of the records and sped
up the process. He researched records dating from
1987 for the generators that sent waste. The additional
paralegal/attorney has allowed the Region to search
through the 175 boxes of waste manifests and find all
the de minimis PRPs, review information request
responses and respond to FOIA requests.
De minimis settlements are offered in this case first,
to meet Congress' goal to get the parties who had
little impact on contamination out of the enforcement
process, and second to induce the PRP steering
committee to enter into settlement quicker. The PRP
steering committee requested that the Region start the
search beginning with records from 1980, which
doubled the number of manifests and PRPs. A
majority of these had Department of Defense
involvement, which considerably delayed the de
minimis settlement. The PRPs whose cylinders had
little impact on groundwater contamination at the site
will be offered de minimis settlement. General notice
(CERCLA Section 104(e)) letters were sent to PRPs.
The Region had expected the final volumetric
rankings to be complete by mid-July 1993. Budget
problems, however, have resulted in the contractor
IV-41
-------
having to stop work before the transactional database
could be completed. After the volumetric rankings
are complete the Region will be able to enter into a
settlement with the de minimis PRPs.
The site is being evaluated for proposal to the NPL in
FY 1994. The PRPs have packed and removed about
6,600 drums, 1,800 waste gas cylinders, 35-40 tanks,
shock-sensitive and explosive wastes, and the boiler.
Surface contamination will be dealt with by the
remedial program.
The cost for removal was estimated at $14-16 million,
however, the cost of dealing with the increased
number of gas cylinders raised the price to about $18-
20 million. Money was saved when the PRP steering
committee paid $20 million up front, since EPA
assured the PRPs that everyone, including de minimis
parties, would be brought to the table. The Region
derived the figure to settle with the PRP steering
committee through the Technical Assistance Team
(TAT) contractor who contacted Regions 2 and 3,
who had cleaned up similar drum sites, and
extrapolated their numbers to get an estimate of $14-
16 million.
The State was invited to the initial enforcement
meeting. The State helped the Region acquire a
generator list. The Office of Regional Counsel
(ORC) and OSC have refined the generator list to
help the State recover their money. The Region has
excellent relations with the State. The State originally
requested the Region's help, because they would have
had a difficult time funding and overseeing the
cleanup with their limited resources.
The de minimis and settlements will be entered into
immediately after the removal is complete.
EVALUATION PLAN
The evaluation of this pilot focuses on the
effectiveness, efficiency and equity of the de minimis
process. The specific concern is whether the pursuit
of de minimis settlements speeds up the Superfund
overall process and yields collections appropriate to
the resources (time and cost) dedicated to this effort.
That equity is served is presumed to be true.
Evaluating this pilot by comparing site results to other
sites or to national or Regional averages is very
difficult for three reasons:
• It is a very large site, perhaps one of the three
largest landfills in the country ~ making cost and
tim*A nnmnnriennc Hiffimlt
«*j
time comparisons difficult.
• EPA assumed lead responsibility for the site only
recently, in January 1992 - which complicates the
use of time comparisons.
• Because of the visibility of the site, several EPA
staff members were assigned full time to the site.
For these reasons a more focused evaluation approach
is being utilized by the Region.
Region 4 is evaluating and collecting data on the
following measures:
• Was more money collected from de minimis
settlements than was expended in the collection
and negotiation effort (in FTEs and extramural
dollars for data collection)?
• Was the site cleaned up more quickly than it
would have been without the de minimis
settlements? This concern should address the
reactions of PRPs as well as a general time
duration analysis.
• Was the Region still able to meet its STARS
commitments and SPCC inspections despite the
attention and staffing devoted to the pilot?
Specifically, what was the level of effort required
for this de minimis pilot?
IV-42
-------
RESULTS
Whether the money obtained from de minimis
settlements offsets the intramural costs of negotiating
with de minimis parties will need to be evaluated
from a cost/benefit standpoint.
The major PRPs supported the decision to pursue
settlement with the de minimis PRPs and agreed to
pay for the removal before NPL listing. Thus a PRP
lead removal action at the site began quickly. This
pilot approach may also have induced the PRP
steering committee to stay together throughout the
cleanup. Therefore it does appear that the site will be
cleaned up more quickly than it would have been
without the de minimis settlements.
The Region was able to maintain branch efficiency
through the hiring of an additional OSC and
paralegal/lawyer at the site (enabling the Region to
meet it STARS commitments in 1993 of conducting
removals at 34 non-NPL sites and 4 NPL sites).
Going beyond this straightforward finding, the Region
will draw conclusions and recommendations on how
to streamline the de minimis process for other sites.
Finally, this approach helped address community
concerns better. The community was very concerned
about the cleanup at the pilot Site, and the Region
promised the community that EPA would oversee the
quick cleanup of the site. The OSC helped the
Region earn the trust of the public and local elected
officials by establishing a continuous EPA presence
and by cleaning up the site quickly and safely.
IV-43
-------
Region 5
Regional Decision Team
PILOT DESCRIPTION
The goal of the Regional Decision Team (RDT) pilot
is to ultimately develop a process within the Region
whereby all components of the Office of Superfund
are fully integrated into a single continuous effort to
efficiently and quickly evaluate and cleanup sites.
The RDT pilot is comprised of 19 sites that were
nominated by the six states that are within the
Region. Each site was assigned a core Site
Assessment Team (SAT) that was comprised of an
On-Scene Coordinator (OSC), a Regional Project
Manager (RPM), a Site Assessment Manager (SAM),
and a State representative. The SAT determined what
additional personnel were necessary to evaluate the
site; eventually, all the sites were assigned an attorney
and a community relations coordinator.
Under the pilot, the SAT reports their findings to the
Regional Decision Team (RDT) which makes
decisions on what further action, if any, should be
taken at a site to explore innovative approaches to
expedite site evaluation and cleanup. The RDT will
not micro-manage a site. Instead, the RDT will
review status reports and strategy options from the
SAT, establish response priorities, and provide advice
and direction on appropriate response actions. The
major role of the RDT will be to clarify, evaluate, and
prioritize non-time critical early actions. These
actions are intended to achieve site stabilization and
risk reduction. The action may serve as an initial
response or provide final cleanup for the site. The
role of the RDT is to identify the response
opportunities and direct the initiation of the required
support actions. The RDT also has the responsibility
for ensuring that response actions are fully consistent
with the requirements contained in the National
Contingency Plan (NCP).
Under the traditional process, when sites move into
the Superfund process the removal and remedial
program managers consider site-specific actions
separately. This results in an inefficient process
where decisions are made without taking all factors
into account. Early action decisions were only made
for remedial sites and considered on a site by site
basis.
PILOT STATUS
The composition of the RDT has been established.
The expectation of the RDT pilot is to define an
unencumbered process to address all Superfund sites
in the Region. The RDT pilot markedly redesigns
how the Region does business in the Superfund
program. Significant latitude is being provided to the
individual site teams (SATs) to explore innovative
approaches to expedite site evaluation and cleanup.
The concept is that the SAT is in the best position to
draft a more efficient and productive cleanup
program. An office procedure and implementation
plan will ultimately result from the approaches that
prove most successful in the pilot.
The pilot provides a method of coordinating all new
sites in the Region. The RDT takes the information
provided by the SAT and makes an informed decision
about the destiny of each site. The RDT takes into
account all pilots presently being performed in the
Region in conjunction with the budgetary constraints
and threat to the public health and environment. The
RDT also increases communications between the
different programs within Superfund and state
representatives. This enables the process to be more
efficient because all of the regulators are involved in
the decision-making process.
The RDTs meet once a month. The following actions
were taken at the sites already reviewed: 4 Site
Evaluation Accomplished; 2 RCRA deferrals; and 3
non-time critical removals.
The use of SATs at the site level and the RDT at the
Regional level allows Region 5 to implement two
layers of cross-program team work designed to
accelerate the cleanup process while cutting the costs
associated with the cleanup.
IV-44
-------
Information on twelve of the sites is available and
include the following resolutions:
Jennison Wright Site - located in Granite City, IL.
The RDT agreed with the recommendations of the
SAT and decided to address a large portion of the site
as a non-time critical removal; initiate the RI for the
remaining portion of the site; and designate the site as
State lead.
Willow Run Site - located in Ypsilanti, MI. the site is
composed of several landfills, ponds, and lagoons
located along a creek. The RDT recommended that a
portion of the site undergo a non-time critical removal
action and the remaining portion begin a remedial
investigation.
Voss Scrap Site - located in Bell Plaine, MN. With
the State dissenting, the RDT determined that the site
should be Site Evaluation Accomplished (SEA).
USS Lead - located in Gary, IN. The RDT
recommended that the site should be considered low
priority under Superfund until after RCRA
enforcement has run its course.
Circle Smelting - located in Beckmeyer, IL. The
SAT recommended to the RDT that an early action be
conducted as a non-time-critical removal to address
several areas of significant contamination as identified
by the team. The RDT concurred with the SATs
recommendation.
New Jersey Zinc - located in De Pue, IL. The SAT
recommended to the RDT that the site be handled as
a State-lead whereby the state uses its own authority
to secure cleanup. The state will be responsible for
a focused RI/FS addressing on-site and residential
soils, and site waste piles. The RDT concurred with
the SATs recommendation.
Pierce Oil - located in Springfield, Illinois. The
removal program conducted a $1.3 million cleanup as
a time-critical removal. Although significant
contamination still remained following the removal,
the SAT determined that the site would not score high
enough on the HRS for NPL listing. The
recommendation by the SAT was to defer the site to
the State and consider the site SEA. The RDT
concurred with the recommendation.
Old Mankato Dump - located in Belgrade Township,
MN. A qualitative human health and ecological risk
assessment conducted for the site indicated little or no
risk. In addition, the SAT determined that the site
was not NPL-caliber. Consequently, the SAT
recommended that the site be considered SEA. The
RDT concurred with the recommendation.
Manistique Harbor - located in Manistique, MI. The
RDT decided to review the determination by the SAT
for a time-critical removal action. Generally, the
RDT does not review time-critical removal actions.
The RDT concurred with the SAT's recommendation
to pursue additional site characterization and engage
the PRPs for possible conduct of the removal.
Brooks Foundry - located in Adrian, MI. A removal
action had been conducted at the site in 1990. The
site is expected to be proposed for the NPL in the
next update. The SAT recommended that the site be
placed in the queue for RI/FS funding for FY 94.
The RDT concurred with the SAT recommendation.
Stickney/Tyler Dumps - located in Toledo, OH. The
SAT recommended the two landfills be approached as
presumptive remedies for closure utilizing removed
authorities, i.e., non-time-critical removal. The RDT
concurred with the SAT.
Master Metals - located in Cleveland, OH. Master
Metals is an operating facility under RCRA interim
status. Presently, a RCRA enforcement action is
underway. The SAT recommended the site be
deferred to RCRA until RCRA authorities are
exhausted. Consequently, the site is considered SEA.
The RDT concurred.
The pilot is classified as completed on September 30,
1993, although work is continuing at the various sites.
EVALUATION PLAN
Region 5 is gathering performance data on pilot sites
and on comparative sites and a tracking system for
the pilots has been developed. By the end of this
fiscal year, the Region will produce a comprehensive
evaluation.
The Region is looking to the RDT pilot to define an
unencumbered process to address all Superfund sites
IV-45
-------
in the Region. This will produce a more effective
and efficient process. If successful, the pilot
approach could significantly reduce the time and
money spent on sites by ensuring that as each new
site enters the Superfund process, the specific actions
required are quickly identified. Reduction in risk at
sites can be achieved through short-term actions
which were not previously considered. In addition,
sites requiring no further action can be assessed and
identified quickly.
Region 5 will collect data on the following evaluation
measures for this pilot:
• Length of time for completion of site assessment
• Cost of site assessment (intramural and
extramural)
• Early risk reduction
• Enforcement -- number of sites assessed by PRPs
• Coordination and teamwork with the SAT
• Involvement of the states
• Community relations.
The Region is developing a baseline for quantitative
measures from CERCLIS and Regional sources.
RESULTS
Since the beginning of the RDT pilot, twelve sites
have been reviewed by the RDT. Significant progress
has been made in defining the role and responsibility
of the RDT in decision-making. Site teams have an
improved understanding of what the RDT expects of
them. Experience derived from the RDT pilot will
form much of the process being developed in the
Region for SACM implementation. The role of the
RDT will expand beginning in FY 1994. The RDT
will be responsible for directing funds program-wide
to sites with the most significant environmental
threats.
In addition, the RDT pilot has enhanced
communication among Superfund program elements
and has fostered a better understanding of the
requirements of different aspects of the program.
This increased knowledge will help the program
achieve its goals with greater efficiency to accelerate
cleanups.
IV-46
-------
Region 5
Early Action Pilot, Better Brite, Wisconsin Site
PILOT DESCRIPTION
This pilot project accelerates site cleanup by
performing a Federal-lead time-critical removal action
through the coordination of multiple programs. The
strategy of this pilot uses removal authority for
addressing immediate risks, while integrating cross-
program needs in the planning process. The removal
action at the site, when complete, will have addressed
the source areas to the groundwater contaminant
plume and containment of the plume.
The pilot process involves the combination of the
time critical removal and Remedial Investigation/
Feasibility Study (RI/FS). The time critical removal
will contain the contaminated plume and will decrease
the amount of cleanup needed under a remedial
action.
Additionally, this pilot uses removal authority for
addressing immediate risks, while integrating cross-
program needs in the planning process. The expected
benefits to be derived from the pilot are significant
early risk reduction at the site from accelerated
cleanup action and the knowledge gained and
experience drawn from multi-program coordination in
executing the early action. The planning for the
removal was conducted with significant input from
the Regional removal and remedial programs, the
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, EPA's
Office of Public Affairs, and the Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Control. The removal action
will reduce risk at the site by removing contaminated
soils that are contamination sources of the
groundwater contaminant plume, and by containing
the groundwater plume.
PILOT STATUS
The Better Brite site is made up of two separate metal
plating shops (a chrome and zinc shop) which are
located less then a half-mile from each other. The
site scored 48.5 on the Hazard Ranking System
(HRS) and was listed on the National Priorities List
(NPL) August 30, 1990. The documented
environmental damage includes ground water
contamination, soil contamination, and flora
contamination; the contaminants consist of heavy
metals and volatile organic compounds. A State lead
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) and
a Fund-lead removal are presently being conducted at
the site.
Better Brite is a Fund-lead site with no viable PRPs.
The contaminated soil from the zinc shop has been
removed, and over the past couple of months, the
extension of the ground water collection system has
been completed at the zinc shop. The city and state
have taken over the operation and maintenance of the
collection system. At the chrome shop, soil
excavation is complete and the ground water
collection system should be completed in July. The
city and state will take over the operation and
maintenance of the system. Once the targeted soil
contamination is removed from the site, both the
chrome and zinc shop sites will be covered using a
solid-waste type cap.
The time critical removal is more than 90 percent
complete and should be completed in July. The
removal action addresses the source areas to the
groundwater contaminant plume, and containment of
the plume. The remaining remedial action will be a
pump and treat system remedy for the groundwater
contamination.
The pilot was substantially completed during October,
1993, with the final report under preparation.
EVALUATION
Region 5 is gathering performance data on pilot sites
and on comparative sites and by the end of this fiscal
year will produce an evaluation.
IV-47
-------
The pilot addresses the increases in effectiveness and
efficiency possible by performing removal actions at
NPL sites. At Better Brite, the pilot is expected to:
• Show significant early reduction of risk from the
accelerated cleanup action; and
• Identify an efficient means for Suite and Federal
coordination among the removal, remedial, State
of Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources,
EPA's Office of Public Affairs, and ATSDR
programs.
Region 5 will collect data on the following evaluation
measures for this pilot:
• Early risk reduction compared to the remaining
risks to be addressed in the completion of the
RI/FS
• Duration of removal action in comparison to
traditional remedial action
• Cost of the removal as compared to cost of a
remedial action
• Cooperation and teamwork
The Region is identifying costs at this site. The
baseline for comparison of efficiency measures is
listed in Tables 10 and 11. Comparison of the pilot
with these baseline figures will illustrate cost
avoidance and time savings possible through this pilot
approach.
Activity
Time from listing to RA
completion
Extramural costs of RD
Extramural costs of RA
National
Average
45.4 Qtrs
$694,176
$4,105,828
Region 5
Average
TBD
$364,206
$3,968,117
TABLE 10
AVERAGE PIPELINE DURATIONS FOR REGION 5
(QUARTERS):
Activity
RI/FS
ROD to RD
RD
RA
TOTAL
At Completed
Projects
13.77
2.69
5.11
7.78
29.35
At Ongoing
Projects
18.73
6.73
11.05
15.76
52.27
TABLE 11
IV-48
-------
RESULTS
Region 5 identified the expected benefits from the
pilot to include: 1) significant early reduction of risk
from the accelerated cleanup action; and 2) due to the
significant involvement from the removal, remedial.
State of Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources,
EPA's office of Public Affairs, and ATSDR
programs, knowledge and experience will be gained
to assist in future multi-program coordinations to
execute time critical removals.
Most of the removal is complete at the chrome and
zinc shops and little remedial action is needed at the
sites to treat the contaminated groundwater. The
different EPA programs are working well together.
By having Regional employees work on different
aspects of the Superfund program, the pilot is
promoting their learning the requirements of other
Superfund program areas. In addition, the removal is
addressing most of the contamination, which will
significantly shorten the time required to cleanup the
site as compared to the traditional process.
By reducing risk through a removal action the Region
can gain public support. Improved coordination
between Superfund programs can reduce response
time and costs at a site. Time critical removal actions
to eliminate source releases to the groundwater
quickly decrease the risk at a site and significantly
reduces the time it would take to reach construction
completion. This removes a site from the NPL
quicker then with the traditional method of a long
remedial action.
IV-49
-------
Region 5
Integrated Site Assessment
PILOT DESCRIPTION
In its integrated site assessment pilot, Region 5 has
coordinated the removal program and the site
assessment program to combine elements of
traditional removal assessments with those of the
preliminary assessment and site inspection (PA/SI).
The Region has developed a team approach involving
On-Scene Coordinators (OSCs) and Site Assessment
Managers (SAMs) that result in the combination of
sampling needs at newly discovered sites for removal
and site assessment purposes and the close
coordination of removal and remedial efforts.
Through this pilot, the Region has defined a new
process for screening and assessing new sites coming
into the Superfund program for removal and/or
remedial considerations. By combining the Site
Assessment Section and the Removal Branch, the
Region has developed the "one door" entry into the
Superfund process as envisioned under SACM. The
pilot has resulted in an effective mechanism to
address sites prior to the initiation of the remedial
process (i.e., remedial investigation/ feasibility study
(RI/FS), remedial design (RD), and remedial action
(RA)).
By combining the assessments of the traditional
Superfund process and using removal activity where
appropriate, the traditional Superfund process can be
shortened. Preliminary results indicate that this
initiative can save time and costs over the Superfund
process and decreases duplicative testing. In addition,
this may allow for an HRS scoring package to be
developed quicker than the traditional process by
deleting the "down" time between steps and
duplicative testing.
PILOT STATUS
The Region has addressed seven sites in this pilot.
All sites are presently undergoing assessment for
possible inclusion on the National Priorities List
(NPL) except Union Steel which was determined to
require no further action. The site assessment teams
are composed of an OSC, SAM, and a state
representative. The integrated assessments for the
pilot sites involve the generation of data for both
removal and pre-remedial purposes. The information
is shared between both the OSC and the SAM to
determine whether a removal action is warranted and
to screen the site for possible NPL listing.
EVALUATION PLAN
The Region is gathering performance data on pilot
sites and on comparative sites and is producing an
evaluation. More information will be available after
the evaluation is complete.
The pilot approach is expected to increase the
effectiveness and efficiency of the assessment process.
A team approach to site assessment will lead to the
definition of an improved process to screen and assess
new sites for removal actions and/or eventual NPL
listing.
IV-50
-------
In summary, the measures that Region 5 will evaluate
for this pilot are:
• Duration of integrated site assessment
• Cost of the integrated site assessment (state and
Federal intramural and extramural), compared to
separate assessments
• Coordination between Removal program and site
assessment program.
The Region will develop a baseline for quantitative
measures on the cost and time duration of Regional
removal site assessments and pre-remedial activities.
The partial baseline for comparison of efficiency
measures are listed in Table 8.
Activity
Level of Effort (LOE) for
PA
LOE for SI
LOE for ESI
National Average
(hours)
135
440
1050
Region 5 Average
(hours)
120
500
600-1000
TABLE 8
RESULTS
The Region has defined an integrated assessment and
has developed a process, the Removal Integrated Site
Evaluation (RISE), to address the wide array of
activities possible. This process, now implemented,
will enable the Region to quickly assess a site and
determine the most efficient path to SEA, remedial, or
removal activity. In addition, it will define a new
process to assist the Site Assessment Manager (SAM)
and OSC to work together.
By combining the assessments, the process
significantly reduces the time from site discovery, to
site assessment, to remedial investigation at Fund-lead
sites, (i.e., to increase the speed of assessments). This
will accelerate the pace of response activities, and
also reduce the cost of site assessments. The
coordination and communication between the removal
and site assessment programs has been enhanced by
placing all site assessment activities under the
Emergency Response Branch (ERB). Both the
activities and goals of the Site Assessment Section
and the Removal Branch are now coordinated through
one branch. Overall, the Superfund program will
benefit from personnel having a broadened
understanding of different aspects of the program.
The RISE process provides for the ERB to be the
"one door" for the Superfund site discovery program.
ERB is responsible for performing time critical and
non-time critical removal actions, and remedial site
activities. Remedial site assessment activities include
Preliminary Assessments (PAs), Screening Site
Inspections (SSIs), Focused Site Inspection
Prioritization (FSIP), Expanded Site Investigations
(ESIs) and the preparation of Hazardous Ranking
System (HRS) packages for the proposal of sites to
the NPL.
While the integration of these activities will require
some changes in the current processes, the response
to classic emergencies will not be substantially
altered. A primary outcome of the RISE process is
better communication during all site activities which
should result in work being coordinated and
completed more efficiently (See Figure 1 below for
a graphic representation of the integrated assessment
process).
IV-51
-------
In addition, a workgroup has been convened among
Regional OSCs and SAMs to define procedures in the
conduct of integrated assessments based on experience
to date and to develop a reference fact sheet during
the fall of 1993.
STATES
NRC
CITIZENS
FEDERAL
ENTITY
> Alia
. Data (Hlalorlcal)
• Sampling (Currant)
. Iictground
INTEGRATED ASSESSMENT
TIME-CRITICAL
NON-TIME-CRITICAL
ACCELERATION
PIPELINE
ESI/RI
SEA
SEA
ENFORCEMENT/COMMUNITY RELATIONS
— NOTIFICATION-
CERCLIS •
• PA-
• SI ESI HRS NPL-
• RI/FS •
Figure 1
IV-52
-------
Region 5
Wisconsin Single Site Assessment (SACM)
PILOT DESCRIPTION
The Region is implementing a pilot with the State of
Wisconsin designed to integrate into a single site
assessment, the traditionally separate removal and
remedial assessments. The pilot will be conducted by
the State of Wisconsin and will assemble a site
evaluation team to develop a comprehensive approach
for the site evaluation under a cooperative agreement
with the State. Approximately five to six sites are
addressed through this pilot.
The objective of the pilot is ultimately to define an
efficient process for the combination of different
assessments into a single assessment, particularly at
the preliminary assessment stage. Sites that have
been recently discovered were chosen for the pilot.
Under a cooperative agreement with the State of
Wisconsin, the Region will employ the single site
assessment approach at five or six sites. To
implement this pilot at the site level, a State-
appointed response coordinator will be responsible for
coordinating and facilitating activities under the
integrated assessment approach. When a site has
been selected, a site evaluation team will be
assembled that will consist of an On-Scene
Coordinator (OSC) from the Region, a remedial
specialist, and a community relations specialist. After
the team has been assembled, it will develop a
comprehensive approach to the site evaluation. The
pilot will be continue beyond the September 30, 1993
date.
PILOT STATUS
Three sites have been identified for the pilot.
At Site One, removal action has been taken and is
complete. Concurrent with the removal, state
personnel conducted a Preliminary Assessment and
have determined that the site should be classified as
Site Evaluation Accomplished.
At Site Two, removal was completed by the PRP at
US EPA's request in ten days and additional sampling
was conducted at the site to determine possible
inclusion on the NPL.
At Site Three EPAs Emergency Response Branch
removed an immediate threat and a Site Evaluation
Accomplished resulted after the Preliminary
Assessment.
By combining the assessments of the traditional
Superfund process, one step in the traditional
Superfund process is deleted. This saves time and
costs over the Superfund process and decreases
duplicative testing by the State. In addition, this may
allow for an HRS scoring package to be developed
quicker than through the traditional process by
deleting the "down" time between steps find
duplicative testing.
EVALUATION PLAN
The pilot approach is expected to increase the
effectiveness and efficiency of the assessment process.
Significant reductions in the time from site discovery,
to site assessment, to remedial investigation at State-
lead sites are expected. This process should also
reduce the duplicate testing that occurs during the
steps of the traditional process. Further, the cost of
a single assessment should be less than the cost of
multiple separate assessments.
Region 5 will collect data on the following evaluation
measures for this pilot:
• Duration of site assessment
• Cost of site assessment (Suite and Federal
intramural and extramural)
• Coordination between State and Federal agencies
• Community relations.
IV-53
-------
The Region is developing a Regional baseline for
quantitative measures from CERCLIS, and Regional
and State sources that will address the duration and
cost of preremedial activities.
The partial baseline for comparison of efficiency
measures is listed in Table 9.
Activity
Level of Effort (LOE) for
PA
LOE for Screening SI
(SSI)
LOE for SSI sampling
LOE for ESI
LOE for ESI sampling
National Average
(Hours)
135
440
183
275
149
State Average
(Hours)
134
224
TBD
TBD
TBD
TABLE 9
RESULTS
A very preliminary analysis was conducted on
timeframes and cost in the Wisconsin pilot. At the
completion of the pilot, a final analysis will be
conducted. The present findings are as follows:
At Site One, activities include site discovery,
development of background information, two
sampling events, and generation of a pre-score.
Site Timeframe:
Estimated Cost:
9 months
$24,217
Historical Timeframe
(Similar Activities): 2 years
Historical Cost: $30,134
At Site Two, activities include site discovery,
development of
background information, two site visits, and
coordination with EPA Emergency Response Branch
for a removal action.
Site Timeframe: 9 months
Estimated Cost: $2,489
Historical Timeframe: 1 year
Historical Cost: $2,416
At Site Three, activities include site discovery,
development of background information, PRP
removal, and pathway sampling.
Site Timeframe: 6 months
Estimated Cost: $9,211
Historical Timeframe: 2 years
Historical Cost: $13,200
IV-54
-------
The cost of the single assessment should be less than
the cost of multiple separate assessments, because of
the reduction in duplication. This will save the State
and Region money when conducting assessments.
This pilot may assist the Superfund program to
integrate its initial assessments and removal/remedial
assessments to efficiently and quickly determine the
prospect for a site. By using data for multiple
purposes, economies can be achieved in terms of the
amount of sampling needed, expertise and learning
can be shared among agency officials responsible for
the various tasks undertaken at a site, and the time
between data collection and action or no further
action can be shortened. Increasing the coordination
between the State and EPA may also lead to
improved community relations.
IV-55
-------
Region 6
Lightning ROD Projects
PILOT DESCRIPTION
In December 1991, Region 6 initiated the Lightning
Record of Decision (ROD) pilot projects at three
hazardous waste sites to test the effectiveness of a
range of improvements designed to accelerate the
Superfund process. Additional goals were to improve
the quality of the decision making process and reduce
the overall cost of the investigative phase of the
cleanup. The Region's efforts to improve the quality
of the Superfund process utilized total quality
management (TQM) principles. In addition to
evaluation by the project team, reviews of work
products were also conducted by the Region 6
Remedial Project Managers (RPM) Peer Review
Committees, State staff, the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, and various EPA Headquarters staff. This
expanded review process assured that, despite the
speed in which they were produced, Lightning ROD
work products were reviewed from a larger
experience base than is typical at most sites. Region
6 believes that the broader base of experience
increased the overall quality of the Remedial
Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS)
deliverables. Lightning ROD work products also
reflect more in depth technical analysis than current
national guidance requires. For example, the RI/FSs
for the two wood treater sites included in-situ
ecological impact pilot tests and technology
treatability studies. Moreover, the proposed plans for
these two sites were based on an evaluation of
remedies at all other wood treater Superfund sites in
the country with a ROD signed after 1986 (post -
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act) in
addition to the traditional RI/FS report.
PILOT STATUS
The sites selected for the pilot were two wood treater
sites (Popile, El Dorado, Arkansas and American
Creosote Works, Inc.. Winnfield, Louisiana) and an
abandoned dump (South Eighth Street Landfill, West
Memphis, Arkansas). A major factor affecting the
speed of site work is whether viable responsible
parties were present. The South Eighth Street site has
CUMULATIVE TIME FROM NPL LISTING
TRADITIONAL VERSUS LIGHTNING ROD PILOT PROCESS
TRADITIONAL
PROCESS (YRS)
1.25
4.5
6.5
8.0
PILOT PROCESS
(YEARS)
0.0
1.0
2.0
2.5
MANAGEMENT GOAL
Complete planning and budgeting
prior to NPL proposal
Define site remedy
in the first year
Define lead for RA and initiate
action via procurement
or consent decree
Start RA within three
years of NPL proposal
STATUS
Achieved in all three
pilots
Shown to be feasible
Continuing pilot work
Continuing pilot work
TABLE 12
IV-56
-------
numerous viable Potentially Responsible Parties
(PRPs), while remedial action assessment at the
creosote sites was expected to be carried out solely
using Superfund resources.
The basic changes to the traditional Superfund process
were initially derived from a series of brainstonning
sessions among Regional managers and team
members as the pilot project teams began functioning.
The proposed changes to the process can be
summarized by the following four management goals:
complete all preparation for the RI/FS and the
Remedial Design (RD) before the site is proposed for
inclusion on the National Priorities List (NPL); define
the total site remedy in the first year through
technical, policy and process improvements; define
responsibility for remedial action in the second year
after addition to the NPL; and start remedial action
within three years of the site's proposal to the NPL.
At Popile and American Creosote, all preparations
prior to NPL listing have been completed including
RI/FS, RD and Removal Statement of Work (SOW)
and work plan, community relations plan, sampling
and analysis plan, budgeting and planning preparation,
and PRP search. The Region has defined the remedy
for the site including completion of negotiations, early
action removal, RI/FS, ROD and RD.
Site Information
Popile, El Dorado, Arkansas. The site is an inactive
wood preserving facility comprising approximately 41
acres located in southern Arkansas near the town of
El Dorado. The area surrounding the site includes
rural, commercial, and residential properties.
Contamination at the site includes 200,000 cubic
yards of soil with moderate contamination (PCP up to
280 ppm, carcinogenic PAH's up to 35 ppm). The
site also contains subsurface non-aqueous phase
liquids and some 85 million gallons of contaminated
groundwater. The ROD for the site, signed on
February 1, 1993, provides for the soils and sludges
to be remediated via biological treatment in an on-site
land treatment unit. The non-aqueous phase liquids
will be recovered and incinerated off site, and the
groundwater will be removed, treated, and either
discharged to surface waters or reinjected back into
the aquifer.
American Creosote Works, Winnfield, Louisiana.
The American Creosote Works is a 34 acre former
wood treating facility located in the City of Winnfield
in central Louisiana. Threats from the site result from
250,000 cubic yards of contaminated soils in an old
process impoundment (PCP concentrations up to
6,000 ppm, carcinogenic PAH's in concentrations up
to 50 ppm), 25,000 cubic yards of highly
contaminated tars and sludges in a drainage area
located near the old process area. Subsurface
contamination includes free phase organic liquids and
24 million gallons of groundwater contaminated above
Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCL's).
Contamination from the site was also detected in
stream bed sediments for some 2 miles from the site.
On April 1, 1993, the comment period jointly
announced by EPA and the Louisiana Department of
Environmental Quality for the final remedial plan
closed. A ROD for the site is expected to provide for
on-site incineration of highly contaminated
tars/sludges, in-situ biological treatment of soils
contaminated with process compounds, extraction and
on/or off-site destruction of liquid contaminants, and
grading and capping of surface contaminated soils and
decontaminated process equipment and scrap metal.
South Eighth Street, West Memphis, Arkansas. The
40 acre South 8th Street Landfill site is located
adjacent to the Mississippi River in West Memphis,
Crittenden County, Arkansas. Approximately 14
acres were used for landfill operations. A large, oil
sludge pit comprises an additional 3 acres of the site.
The sludge pit, composed of 10,000 cubic yards of
pure sludge and an additional 17,000 cubic yards of
contaminated soil and debris, has been determined to
be the only hot spot on the site. The site was
operated as an uncontrolled municipal and industrial
waste dump from the late 1950's to 1979. The site
was identified in the original Superfund list in 1979
as the "West Memphis Landfill, South 8th Street". A
Hazard Ranking System (HRS) package was
completed in August 1991, and the site was proposed
to the NPL in February 1992. Most of the
preparations prior to NPL listing have been completed
along with all remedy definitions.
This pilot is expected to be completed in FY 1995.
Due to the delays encountered in remedy selection
decisions at the wood treater sites, two first year pilot
project deliverables will be completed in the second
year: standardized RD provisions, and improved ROD
rationale/sensitivity analysis.
IV-57
-------
EVALUATION PLAN
Region 6 will track the results of the Lightning ROD
pilot over its projected three year course. The four
primary goals of the Lightning ROD pilots which will
serve as the milestones for measuring pilot success
are:
• Complete all preparation for the RI/FS/RD before
the site is proposed for inclusion on the NPL.
• Define the total site remedy in the first year
through technical, policy, and process
improvements.
• Define responsibility for remedial action in the
second year after addition to the NPL.
• Start remedial action within three years of the
site's proposal to the NPL.
In addition to the goals of reducing the time required
to move from listing to RA, the Region will also
monitor the total cost of the Lightning ROD process
compared to the regular remedial process. Although
twice as many intramural resources were used in the
first year of the Lightning ROD process compared
with the traditional process, an overall savings of 30%
are expected in intramural costs. The compressed
timeframe will also result in significant extramural
expenses which can not be estimated at this time but
will be measured as the pilot progresses.
The Region also expects an improvement in the
quality of deliverables because of the broad mix of
experienced staff participating in the process. This
improved quality is an important aspect of the
Lightning ROD process. Because of the compressed
timeframe it is imperative that there not be any
reduction in the effectiveness of the process. In fact,
an improvement in the effectiveness of the remedy
selection is expected because of the additional work
done when examining remedial alternatives.
RESULTS
This pilot is expected to be completed in FY 1995.
The Region's efforts to reduce the cost of the
Lightning ROD projects cannot be calculated until the
completion of the second half of the pilot. However,
some important preliminary conclusions can be
reached. The Lightning ROD approach requires
commitment of at least twice the "average" intramural
resources in the first year for each site, but is
expected to produce net resource savings due to the
accelerated clean up schedule that results. If twice
the intramural resources are required to reduce the
time from NPL proposal to initiation of cleanup from
8 to 2.5 years, the Region estimates that net long term
intramural costs could be reduced by about 30
percent. In the first year the three sites required the
expenditure of over $600,000 in intramural funds
(roughly double the "average" site). In addition, 48
different professional staff in the Region contributed
to the Lightning ROD projects; some, such as the
three RPM's, were committed full time for much of
the project. It is clear that Lightning ROD techniques
accentuate the need to marshall a broad mix of skills
and increase the initial resource investment. This
means that executing an accelerated effort will require
Superfund managers to commit a large amount of
resources at the very beginning of the project. Full
commitment by Regional management based on a
careful prioritization of resources is an absolute
prerequisite before initiating a Lightning ROD project.
The type of sites chosen for the Lightning ROD pilot
projects is significant. While some of the acceleration
concepts (e.g. advanced preparation before NPL
addition) are readily adaptable to all types of sites, the
greatest increase in speed could be achieved at site
categories having a significant number of RODs.
Patterns of remedy selection at other, similar sites is
a means of focusing field investigation efforts and
providing support for a narrowed scope of remedial
options.
All planning and budgeting was completed prior to
the sites being proposed for the NPL, as opposed to
the 1.5 years it normally takes. In addition, it has
been shown feasible that the RI/FS, ROD and RD can
be conducted in parallel and completed within one
year of listing. This activity is expected to contribute
to the accelerated start of the final RA.
Enforcement issues at the landfill site were not easy
to address. Because a previous Removal action had
not been conducted at the site, the initial PRP search
report had not been "tested" and was less complete.
This issue was discovered the month prior to the
planned NPL addition. In general, the search report
IV-58
-------
did not clearly identify the liability trail as the site
and corporate PRPs changed ownership numerous
times over a 40 year period. In addition, the
addresses for the PRPs in the report were often
incorrect or nonexistent. These problems resulted in
additional, unanticipated RPM and staff attorney
efforts prior to the initial issuance of general
notice/104(e) information request letters and Special
Notice Letters. In addition, the evolving
understanding of prior responsibility for the site meant
that an extra notice letter to some 75 PRPs was
executed in September.
To avoid delays in the process, the final draft PRP
search report should be reviewed by the staff attorney
and RPM at least 3 months prior to proposed addition
of the site to the NPL. All future PRP search reports
should contain the information necessary to easily
issue notice letters, such as good addresses,
identification of agents for service of process,
telephone numbers, and discussion of corporate
successor and property transfer issues.
After a series of brainstorming sessions regarding
ways to achieve project goals, team members were
surprised to determine the degree of flexibility that is
afforded by the current statute and National
Contingency Plan. Consistent with the concept of
performing as much of evaluation work in parallel,
the idea of starting the RD concurrently with RI and
FS was tried at all three sites. For "Fund-Lead-Only"
sites, the concept is consistent with statutory
requirements that RA funds not be expended before
final addition of the site to the NPL and a signed
ROD (both of which would precede completion of the
RD). At sites with viable PRP's, however, there was
a concern that initiating the RD could be interpreted
as making a sham of the remedy selection process.
This issue crystallized when notice letters were
drafted for the South Eighth Street Site.
After considerable debate among project participants,
novel language was developed for the general
notice/104(e) letters for South Eighth Street site
accelerating and consolidating RI/FS and RD actions.
PRPs were informed that RI/FS activities at the site
would be occurring using accelerated time frames and
that general RD activities would be occurring
concurrently with the RI/FS. Design activities were
limited to those elements common to each of the
viable alternatives. Some of the RD activities which
were expected to be conducted concurrently with the
RI/FS included the collection of design type data
during RI data collection, (e.g., geotechnical data,
process design data) and the development of
conceptual designs and specifications for typical RA
requirements such as mobilization, excavation, and
site layout which would be common elements of all
potential remedial alternatives.
Another major time saving process change devised by
the Lightning ROD teams was early preparation by
EPA of complete RI/FS/RD work plans. At sites with
PRPs, such as south Eighth Street, the work plan was
included with the special notice letter and draft
Administrative Order of Consent (AOC) for the
RI/FS. The project team correctly anticipated that the
work plan and AOC could be negotiated concurrently
and that the PRPs could move to the field within 30
days of AOC signature. Conversely, if the PRPs
chose not to conduct the RI/FS, as was the case with
the landfill pilot, EPA could quickly move to the field
and not waste additional time developing work plans.
Another benefit of this approach was that the PRPs
clearly understood what EPA expected including what
types of work and in what time frames the work
should be accomplished.
For all the pilot sites, the Alternative Remedial
Contracting Strategy (ARCS) contractor submitted a
complete RI/FS work plan including the field
sampling plan and quality assurance project plan
within 30 days of the date it received the work
assignment. The accomplished goal was to reduce
these sampling efforts to a single event and to utilize
innovative techniques to sample better and more
efficiently. This enabled the contractor to be visibly
in the field implementing evaluations the week that it
was announced that the site was added to the NPL, a
great reassurance to the community that positive
action was being taken.
Timing and availability of extramural funds to carry
out work at all three sites was a chronic concern.
Even though the three sites were approved as pilot
projects in November, 1991, funding to conduct
RI/FS/RD work was received in increments beginning
in March, 1992, (a month after contractor
mobilization) through June 1992, for the wood treater
sites. Funding for work at the landfill site was
similarly delayed and became an acute issue when
additional funds were needed in September, 1992, to
IV-59
-------
redo work incorrectly done be the PRP. All three
sites were in jeopardy, at various points, of being
halted for lack of funding. In addition to delay of
time, such interruptions would have also increased
project costs (funding an otherwise unnecessary start
up and shut down) and might have also resulted in
changeover of key contractor staff.
Funding was maintained for all three sites by utilizing
temporarily idle funds from other sites until formal
advice of allowances were received and through
constant coordination with Headquarters staff. While
such specialized efforts were justified for pilot
projects, these actions obviously cannot be adopted as
a normal course of business, nor can the Regional
budget accommodate the volatility of funding shifts
that would be required. It is believed by the
managers involved with the Lightning ROD pilots that
a fundamental cause of the funding issue is the cycle
of funding that the Agency as a whole (and other
Executive Branch agencies) experiences. Due to
deliberations by Congress and assessments by the
Office of Management and Budget, advices of
allowance do not reach Regional Offices until several
months after the fiscal year has begun. The cycle of
NPL updates in February and August mean that if the
first management goal of completing all preparations
for the RI/FS and RD before the site is proposed for
inclusion on the NPL, is to be met, funds for a site
need to be secured several months in advance.
A core concept in the Lightning ROD approach is that
the Agency now has sufficient experience with many
different types of sites (e.g., wood treaters, landfills,
metal platers, etc.) to provide a basis for categorizing
probable conceptual remedies. At these sites, it
should no longer be necessary to rely exclusively
upon site specific scientific data to develop plans and
remedies. The Lightning ROD teams used the
Agency's past experience with other wood treater and
landfill sites to focus all of the RI/FS/RD efforts.
Both of the wood treater sites proposed remedies were
based upon this analysis. These evaluations were also
critical in the selection of appropriate RI analytical
methods and use of trenching as a primary
investigative tool to determine the extent of the bulk
waste presumed to be present at the two woodtreater
sites.
One problem encountered with the wood treater
analysis was that the information it produced could
have been used even earlier in the process. For
example, based upon the initial results of wood treater
site surveys, treatability studies were scheduled for
solidification/stabilization and incineration.
For the landfill site, guidance for the investigation of
landfills (OSWER Directive 9355.3-11) was available
to develop the investigative approach. Based upon
the guidance, EPA determined that the identification
of hot spots was a primary concern at the sites and
again selected trenching in combination with
geophysics as the primary investigative tool to
determine the aerial extent of the hot spots.
Improvements were sought in the quality and
responsiveness of contractors, responsible parties, and
other involved parties. These changes included the
following: (1) use of the RI/FS work plan as the only
work plan for the work assignment; (2) use of TQM
techniques to define roles and responsibilities for EPA
and its contractors; and (3) expedited subcontractor
procurement. As a primary condition of acceptable
response, the teams required the ARCS contractors to
submit one work plan for the work assignment to
EPA for review within 30 days of the contractors
receipt of the work assignment. The traditional work
plan the Region has typically received from the
ARCS contractor is much less focused and requires
many revisions prior to finalization. Although the
contractors were initially uncomfortable with these
requirements for the wood treater sites, a much better
response was received for the landfill site. The work
plans for the three pilot sites can now be given to
future RPMs and project teams as examples to
continue to increase the efficiency of the work plan
development process.
In addition to the timing of response, another problem
was the large volume of information typically
received from ARCS contractors and PRPs. This
problem was believed to be due to poor definition of
required deliverables. For the pilots, excess verbiage
and redundant documentation were eliminated from
the work plans. The ARCS contractors were strongly
encouraged not to reiterate verbiage and tables found
in EPA guidance. The work plans were standardized
by incorporating the Health and Safety Plans, Field
Sampling Plans, and Quality Assurance and Quality
Control Plans as appendices to the overall Work Plan.
In addition, the use of Standard Operating Procedures
IV-60
-------
(SOPs) was relied upon to reduce the redundancy
between the Field Sampling Plan and the Work Plan.
Through recognition of major delays associated with
the award of subcontractors (e.g., drilling, trenching)
on previous projects, the EPA Region 6 Site
Management Team (SMT) realized a major time
savings by streamlining this process. The EPA
Contracting Officer and the ARCS Procurement
Official reviewed the subcontractor proposals
concurrently and were able to award subcontracts in
compliance with the FAR within 30 days. The award
of subcontracts has typically taken 90 to 120 days in
the past.
Full involvement of the community affected by the
site was another important goal of the projects.
Public meetings and open houses were held where
local elected officials were briefed, local media was
contacted, and fact sheets were prepared and mailed
to interested parties. In essence, all of the efforts that
are normally associated with public outreach over the
4.5 years between NPL addition and ROD were
carried out at these sites in the first year. The results
of these intensive community involvement events
have been rewarding for EPA and the local
communities.
Improved working relationships between EPA and the
States have resulted from collaborative efforts to solve
issues created by the pilot projects. The very speed
of the Lightning ROD pilots created numerous
problems for State and EPA staff. State technical
staff assigned to the projects had difficulty in
responding to the two week turnaround requested on
technical documents and found it difficult to
participate in internal government meetings. The
speed of the projects also presented State and EPA
policy makers with difficult decisions to make faster
than they might have anticipated. The immense
volumes of contaminated material at the American
Creosote site also created policy issues for EPA and
the State. After extensive deliberation, a composite
remedy that also introduced the innovative concept of
in-situ biological treatment was developed by the
Region and the State. This "final" proposed plan was
jointly announced by EPA and the State of Louisiana
on March 1, 1993, for a 30 day comment period.
IV-61
-------
Region 6
SACM Demonstration and Regional Decision Team,
National Zinc, Oklahoma Site
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The goal of this pilot is to form Regional Decision
Teams (RDTs) comprised of managers representing
the various elements of the program to screen sites
for early acceleration and integrated action; to
integrate technical requirements for sampling and
analysis for the pre-remedial, removal, remedial, and
enforcement components of the program; and expand
the use of early actions using removal authority to
address obvious problems as early as possible.
Preliminary findings indicate that using the pilot
process, coordinated sampling that was conducted
will provide over 90 percent of the data needed for
the Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study
(RI/FS) and Remedial Design (RD). The RDT
organization ensured project team coordination of all
aspects of the process at this site. The Region
anticipates reduced sampling costs, and reduced time
to define the remedy. The RDT has proven to be an
important forum for communication that did not exist.
Under the traditional approach, removal and remedial
sampling are done separately and remedial sampling
is separated between Expanded Site Investigation
(ESI), RI/FS and RD sampling, and numerous
independent efforts required to move site through the
process.
The RDT has been established to include six core
members: Superfund Programs, Management and
Enforcement Branch Chiefs, Senior Regional
Representative for the Agency for Toxic Substances
and Disease Registry (ATSDR), Senior Associate
Regional Counsel and Branch Chief for Waste, and
the Emergency Response Branch Chief. In addition,
other staff members from EPA participate as
appropriate. Representatives from the States of
Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana, and New
Mexico as well as Tribal Representatives have also
participated in meetings. The RDT has met nearly
every month since beginning in October 1992.
PILOT STATUS
The Region has developed site screening criteria to
help staff understand the Superfund Accelerated
Cleanup Model (SACM). The RDT has screened
over 60 sites for potential integrated or accelerated
action. Of equal importance is the increased level of
coordination between the States, Tribes, and EPA.
The Region has applied this pilot by using combined
sampling and Total Quality Management (TQM)
techniques to develop a proposed remediation plan
within six months of the proposed National Priorities
List (NPL) addition of the National Zinc site in
Bartlesville, Oklahoma, a former lead smelter. The
Region used the removal program to gather the data
for the site assessment and site investigation. The
data from the removal action will constitute most of
the FS.
The project team was established, and the team
defined individual roles (e.g., write work plan,
community relations). Participants included a
Remedial Project Manager (RPM), a removal On-
Scene Coordinator (OSC), an enforcement RPM, a
Regional Counsel attorney, a Site Assessment
Manager, a Regional ATSDR representative, an
Oklahoma State Department of Health Manager, a
RCRA enforcement representative, a Community
Relations specialist, and an EPA lexicologist.
The data collected will be used for the Hazard
Ranking System (HRS) package and will provide
most of the data for the remedial investigation (RI).
The National Zinc site was listed on the NPL in May
1993.
The Region has finished removal work in higher
access areas of the site. They are waiting for the
blood-lead data to be analyzed. Private homes will be
visited to identify children with high blood-lead levels
and to do excavating in their yards. EPA will go to
each home and explain data packages and their
IV-62
-------
meaning for their particular yard. EPA will explain
options to reduce exposure to the children.
Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs) are going
through the notice process; however, EPA is going to
conduct the risk assessments. EPA is putting off the
RI report until they know if the PRPs will join the
effort.
The current site owner was not the owner when the
contamination took place. The Region is experiencing
a significant number of 104(e) information requests.
This process has been slowed down becasue there
have been a number of bankruptcies and a number of
companies are not viable making the PRP search
difficult.
The removal action has been completed. Excavation
of soil has helped reduce risk and gather data for
future remedial work. All data required for the RI
have been gathered and the site remedy should be
prepared by May 1994. Information letters have been
sent to municipalities and there was little opposition.
There is a high level of community involvement and
there are environmental justice issues that will be
thoroughly addressed. Two groups have applied for
Technical Assistance Grants and the Region is
working with them to facilitate a joint application.
RESULTS
Preliminary positive results experienced by the Region
include bringing the State of Oklahoma in early at the
National Zinc site; the State reviewed documents,
facilitated meetings, and has been able to make a
significant contribution.
One of the problems in using the removal program
was funding. The Region experienced difficulty with
moving pilot funding to the removal program. There
is a need to fund projects more quickly.
The RDT has resulted in a much better relationship
between Superfund and the five states that make up
Region 6. This increased cooperation and
communication can lead to faster cleanups as
problems are identified and solved more quickly. The
Region anticipates that integrated sampling can lead
to faster cleanups at a reduced cost.
EVALUATION PLAN
Region 6 will evaluate the SACM demonstration pilot
using the same measures as the Lightning ROD pilots.
The primary distinction will be the effect of removal
actions at the National Zinc site on the four goals of:
Completing all preparation for the RI/FS and RD
before the site is proposed for inclusion on the
National Priorities List.
• Defining the total site remedy in the first year
through technical, policy, and process
improvements.
• Defining responsibility for remedial action in the
second year after addition to the NPL.
• Starting remedial action within three years of the
site's proposal to the NPL.
IV-63
-------
Region 7
Remediation Goals and Presumptive Remedy Initiative
PILOT DESCRIPTION
The Region 7 pilot focuses on developing guidance
on standard cleanup goals, remedy types, Record of
Decision (ROD) and Statement of Work (SOW)
language for grain storage sites, Polychlorinated
Biphenyl (PCB) sites, and coal gasification sites.
These sites represent significant problems in Region
7 as well as other Regions. Nationally, and within
the Region, the universe of each site type is large.
There is potential for approximately 1500 grain
storage sites, 50 PCB sites, and 265 coal gasification
sites to benefit by the application of this initiative in
Region 7. Once the guidance documents are
completed, pilot sites will be selected in Region 7 for
application of the standards to evaluate their success.
The three workgroups working on the pilot are: the
grain storage workgroup, the PCB workgroup, and the
coal gasification workgroup.
The pilot initiative provides an opportunity to
expedite the process while ensuring consistency at
sites where the contaminants and contaminated media
are similar, or where a limited range of cleanup
alternatives are available. This would be
accomplished through the development of guidance
supporting standard remediation goals and remedial
technologies.
Traditionally, arriving at the decision to select a
remedial alternative for a Superfund cleanup is a
lengthy process which can take in excess of three
years to complete. Often sites are investigated and
managed as unique problems to be solved, so there is
little opportunity to benefit from past experience.
Novice project managers are expected to execute an
extremely complex process without any formal
mechanism for learning from more experienced
project managers or sharing information with other
staff.
The expected benefits from use of the guidance
documents include: shortening the investigation and
negotiation time frames; improving the consistency
with which cleanup decisions are made; earlier RODs;
and quicker removal. In addition, standardized
remedy selections are expected to shorten the
negotiation process with PRPs and encourage more
early settlements and voluntary cleanups at sites that
are not NPL-caliber.
PILOT STATUS
Over the past year, the three workgroups have been
developing cleanup goals based on risk, available
technology, existing guidance, and Applicable or
Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) for
sites contaminated with grain fumigants, PCBs, or
coal gasification plant wastes. They are also
developing a set of presumptive remedial action
alternatives based on standard cleanup goals for these
three site types. They are creating standard language
for RODs and Remedial Investigations/Feasibility
Studies (RI/FSs), Remedial Design (RD) and
Remedial Action (RA) Statement of Work (SOW)
documents and standard risk assumptions and risk
computation guidelines. In addition, a method will be
developed to update these standards as the knowledge
base changes. The three workgroups will provide
technology justification and why alternatives are not
effective. The workgroups' goal is to build a
documentation case for why a particular technology is
presumptively acceptable for use at a particular site.
The workgroups will also examine factors such as the
source, location, and media; risk and existing
standards; and contaminant concentration.
Regional Project Managers (RPMs), On-Scene
Coordinators (OSCs), and attorneys with experience
in the negotiation or implementation of cleanups at
grain storage, PCB, or coal gasification sites are
participating on the workgroups to develop the
indicated standards and guidelines. The initiative will
also determine what resources are available nationally
to develop guidance and standards for remediation
goals and remedy selection. The following is the
process each workgroup is following for pilot
development: 1) ROD review/preliminary data
analysis; 2) preliminary remediation goals; 3) detailed
data gathering (technology assessment and site data
IV-64
-------
needs); 4) final data analysis; 5) report writing
(technology information, data collection needs, and
RI/FS/ROD draft language); and 6) approval arid
publication.
PCB Workgroup. The PCS workgroup
accomplished an extensive ROD search, examining
over 150 RODs for information regarding remedies
chosen, cleanup levels selected, and other information
pertaining to PCB sites. This research resulted in
finding that the more recent RODs tend to be
consistent with cleanup levels specified in the
Guidance on Remedial Action for Superfund Sites
with PCB Contamination. The workgroup has
developed soil Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRGs)
which are consistent with the guidance document.
Sites with special or unusual circumstances may
require alternate remediation goals. The workgroup
is in the process of reviewing the cleanup levels that
have been achieved by various treatment technologies
and the costs and other factors generally associated
with these technologies. Once the workgroup has
completed its review, it will write a draft report on its
findings that will be reviewed by Headquarters.
Coal Gasification Workgroup. The primary
contaminants of concern for coal gasification plants
are coal tar, specifically Polycyclic-Aromatic
Hydrocarbons (PAHs) in the soil. Therefore, the
workgroup is concentrating their efforts on PAH
source control. The coal gasification workgroup
performed a ROD review similar to that done by the
PCB workgroup. However, there was little
consensus found on selection of cleanup levels and
remedial technology in these RODs. The workgroup
conducted telephone interviews with a number of
RPMs responsible for the sites which had RODs.
Preliminary remediation goals were developed by the
workgroup for soil in residential and occupational
settings. The workgroup is examining applicable
treatment technologies. This guidance may be useful
not only at NPL sites but also in accelerating
voluntary cleanups and in making the SACM
approach of integrating removal and remedial
activities more effective.
Grain Storage Workgroup. One of the reasons
Region 7 chose grain storage sites as a component for
their pilot project is that the Department of
Agriculture is a potentially responsible party (PRP) at
almost every grain bin site within Region 7.
Therefore, there is a potential to speed up negotiations
if the Department of Agriculture accepts the proposed
presumptive remedies for all grain bin sites. The
main contaminant of concern associated with grain
bins is carbon tetrachloride. The most predominant
problems associated with these sites tend to be with
the groundwater. There are a limited number of
directly applicable RODs. The emphasis of the
research will be placed on examining the effectiveness
of treatment technologies. Cleanup levels will most
likely be determined by Applicable or Relevant and
Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) (i.e. Maximum
Contaminant Levels [MCLs]).
Next steps include finalizing guidance and beginning
to implement those guidances at selected sites in FY
94. This pilot project is expected to be completed by
May 1994.
EVALUATION PLAN
The evaluation plan for this pilot addresses the
measures and other concerns that could be monitored
if the program actually implements the guidance and
standard documents being produced by this pilot. It
is anticipated that use of presumptive remedies will
improve program effectiveness, efficiency, and equity,
as follows:
• Overall effectiveness will be enhanced because the
availability of standardized remedies will
accelerate cleanup for standard site "types".
• Efficiency will be improved since the known
remedy and the standardized language for
documents will speed the process, facilitate
reviews, and allow for more focused activities at
sites at every stage of the pipeline.
• Equity will be enhanced because site types will be
treated similarly throughout the country.
Evaluation measures that should illustrate the
expected improvements in efficiencies include:
• Time duration from NPL listing to RI/FS
completion and ROD signature should be reduced
significantly.
IV-65
-------
• Time required for each major phase, including RESULTS
RI/FS and RD.
The purpose of this pilot was to develop guidelines,
• Cost of these major phases, both extramural costs not to field-test them. Therefore, no actual results
and intramural oversight costs, should be reduced. that might indicate the impacts of the presumptive
remedy approach exist yet.
• Accelerated negotiations with PRPs
• Increase the number of voluntary cleanups
The expected qualitative benefits include:
• Improved consistency of chosen remedies at
similar site types across the nation.
• Reduced contention during post-ROD PRP
negotiations due to an early, clear understanding
of the remedial action contemplated at the site. If
the remedy has been used successfully at many
sites in the past, it may be more acceptable to the
PRP.
• More voluntary cleanups since a responsible party
may be more likely to volunteer to clean up a site
if the remedy for their particular site already exists
and a lengthy and costly feasibility study is not
needed.
IV-66
-------
Region 8
Accelerated Cleanups Initiative
PILOT DESCRIPTION
The goal of the Accelerated Cleanups Initiative pilot
is to identify the best candidate sites for accelerating
existing cleanup schedules to reach construction
completion in each fiscal year and to evaluate how
obstacles to accelerated completion can be overcome.
Before the pilot was implemented there was no
process in the Region for attempting to accelerate
construction completions. The traditional process
relies on the site team and the project manager at a
site to plan when the construction completion should
be reached and it is up to the project manager to
reach the goal. There was little Regional oversight to
ensure sites were accelerated to reach construction
completion before the pilot was initiated.
Region 8 used a Total Quality Management (TQM)
approach to evaluate a number of sites and to
determine which sites required additional management
attention and resources. In addition to the pre-
designation evaluation, the pilot includes constant
evaluation to foster communication and coordination
between site team members. This evaluation ensures
that all obstacles to accelerated cleanup are dealt with
effectively and quickly.
As a final evaluation step, all issues concerning each
site are brought before senior management officials to
help foster their involvement with all concerned
parties and to facilitate timely and quality work. For
each identified site, EPA provides evidence to the
Suite or community that the acceleration of cleanup
will not compromise the reduction of risk. EPA must
also convince PRPs to cooperate with accelerated
cleanups. The PRPs will usually cooperate if they
obtain some benefit through acceleration; however,
some PRPs may believe that they benefit by delaying
the process.
The pilot does not supersede adherence to the NCP,
CERCLA, SARA, and other relevant statutes and
EPA regulations.
PILOT STATUS
The sites chosen for the pilot are listed in the Table
15 with the corresponding savings in time achieved or
expected.
Site
Woodbury Chemical
White Wood Creek
Marshall Landfill
Arsenic Trioxide
Rose Park
Libby Groundwater
Scheduled
Completion
(Year/Quarter)
94/2
93/4
93/4
93/2
92/4
99/4
Accelerated
Completion
(Year/Quarter)
92/2*
92/4*
93/4
92/4*
92/3*
93/4*
Time Saved
(In Quarters)
+2
+4
0
+2
+1
+24
TABLE 15
Note: * indicates actual construction completion
IV-67
-------
In addition to the actual and planned time savings for
the 1992 and 1993 sites, the Region expects 25
quarters of further accelerated time frames for sites in
1994.
In 1992 four sites were completed, and in 1993 three
sites are projected for completion.
The pilot project was completed on September 30,
1993.
Through the accelerated cleanups initiative, cleanups
will be expedited and sites removed from the National
Priorities List (NPL) quicker then they were under the
traditional process. This reduces risk to the public
health and environment and assists the EPA and
Region to reach the national goal of 650 construction
completions by the year 2000.
EVALUATION PLAN
The evaluation of this pilot centers upon whether the
Region meets the completion goals for FY 92 through
FY 94. Thus this pilot addresses effectiveness as the
primary objective.
The Region will monitor, collect information on, and
evaluate the following measures:
• Number of construction completions in FY 93 and
FY 94; the target or baseline is four sites in FY
92, three in FY 93 and five in FY 94.
• Time saved from scheduled completion to actual
completion — baseline targets on a per site basis
are referenced above for 1992 and 1993
completions.
• The Region will also identify the management
strategies and other improvements that were most
effective in accelerating completions.
RESULTS
Region 8 has met its specified completion goals for
FY 92 and 93. This will decrease the number of sites
on the NPL; increase community acceptance due to
the increased number of sites taken off the NPL;
decrease the risk posed by NPL sites through the
completion of work at the sites; and assist the Region
and EPA in reaching the goal of 650 site completions.
EPA may have to convince communities that
accelerated cleanup will not compromise the quality
of the work or the level of risk reduction achieved.
The pilot encourages constant coordination and
communication between site team members to ensure
that all obstacles to accelerated construction
completion will be dealt with effectively and quickly.
Lessons learned from accelerated site experiences will
be transferred to other sites nation-wide through a
manual of good ideas.
Through acceleration of site completions, in FY 1992
the Region was able reach construction completion at
six sites:
Arsenic Trioxide:
Rose Park:
Whitewood Creek:
completed fourth quarter
FY 92 (2 quarters saved)
completed third quarter
FY 92 (1 quarter saved)
completed fourth quarter
FY 92 (4 quarters saved)
Woodbury Chemical: completed second quarter
FY 92 (2 quarters saved)
Marshall Landfill:
completed fourth quarter
FY 93 (0 quarters saved)
Libby Groundwater: completed fourth quarter
FY 93 (24 quarters saved)
By reaching construction completion at the sites
quicker than the Region would have under the
traditional process, the Region decreases the costs
through less EPA oversight and extramural dollars
spent cleaning up the sites.
IV-68
-------
Region 8
RI/FS Acceleration Pilot
PILOT DESCRIPTION
The goal of the remedial investigation and feasibility
study (RI/FS) accelerated pilot is to demonstrate that
for NPL-caliber sites, a more focused and compressed
investigation can yield considerable time and cost
savings.
This acceleration process expedites the overall
Superfund cleanup process by conducting these phases
simultaneously. This pilot concept is designed to
accomplish Superfund phases in a more efficient
manner and deliver results the public will value
including quick reduction of acute risks at all
Superfund sites (removal and remedial) and
restoration of the environment over the long-term.
Due to the intensified site investigations and sampling
done for the HRS package and the RI/FS prior to
listing, EPA will be able to move quickly towards the
selection and implementation of remedial actions after
listing.
Under the traditional phased approach to Superfund
cleanups, the RI/FS workplan would not be developed
until the HRS review was complete and the site was
officially listed on the NPL.
This accelerated approach to the cleanup process
differs from baseline practices because more data are
collected and studied before the site becomes listed on
the NPL. The Region may achieve their goal of
accelerated actions, accelerating risk reduction and
restoring the environment by using this new approach.
Intensified sampling and analysis earlier in the
process decreases the likelihood that contaminants
will be discovered late in the process and the need to
redo workplans and work already accomplished.
PILOT STATUS
The Summitville Mine site located in Rio Grande,
Colorado is a large tonnage open pit heap for leaching
gold. The owner of the heap declared bankruptcy and
abandoned the site in December, 1992. The site is
now a Fund-lead site. The pond containing the
contamination is 44 acres in area and more then 100
feet deep. The heap is estimated to have 170 to 200
million gallons of cyanide and heavy metal. The
potential contamination to irrigation sources and
drinking water emphasizes the need to expedite the
cleanup. The community has also expressed concern
about release into the nearby Alamosa river.
An emergency response is being conducted at the site
by the Emergency Response Branch. A Potentially
Responsible Party (PRP) search is currently
underway, and the HRS package has been processed
and the site has been proposed for the NPL.
The response activities at the site involve two major
strategies. The first divides the problems posed by
the site into time- and non-time-critical according to
the likely response action. Time-critical problems are
being evaluated and addressed by removal actions.
The non-time-critical problems, such as potentially
contaminated groundwater, will be evaluated in the
RI/FS workplan and addressed by future subsequent
removal or remedial actions. The second strategy
starts the development of the RI/FS workplan while
the HRS package is under review and prior to the
site's listing on the NPL.
The pilot is estimated to be complete on September
30, 1994 or when the site is listed as final on the
NPL.
EVALUATION PLAN
In evaluating this pilot Region 8 will examine the
efficiencies due to an integrated (remedial and
removal) program and from conducting parallel listing
and RI/FS activities. Acceleration of the RI/FS phase
and preparation of the HRS package should accelerate
the site through the cleanup process to construction
completion.
In addition, more efficient data collection is planned
since some data collected prior to listing for the HRS
IV-69
-------
package preparation are also appropriate for the
RJ/FS, and also should enable a more focused RD.
Region 8 will examine the following quantitative
evaluation measures:
• Time to prepare listing package
• Time duration from NPL listing to RI/FS start
• Time duration from site discovery to time-critical
action; risk reduction measures
• Time and cost savings of conducting early actions
(compared to remedial actions)
• Extramural costs of integrated ESI and RI/FS
versus combined cost of historical ESI and RI/FS.
The time duration from site investigation to listing is
not chosen as a measure although early listing would
seem to address this. The concern is that this time
duration for a given site usually reflects priorities and
resource decisions rather than efficiencies or
inefficiencies of the Superfund process.
RESULTS
Only two weeks were needed to prepare the HRS
package for this site compared to the estimated
national and Regional averages of three to six months.
(One additional person worked on the package 50%
of his time for two weeks.) The final listing is
expected to take about six months, which will be
quicker than the national and Regional averages.
It is estimated that the pilot approach will reduce the
time it takes to cleanup the site by more than one
year. This will be accomplished by expediting the
RI/FS, decreasing the time necessary to select a
remedy, making efficient use of contractors for
assessment and characterization and of remedial and
response activities at the site, and sharing data for the
Remedial Investigation and the HRS assessment.
The baseline for comparison of efficiency measures is
listed in Table 13, on the next page, for the
Summitville SACM pilot site.
Time and cost estimates based on the Summitville
Project Plan, July 13, 1993
The baseline reflects historical numbers from the
remedial program instead of from the removal
program, since progress at NPL sites is the goal of
this pilot.
Summitville Mine Site Data
Measure
Prepare Listing Package
Listing to RI/FS Start
Discovery to Time Critical Action
Time Savings from Early Action
Cost Savings from Early Action
Extramural RI/FS Costs
ESI Costs
National
Average
3-6 months
19.9 Quarters
Not Available (NA)
NA
NA
$940,000
$250,000
Region 8
Average
3-6 months
17.4 Quarters
NA
NA
NA
$350,000
NA
Pilot
6 weeks
1 day
2 weeks
9 years
$13,300,000
$1,300,000
$400,000
TABLE 13
IV-70
-------
Region 8
Sandy Smelters, Utah Pilot
PILOT DESCRIPTION
The goal of the Sandy Smelter Study pilot is to
demonstrate that integrating different site assessment
activities will save costs over the long-term as
compared to the traditional Superfund process. All
data gathering needs for the preliminary assessment
(PA) process through risk assessment are combined
into a single sampling process. This site is an
abandoned mining smelter and a site investigation has
demonstrated that on-site residential soils have been
contaminated with heavy metals.
The pilot will integrate the traditionally separate steps
of the PA/SI, RI, RD and if necessary the removal
assessment into one assessment. This should
significantly decrease the amount of testing required
and decrease duplicative testing. Where appropriate,
presumptive remedies will be used to implement large
scale remediation through non-time critical removals.
PILOT STATUS
The project was conducted in two phases: a screening
phase and a detailed assessment of smelters. The
screening phase began in October 1991. There were
34 abandoned smelters discovered in Salt Lake
County. The Utah Department of Environmental
Quality (UDEQ) requested that the Region 8
Emergency Response Branch assess the smelters.
Sixteen of those sites needed further assessment.
They were grouped into five areas. The Region 8
Emergency Response Branch collected samples from
these five areas to see if contamination actually
existed. The Murray and Sandy Smelter Areas
required additional assessment.
Phase two began in the Fall of 1992. It is a detailed
assessment of the Sandy and Murray Smelter Areas.
The Sandy Smelter Area was chosen for the pilot in
the SACM project because the land is primarily a
residential area. Murray, however, is an
industrial/commercial site and was not chosen as a
SACM site. The exposures at the Murray Smelter
Area are not considered to be as significant.
The Sandy Smelter Area has had a technical
assessment of soils, groundwater, interior dust of
homes, interior and exterior house paint, and
demographics surveys in homes with children ages 7
and under. The goal of phase two is to obtain
preliminary assessment and site investigation (PA/SI)
information, remedial investigation and feasibility
study (RI/FS) data, remedial design (RD) data, and
risk assessment (RA) information together, using site-
specific parameters and the IUBK model. This
provides a broader range of risk management choices,
rather than using default values.
Only one Potentially Responsible Party (PRP)
identified by the State is interested in participating in
the project. The accomplishments at the site include:
completion of field work; performance of
demographic health surveys of children in the area;
surface and ground water sampling which show no
contamination; performance of extensive community
relations work; and negotiations which commenced in
June, 1993.
The completion date for the pilot is estimated for
February 1994.
EVALUATION PLAN
Region 8 will monitor and collect data on efficiencies
expected from decreasing the time for each step in the
remedial process up through the RI/FS. Some cost
savings are expected from integrating the preliminary
testing at the site into one process and ensuring that
the work is effective. By integrating assessments the
Region defines a new and efficient process for
cleaning up sites.
IV-71
-------
The Region will collect data on the following:
• Time duration from beginning of PA to
completion of RI/FS
• Extramural costs of integrated assessment for
PA/SI-RI/FS.
The baseline for comparison of efficiency measures is
a combination of the measures included by the Region
in the evaluation plan and some CERCLIS measures
and can be found in Table 14.
The established baseline reflects historical numbers.
The Region will also estimate what the extramural
cost of the PA/SI/RI/FS would have been for the pilot
site because of the large difference between the
national and Regional averages for RI/FS costs.
Measure
Time from PA to RI/FS
Completion
Time for RI/FS (Fund
Lead)
Time for RD (Fund
Lead)
Extramural Cost of
RI/FS
Cost of PA/SI
National Average
N/A
14.5 Quarters
9.4 Quarters
$938,980
TBD
Region 8 Average
3 years
15.2 Quarters
10.4 Quarters
$349,932
TBD
TABLE 14
RESULTS
A three year process was decreased to one year. The
estimated one year it took for the PA/SI-RI/FS is less
than national and Regional averages by at least two
years.
The extramural cost of the combined assessments was
$750,000. This is higher than the Regional average.
Also, two rather than one project manager indicates
higher intramural costs than is typical. In the final
assessment, whether the accelerated process was
worth these extra costs -- assuming that the averages
are an appropriate baseline - should be evaluated.
Further time savings are expected. An estimated two
to six months will be required for the RD — by using
the RD from a similar site. This also is less than
national and Regional averages.
IV-72
-------
Region 8
PRP Incentives
PILOT DESCRIPTION
The goal of the PRP Incentives pilot is to identify
PRP incentives that will increase the number of,
accelerate, and improve the quality of PRP-lead NPL
site cleanups. The initial pilot objective was to
identify financial incentives for PRPs to accelerate
cleanup activities and to encourage PRPs to enter into
settlements with EPA.
PILOT STATUS
Region 8 is attempting to develop realistic and
workable incentives for accelerating PRP lead
activities through the use of the Total Quality
Management (TQM) approach. Possible incentives
which may be used by the Region include: financial
(i.e. mixed funding, reduction of past costs or future
costs, etc.); process/non-financial (i.e. special notice
waivers, use of non-Superfund authorities);
disincentives (i.e. enforcement, penalties, etc.);
intangible incentives (i.e. public recognition, de-
emphasis of liability issues); listing/non-listing
(deferrals or delayed listing); and good management
incentives (i.e. building credibility, use of early
negotiations).
The pilot's early attempts to offer financial incentives
was not completely successful. Armed with these
initial results and information gathered by a similar
pilot in EPA's Region 1 office, the Region 8 pilot
was re-evaluated. The Region decided to gather
direct input from PRPs.
To identify incentives, the Region held a national
conference with PRPs and their representatives on
April 15, 1993. At the conference EPA gained
valuable insight into PRP's views on incentives. The
Region and the PRPs discussed the types of incentives
that will encourage accelerated cleanups. A
conference report has been published which describes
a multitude of Superfund processes and Agency
streamlining activities that will accelerate cleanups
and expedite settlements.
EVALUATION PLAN
Initially two sites were pilot tested. These selected
incentives were expected to expedite settlement and
accelerate cleanup, leading to earlier risk reduction.
RESULTS
Financial incentives (such as the possibility of
reduced cost recovery for future oversight costs) were
described to a PRP cleaning up a North Dakota
Superfund site. Due to the PRP's concern about
publicity, they did not accept the financial incentive;
however, the PRP did accelerate cleanup activities
and shortened the duration by 11 months. The
average time from listing to construction completion
is 39.5 quarters (national average) and 23.1 quarters
(Region 8 average). Thus the 11 month time savings
significantly expedited the schedule and reduced
EPA's oversight costs.
At the other site where the Region proposed to offer
reduced past and future oversight costs, the PRP
refused to sign the Agency's Consent Decree because
they felt the conditions were too onerous. During
negotiations, the PRP provided no flexibility in this
position, thus the financial incentives were not
offered. Negotiations were not successful, however,
the PRP is implementing the terms of an
administrative order unilaterally issued by EPA.
The PRP Incentive Conference held on April 15,
1993, offers significant insight into the needs of PRPs
and their ideas on ways to expedite cleanups and
settlement. The most promising incentives are to
streamline the administrative procedures leading to
Remedial Design. Region 8 has distributed the
Conference report to HQ offices for communication
to other Regions and the States.
IV-73
-------
Region 8
Comprehensive Site Management
PILOT DESCRIPTION
Region 8 is managing an enforcement pilot for a
comprehensive cleanup covering all phases of the
CERCLA process from discovery of and investigative
studies through cleanup and operations and
maintenance. The goal of this pilot is to expedite the
Superfund process by use of a single Consent Decree
with the primary Potentially Responsible Party (PRP).
Full compliance by the PRP with the Consent Decree
would have superseded the need to list the site on the
National Priority List (NPL).
The focus of the proposed Consent Decree was an
innovative enforcement mechanism by which all
remedial and removal activities at a mega-site could
be covered in a single enforcement action. The pilot
site is quite large (120 square miles) and is likely to
have approximately 20 operable units. It is an active
mining operation which has produced a wide variety
of wastes over its 130 year mining history. Because
cleanup decisions have not been made, the proposed
Consent Decree described the processes and concepts
EPA would use to make these decisions.
The first activity envisioned in the pilot would be
development of a Study Area Management Plan
which delineates operable units, proposes whether to
use the removal or remedial process for each and
schedules the activities at each site. Site-wide risk
assessment, quality assurance plans, single site
assessments, and generic remedies will be developed
to eliminate duplicative studies and paperwork.
Permits from other state and federal programs would
be incorporated into Records of Decision and Action
Memos eliminating duplicative oversight by multiple
programs.
Schedules involving cleanups at operating facilities
can be developed far in advance so that arrangements
can be made to facilitate operational needs.
Community participation is encouraged by including
community representatives on various task forces and
work groups, and providing grants to communities
and citizen groups to defray the costs of participation.
The pilot represents an effort to use innovative
enforcement, site management, and community
relations approaches at a mega-site without the
community and corporate stigma associated with
listing on the NPL.
PILOT STATUS
The pilot was slated for testing at a mining site in
Utah. Consent Decree negotiations were started in
November 1991 and were discontinued in January
1993. The PRP rejected the proposed Consent Decree
in August 1993. However, EPA hopes to use many
of the technical and administrative innovations from
the negotiations in a more traditional enforcement
framework.
During the period of negotiations (1991 - 1993),
seven removals, under order and with EPA oversight,
were started, and three are completed.
EVALUATION PLAN
Qualitative evaluation will include assessment of
technical and administrative innovations for their
feasibility of implementation at Superfund sites and
mega-sites. Quantitative evaluation will examine the
time and costs incurred by the enforcement
negotiations in comparison to times and costs of more
typical individual agreements.
RESULTS
The major PRP, has already begun to conduct
removals at the site. Some removals are under order
with EPA and state oversight and others are being
conducted on a voluntary basis without EPA and state
oversight.
The only other PRP, has begun removal work on the
areas for which it is responsible, under two removal
orders from EPA.
IV-74
-------
Two Task Forces have been formed which have The concept of negotiating a single enforcement
community representation. A Land Use Conference instrument for all site activities did nit work at this
was held to determine what the communities, county, site. This concept would be more appropriate for
state and PRP envision for future land use on and smaller, less complicated sites. There were too many
near the site. EPA has received praise for its cost and legal uncertainties for use at mega-sites. It
involvement of local communities in site activities was clear, however, that the communities and the
and planning. state considered the concept to be a good idea.
IV-75
-------
Region 8
Cross Program/Multi-Media Approach
Annie Creek, South Dakota Site
PILOT DESCRIPTION
The goal of this pilot is to clean up a Superfund site
using a cross-program/multi-media approach. The
Annie Creek Mine Tailing Site was proposed for the
NPL and, as such, the pilot was designed to use an
innovative approach to expedite, yet follow, the
CERCLA process. The resourceful approach used
alternative authorities by sending a request for
information under the Clean Water Act Section 308
and Clean Air Act Section 114 (CWA/CAA) to
initiate the remedial investigation.
The Region and the PRP saved time and resources
using the CWA/CAA request to initiate the
investigation instead of negotiating traditional
Superfund orders. Further, this approach created a
less adversarial environment and allowed all parties to
focus on technical resolutions to site cleanup which
resulted in the PRP conducting site work within one
month of the request.
The innovative approach also uses PRP incentives to
expedite the project. The incentive for agreement to
initiate site work under the CWA/CAA request, not
only included cost savings by avoiding negotiation of
orders, the Region's policy was that Water
Management Divisions oversight of the CWA/CAA
request would not be included in Superfund costs
reimbursement. The Region would seek costs
associated only with Superfund's oversight. The
policy proved to be successful, but it does represent
the cost reimbursement concern associated with the
use of statutory authorities other than CERCLA.
Following initiation of the work plan, the team's
technical approach is to use removal process (non-
time critical). The use of the removal as opposed to
the remedial process is estimated to substantially
reduce the time to implement the action. While using
the removal authority, the Region was careful to
incorporate all substantive aspects of the remedial
program to ensure a comprehensive approach to site
cleanup. In anticipation of a final action, full
documentation supporting all remedial procedures is
expected. As such, the Annie Creek EE/CA is
functionally equivalent to an RI/FS as it contains full
media characterization, Baseline Risk Assessment
(conducted by EPA - including human and ecological
sections), ARARs, and a focused alternative analysis.
PILOT STATUS
The Site was proposed for the NPL in July 1991, but
has not been finalized. The CWA Section 308/CAA
Section 114 request was issued on May 11, 1992 for
site characterization. With the cooperation of the
PRP, the EE/CA was completed September 27, 1993
and is available for public comment (10/12/93 -
11/11/93). The main contaminant of concern is
arsenic. The preferred remedy includes revegetation,
drainage diversion and institutional controls. EPA
anticipates the final remedy will be implemented
under a removal AOC. The physical construction is
expected to be complete in September 1994 adding to
the Agency's list of construction completions. The
close out of the site will be determined at a later date
as the site is not yet finalized on the NPL.
EVALUATION PLAN
The Region has identified several measures of success
for the site and has estimated preliminary results.
The pilot effectively used a single innovation,
alternative authorities (CWA/CAA), to initiate the
Superfund investigation, but more importantly set a
positive tone of cooperation with the PRP. Further,
the team utilized available tools to encourage PRP
cooperation by developing incentives and establishing
IV-76
-------
open communications with the PRP to institute a win-
win approach for EPA, PRP and the public without
compromising the Superfund process. The Region
will track the following:
• Time from NPL proposal to RI start
• Time from NPL proposal to Remedy proposal to
public
• Time from NPL proposal to decision document
• Time from NPL final to site deletion
• Time from Agency enforcement action to RI start
• Time from Agency enforcement action to remedy
proposal to the public
• Time from Agency enforcement action to
construction complete
• Overall Superfund costs (FTEs, contractor, State,
etc.) for enforcement of site cleanup
• Percent of costs recovered and time to recover
costs
• EE/CA time frame versus typical RI/FS time
frame
• EE/CA completion to action start versus typical
RI/FS time frame for design complete to action
start
• Removal AOC negotiations versus typical
remedial RD/RA negotiations
• Time from NPL Proposal to NPL delisting
The Region will use typical time frames in Region 8
and time frames, duration of activities, and pricing
factors in the 1994 SCAP manual for baseline
comparison. The baseline is essentially the time
frame and costs associated with a traditional NPL site.
RESULTS
The Region estimates that more than six months have
already been saved as compared to the planned dates
for a traditional RI/FS. Savings to EPA for the entire
cleanup are projected to be at least 2 years and at
least $250,000. The PRP may also realize significant
cost savings.
IV-77
-------
Region 9
SACM Site Assessment Pilot
PILOT DESCRIPTION
The purpose of the Region 9 SACM Site Assessment
pilot is to determine how much information can
feasibly and cost effectively be collected through a
single integrated site assessment process to satisfy
other Superfund remedial and response program
needs. The SACM Site Assessment process
incorporates multi-program data gathering at the front-
end of the Superfund investigation process.
Depending upon the site, the single integrated
assessment may be designed to satisfy up to four
sampling objectives: 1) Preliminary Assessment and
Site Inspection (PA/SI) sampling for the Hazard
Ranking System (MRS); 2) data to both determine the
appropriateness of a time critical or emergency
response, and allow the Region to complete the
action(s); 3) information to assist in determining the
scope of a non-time critical removal; and 4) for sites
with apparent long-term impacts to human health or
the environment, the early assessment will better
characterize the extent of the problem, provide
information so that a long-term action may be taken
early in the process, and assist in the selection of the
appropriate remedy (the Remedial Investigation/
Feasibility Study [RI/FS]).
The pilot introduces two phases, the Integrated
Assessment (IA) and the Expanded Site
Inspection/Remedial Investigation (ESI/RI). However,
the principle focus of the Region 9 pilot has been
narrowed to the IA only. The IA is a single
continuous assessment that begins with the
evaluations of available records and may also include
field sampling to more accurately determine if a site
is National Priorities List (NPL)-Caliber. If the site
does not score after the-available records search, a PA
document is generated. If the site may potentially
score based on the evaluation of available records, the
site will move directly into field sampling and an IA
document is prepared (PA/SI). The scope of both the
traditional PA and SI data gathering has been
expanded to include human health, ecological, and
emergency response information. If after the records
review it is determined that field sampling is required,
a multi-program scoping session is conducted and the
site moves directly into the field sampling stage.
Generally, the information gathered in the field stage
will be focused to allow the Region to take time
critical or, in some instances, non-time critical
removals. The multi-program scoping session
includes On-Scene Coordinators (OSCs), Remedial
Project Managers (RPMs), toxicologists, and
representatives from other Superfund support
programs, and is used to identify the incremental
information required to determine if a site is NPL-
caliber and support decision making for early
action(s). The ESI/RI is a much more comprehensive
investigation than the IA and will typically be used on
sites that are clearly NPL-caliber. The ESI/RI may be
used to gather ESI/RI/FS and/or Engineering
Evaluation and Cost Analysis (EE/CA) Information.
The pilot evaluated sites that fall into one of three
following categories: 1) newly discovered sites; 2)
sites that have been assessed but still require
additional data to determine if they are NPL-caliber;
and 3) sites that are NPL-caliber and may be a high
priority for NPL listing and early action. The use of
these categories ensures that the entire pilot process
(from initial assessment through early action
recommendations to the Regional Decision Team
[RDT]) is tested in a relatively short time-span.
Work began on the category one sites (newly
discovered) in December, 1992. Scoping sessions
began on the category two sites (IA field sampling)
and category three sites (ESI/RI) on February 10,
1993.
Under the SACM Site Assessment pilot, the Region
is collecting significantly more samples in the IA and
ESI/RI than would typically be taken in a CERCLA
SI or ESI, respectively. Also the Region is using the
Field Analytical Support Program (FASP) on-site
laboratory and other screening techniques to analyze
field samples whenever possible. The Contract
Laboratory Program (CLP) is used in the pilot to
verify select field samples for the HRS or for
developing information for risk-screening decisions.
Also, an applicability checklist is currently being
developed to aid OSCs in determining if a site is
NPL-caliber (does the site have a long-term
IV-78
-------
component) at the Removal Assessment stage. The
checklist will use generic MRS decision criteria to
determine which sites have obvious long-term
considerations and would benefit from early HRS,
Risk Assessment, an/or RPM input. This applicability
checklist would be used to determine if multi-program
IA scoping sessions should be conducted on Removal
lead sites. Once this checklist is developed, a test
period will be conducted to test the effectiveness of
the checklist for identifying NPL-caliber sites with
limited and/or subjective data.
The pilot project modifies the traditional cleanup
process by expanding the investigative work and
analysis done before the site becomes listed on the
NPL. The goal is to start cleanup before, or in lieu
of, the NPL rulemaking process.
PILOT STATUS
Background
The primary pilot sites have been selected for each of
the three categories. The Region identified and
prioritized the sites for the category one from a list of
50 newly discovered sites using surrounding
population and proximity to drinking water wells for
assigning priority. The category two and three sites
were determined through internal prioritization and
input from the RDT. Alternative sites were identified
in the event that sites prematurely fall out of the pilot
by not requiring further investigative work. The
progress on these sites has been routinely evaluated
by a cross-program subcommittee comprised of
members of the Region 9 SACM Pilot Workgroup.
The purpose of this review has been to obtain a real
time evaluation of the process so that improvements
to the pilot could be made.
The pilot field work began in December, 1992, and
the Region expects to have completed all of the field
studies by December, 1993. An interim findings
report and final report will be developed by the
Region. These reports are discussed in the Results
section.
Current Status
A total of ten sites received the expanded records
search of the IA. Eight of these sites were non-
scoring and were closed out with a PA document.
Two sites moved into the field sampling portion of
the IA. Additionally, five sites began at the sampling
phase of the IA. These sites are summarized below.
An IA was conducted at Dodson Brothers Oil, an
unpermitted treatment, storage and disposal facility
for waste fuel, waste oil and other liquid hazardous
wastes. A comprehensive workplan was developed
for this site, however, due to the high cost, the
workplan was rewritten and the scope narrowed to
gather only data to support early decision-making.
The RPM requested that three vertical borings be
completed to a depth of 50 feet below the ground
surface through three surface impoundments. Also,
the RPM requested that the presence of an
underground storage tank be determined. Significant
contamination was detected at this site and a full
10,000 gallon underground storage tank was
discovered during the field portion of the IA. The
Region is exploring the option of a removal at this
site.
An IA was conducted at the Nevaco, Inc. site. This
site is an abandoned printing facility located on the
Pyramid Lake Indian Reservation, in Washoe County,
Nevada. The sampling at this site included
groundwater, surface and subsurface soils near a
drywell and sediment sampling for potential
ecological/human health receptors. Sampling results
indicate that no further action is appropriate for this
site.
An IA was conducted at the Sobex site, the location
of a former oil recycler. The workplan for this site
was also narrowed after comment from the scoping
team. This sampling included groundwater, surface
and subsurface soils, and the sampling of a waste pile.
Also, the Region is working cooperatively with the
State to provide site access and split samples for Suite
cleanup of CERCLA exempt substances. The results
of this sampling have not been thoroughly evaluated.
An IA was conducted on the Sierra Pacific site,
located in Hayfork, California. This site is a former
wood treating facility. The IA included the use of
Rapid Immunoassay Screening (RIS) procedures for
Pentachlorophenol (PCP) in soils and sediments. The
RIS procedures were used to target locations for
sediment and soil sampling. Also, the toxicologist
requested total organic carbon and grain size studies
on the sediments to support a future risk-screen.
IV-79
-------
An IA was conducted on the Indian Wells Estates
site, in South Gate, California. The Region is
currently evaluating possible early actions at this site.
There were two other IA sites evaluated in the pilot,
however, neither site required field sampling.
An ESI/RI was conducted at Bowles Flying Service,
in Live Oak, California. This was the first site in the
Region 9 pilot process and the workplan for field
investigations required considerable revision. Because
of concerns raised over the projected cost of the
initial workplan versus the projected cost of site
cleanup through a removal, the scope of the
investigation was rewritten and narrowed. The
Remedial Project Manager requested that the
traditional ESI sampling be expanded to include
development of three on-site monitor wells;
performance of a slug test; expansion of the number
of wells sampled; expansion of the list of
contaminants sampled to include Organophosphate
and Carbarnate/Urea pesticides; a well survey for site
specific ground water height and flow directions; and
a survey of the site for potential soil removal. The
lexicologist requested expanding the sampling to
include Contaminants of Concern for ecological
receptors, expanding the number of sediment samples
and adding to organic carbon and alkalinity test for
fate and transport of contaminants in the sediments.
There were no specific data gathering requirements
requested by the removal program for this site. Final
recommendations for this site are still being
formulated.
EVALUATION PLAN
The Region has developed an extensive evaluation
plan to analyze the results of the pilot. It is expected
that the expanded data gathering process will yield
considerable benefits to the Region's approach to site
cleanup. Increases in effectiveness and efficiency
stem from the following:
• The total amount of sampling required at the Site
Assessment stage will be increased, but the total
amount of sampling required to get to cleanup,
when compared to the traditional Superfund
process, will be much less. This is largely
because it will be known much earlier in the
process what level of contamination exists at the
site.
• A quicker more comprehensive Site Assessment
process is initially conducted. This has been
accomplished in part by combining the traditional
PA and SI into one continuous investigation.
• Information obtained in the Site Assessment
process will be immediately available to support
remedial and removal decision-making. Cleanup
will occur much earlier in the Superfund process
because delays that may occur later in the cleanup
process due to insufficient data will be eliminated.
• The Region estimates that under the SACM Site
Assessment process, the expanded data collection
and evaluation of the IA will take approximately
three months, the field sampling phase of the IA
will take approximately six months, and an ESI/RI
will take approximately nine months.
The anticipated outcome of this single site assessment
process will be evaluated using the following tangible
measures:
• The time required from site discovery to when a
final decision is made for pilot sites, compared to
national and regional averages. The Region
anticipates the pilot process will be much shorter
than historical Superfund evaluations.
• The additional cost of expanded data gathering in
the pilot review of available records compared to
the number of hours required for Regional and
National PAs. The Region expects that there will
be an incremental increase in costs due to
expanded data gathering, however, this cost will
be off-set if decisions for cleanup on scoring sites
can be made earlier.
• The additional cost of field sampling at the IA
versus National and Regional sampling SI costs.
Because additional sampling is required, the
Region expects an increase in assessment costs.
Again, the Region believes these costs will be off-
set due to early actions.
• The average number of additional samples
required to support other program decision-making
when compared to the Regional and National
average number of samples for HRS purposes
only. The Region expects that the total number of
samples obtained in IA sampling events will be
IV-80
-------
significantly higher. However, the vast majority
of the sampling will utilize low costs screening
equipment. For this reason, the total analytical
costs may actually be lower.
• The additional time and costs required for an
ESI/RI compared to a traditional ESI. It is
anticipated that the total cost and time required for
an ESI/RI will be greater than a traditional ESI.
However, the ESI/RI will be much shorter than a
traditional RI, resulting in a net savings.
The Region will also attempt to evaluate the more
intangible measures of pilot success, such as:
• Whether the data gathered at the early assessment
phase was useful for RDT decision-making.
• Whether the data quality objectives for early
sampling are sufficient for future data uses,
including the HRS/NPL listing.
The baseline for comparison can be found in Table
16.
For the Region 9 Swift process the average time from
site discovery to final decision on a site is 10.8
months. The average LOE for a Swift PA/SI is 443
hours.
While the Region expects the time required to
complete a SACM IA will approach the 10.8 months
required for a Swift Site Assessment, a the actual
average for time and LOE are still to be determined.
The Region will collect information for comparison to
the baselines found in Table 16 on the following
variables:
Time from discovery until a
made.
Hours for an IA record search
Hours for IA field sampling
Hours for a full IA
Hours for an ESI/RI
final decision is
Tradition Superfund Averages
Measure
Time from discovery
until a final decision is
made
Level of Effort (LOE)
for a traditional PA
LOE for a traditional SI
Total LOE for a
traditional PA/SI
LOE for an ESI
LOE for an RI/FS
National Average
To Be Determined
135 hours
440 hours
575 hours
1100 hours
TBD
Region 9 Average
31.7 months
122 hours
431 hours
553 hours
TBD
TBD
TABLE 16
IV-81
-------
RESULTS
The Region has developed a process and decision
making flow diagram, a Human Health and
Ecological Concerns Data Booklet and developed a
removal program data gathering process. The flow
diagram identifies the major SACM concepts and how
the SACM Site Assessment process is completed
within the organization. The Human Health and
Ecological Concerns Booklet was developed through
interviews with lexicologists and is used by field
personnel in the initial investigation to gather specific
information to support a future risk-screen. The
removal program data gathering process is used by
field personnel to gather information in determining
if a site is eligible for a removal action and assist
OSCs in determining the appropriateness of a
removal. This criteria is defined in the National
Contingency Plan (NCP).
Although an ESI/RI was completed in the Site
Assessment pilot study, one of the early lessons of the
pilot was that the ESI/RI is much more costly and
complex than an IA and, therefore, it is more
appropriate for sites with a long-term component. For
this reason, the Region decided that the RDT should
have input on whether an ESI/RI will be conducted.
Also, because the ESI/RI will typically be conducted
on sites with a long-term component, more RPM
input would be required. In the future, all ESI/RIs
will be conducted at the recommendation of the RDT
and will be RPM lead.
An integral part of the SACM Site Assessment pilot
is the role of screening to determine the appropriate
location for obtaining data to support decisions. The
Region is expanding the role of screening data and
using the CLP for confirmatory purposes. Data
obtained for documenting an observed release for the
HRS will receive full validation on 100 percent of
Regular and Special Analytical Services. All other
data will be screening level. Data gathered for
Remedial use includes field screening with
confirmation of 10 percent of the samples. Data
gathered for the removal program will be confirmed
by the CLP only on an as needed basis.
As discussed previously, an interim and final report
will be developed by the Region. The interim reports
will discuss the pilot process in detail and provide a
brief discussion of some of the major lessons learned.
The interim reports is tentatively scheduled for the
2nd quarter of FY 94. The final report will present
the findings of the pilot, including an analysis of site
specific SACM activities, costs and schedules, a
discussion of unresolved issues, and potential barriers
to implementation. The final report is tentatively
scheduled for second or third quarter of FY 94.
IV-82
-------
Region 9
Plug-in Rod
Indian Bend Wash South, Arizona Site
PILOT DESCRIPTION
The Plug-in Approach is a way of structuring a
remedy for Superfund sites such as Indian Bend
Wash-South Superfund Site (IBW-South) in Tempe,
Arizona. The approach can be used when a
Superfund site contains multiple areas or "subsites"
that are similar physically and share similar
contaminants. Each subsite exhibits contamination
that must be addressed. This Approach is being
applied to the IBW-South site, where up to 30
multiple and separate facilities may have contributed
Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) contamination to
groundwater. IBW-South covers about three square
miles. VOCs in soils at all subsites will be addressed
by the single operable unit ROD as part of this pilot.
This pilot combines two innovative approaches, the
Plug-in Approach and the Presumptive Remedy, to
compress the time required to reach the remedial
design stage at the IBW-South "mega-site."
The plug-in remedy identifies Soil Vapor Extraction
(SVE) as a standard Remedial Action (RA), and then
defines a process that will be used to determine where
the remedial action shall be applied. The ROD does
not select an RA for a specific subsite. Rather, the
ROD selects an RA to apply to any subsite exhibiting
certain conditions. The ROD defines what these
conditions are, and selects a process of determining
whether or not they exist.
A Plug-in remedy is selected prior to fully
characterizing the subsites. Subsites will be
characterized concurrently or at different times. If the
conditions at a subsite match predefined conditions,
then the subsite will "plug-in," or attach, to a remedial
action. Each subsite will be subject to a separate
Plug-in decision. The ROD fully contains the basis
and process to be used for all Plug-in decisions.
Therefore, simply following the prescribed process in
the ROD completes the remedy for any particular
subsite. The Plug-in remedy contains a blueprint
directing decisions as to its own application.
By separating selection of SVE, the cleanup
technology, from a decision about its application at a
particular subsite, EPA can verify that the cleanup
technology is appropriate for a subsite after all
sampling data about it have ben collected. At the
same time, EPA does not have to evaluate and select
a separate remedy for each subsite.
After plugging in, the RD and RA can begin at a
subsite. Subsites not matching the conditions and
criteria are not plugged in, but still can be addressed,
if necessary by other remedies, removal actions or
through modifications to the remedy. Because
"surprises" may occur during Focused RI work at a
subsite, the plug-in approach is designed to be
flexible enough to adjust to unexpected conditions.
Remedial action will occur at some subsites while
investigation work continues at other subsites. Thus
site-wide, remedial investigation and remedial action
occur concurrently.
PILOT STATUS
The Feasibility Study, Proposed Plan, and
Administrative Record were made available for public
comment in June 1993. EPA has held the required
public meetings. The public comment period was
extended 30 days and will close in August 1993. The
region anticipates the Plug-in ROD will be signed by
the end of FY 93. The main body of benefits of this
pilot will not accrue or be measurable until after the
ROD is signed.
IV-83
-------
EVALUATION PLAN
Region 9 performed a very detailed evaluation of
projected benefits from this pilot, in January 1993
(Preliminary Assessment of Potential Value of Plug-in
Remedy/Presumptive Remedy at the Indian Bend
Wash Superfund Site). This evaluation presents both
tangible and intangible benefits to the plug-in
approach. While quantifiable, tangible benefits are
important, there are many intangible benefits which
can be just as important and must be considered. In
addition, the attached evaluation discusses some of
the difficulties in directly quantifying the benefits of
the Approach, even though there is a sound basis for
assuming they will exist.
Quantitatively, the above-referenced document
predicted that the following may be accomplished by
the pilot, given certain assumptions outlined here:
• Save a decade of time in overall soil site response
time;
• Begin RD one to five years sooner, depending on
which approach would have been taken had EPA
not used this approach; and
• At least double the rate at which subsites enter
RD.
The following is a brief summary of some of the
generalized benefits expected from this pilot:
• Redundant remedy selection processes (Operable
Unit [OU] FSs and OU RODs) are criminated;
RD and cleanup can begin immediately where the
most common conditions exist.
• Remedial Action Starts Sooner and Proceeds at a
Greater Rate. The approach allows RI and RD
work to proceed simultaneously, and most subsites
move directly from RI to RD. Therefore, not only
is the entire RI/FS/ROD process completed
sooner, but actual cleanup work starts even sooner
and moves at a faster pace. (Note that the Plug-in
approach does not imply eliminating the
Feasibility Study [FS] - a full FS still supports the
Plug-in ROD) .
• The RI and FS are decoupled; cleanup work is not
held up. Non-synchronous RI schedules among
individual subsites significantly delay mega-site
projects, when the FS and ROD depend on
progress or completion of RI work. Under Plug-
in, no single subsite's RI work holds up the
overall Superfund process.
Value of the Concept Itself. Obviously, the
concept of Plug-in, could be used elsewhere and
could initiate new thinking and new approaches to
multi-source-site management in Superfund. The
effect of this cannot be quantified, but it may
ultimately be the approach's greatest benefit. It is
important, therefore, not to judge the concept
solely on its performance at the specific situation
at IBW-South.
The approach provides an earlier focus for Data
Collection. Because all the elements of the
remedy have been laid out ahead of time, all
subsequent RI work after the ROD is more
focused on the remedy. Should a subsite be
determined as needing the plug-in, much of the RI
data will already double as RD data, and so the
RD process will be shortened. This shortening is
difficult to quantify, but should be substantial as
it is realized over multiple subsites.
Public/PRP Perception & Cooperation Benefit.
The approach directly counters the public
perception at mega-sites that "nothing is
happening." By establishing the cleanup early,
there is a much more substantial perception of the
"bottom line" and EPA's direction, which will
increase public confidence and decrease future
community relations problems. These factors
cannot be quantified, but are nonetheless
extremely valuable to EPA and to overall progress
at multi-source sites.
Reduction in Transaction and Oversight Costs.
Costs are expected to be greatly reduced simply
because of the reduction of time involved in
completing the project. Costs can be correlated
with time because basic contractor activities are
strongly time-dependent. The same holds true for
EPA internal costs such as payroll and travel.
Also, because multiple major deliverables (FS for
each subsite, OU ROD for each subsite, proposed
plan for each subsite, response summary for each
subsite, AR for each subsite, etc.) are not being
produced under this approach, the costs associated
1V-84
-------
with developing, overseeing, redrafting,
commenting, disseminating, document
indexing/management, responding to Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) and public inquiries, etc.,
for all these documents are eliminated.
For more details, see Preliminary Assessment of
Potential Value of Plug-in Remedy/Presumptive
Remedy at the Indian Bend Wash Superfund Site.
Measures for FY 94
Because of the huge numbers of factors which
contribute to the time and funds required to execute
mega-site projects (such sites are actually many
subsites within a site), a comparison of IBW-South
with other mega-sites as an evaluation of the Plug-in
approach would be largely a meaningless exercise.
Likewise, because this is the first Plug-in ROD, it has
understandably taken longer to achieve than Plug-in
RODs will require in the future, once guidelines and
procedures are established. Finally, at IBW-South,
five years passed before the Plug-in Approach was
implemented. Therefore, a measure based on total
time to execute the project as a whole and reach final
cleanup for all facilities is not feasible and is not
recommended.
The following means for providing some quantitative
evaluation for this pilot in the next fiscal year is
planed:
• The amount of time for each individual facility to
go through the Plug-in process will be compared
with a national average for remedy selection at
small sites requiring soil vapor extraction remedies
for VOCs in soils.
The measure for Plug-in will be the amount of time
required for an individual facility (subsite) to move
from RI completion to initiation of remedial design.
As the remedy is "preselected" by the Plug-in ROD,
all that is needed for such a facility is to apply the
Plug-in process in the ROD to that facility, and make
a "plug in determination."
The measure for the national-averaged "VOC in soil"
site will be the amount of time required to move from
RI completion through an FS (or OU FS) and a ROD
process (or OU ROD process) to initiation of remedial
design.
This time savings can then be multiplied (roughly) by
the number of facilities "plugging in".
The first subsite is not expected to Plug-in until late
1993 and so this evaluation will not be possible until
that time.
RESULTS
The previously referenced preliminary assessment
shows several results that can already be assumed to
be accruing due to the use of this Approach. Both
quantifiable and unquantifiable results are estimated.
Because the Plug-in ROD is not yet signed, the major
results from the pilot cannot yet be directly measured.
There is one definite result: under a more traditional
approach, a ROD would not have been possible at
this site for soils for perhaps another three years or
more. By using the approach, a ROD was possible
immediately, freeing the site for some RD/RA activity
as early as 1993.
IV-85
-------
Region 9
Early De Minimis Settlement,
Operating Industries, Inc., California Site
PILOT DESCRIPTION
The Operating Industries, Inc. (Oil) in Monterey Park,
California Early De Minimis pilot project involves
designing and implementing an early settlement
strategy for the 3,500 de minimis Potentially
Responsible Parties (PRPs) that disposed of hazardous
waste at the Oil landfill. The goal is to complete the
settlement by the end of the first quarter of FY 1995,
before the final remedy is selected and the final
Remedial Design/Remedial Action (RD/RA) Consent
Decree (CD) negotiations.
A de minimis settlement will facilitate the final
RD/RA negotiations with the major PRPs and protect
de minimis PRPs from third party negotiations.
(Traditionally, de minimis notice letters would be sent
out a year later (mid-1995) than they are for this
pilot.) At final settlement with the major PRPs, the
"handling" of the de minimis parties will not be an
issue because their de minimis settlements will already
have taken place. The final negotiations will be more
generic due to the avoidance of the arguments of
different interests. Under this new method of
negotiating, both the major and de minimis parties are
given independent opportunities to present their
concerns without being overshadowed by the other
party.
This new process of conducting negotiations with the
de minimis and the major PRPs separately is
somewhat different than the traditional process of
negotiating with all of the parties at the same time.
Using the traditional process, it would be necessary to
take into account the interests of these very different
parties. The negotiations become lengthy and costly
because of the need to accommodate the diverse
parties. Under the pilot process, the Region
anticipates a time and money savings because the
individual negotiations proceed at a faster pace due to
the similar interests of the parties involved. The new
process has an equitable effect by ensuring that all
parties' interests are met.
PILOT STATUS
The 190-acre Oil site is an inactive municipal landfill
in Monterey Park, California. Surrounding land use
is primarily industrial, however, 53,000 residences are
located within three miles of the site. On-site
disposal activities began in 1948, and continued until
1984. Wastes accepted at the landfill included
household and organic refuse, scrap metal, non-
decomposable inert solids, and liquid wastes. The
landfill was capped with a soil cover after operations
ceased. Two 1987 Records of Decision (RODs)
addressed site control, monitoring, and leachate
management. A third ROD, signed in 1988,
addressed landfill gas collection and treatment system.
Each ROD represents an Operable Unit (OU) which
can be defined as a treatment phase conducted at the
site. Since that time, continued settling of on-site
landfill wastes and the occurrence of subsurface fires
have decreased the integrity of the existing landfill
cap. As a result, oxygen and precipitation have
intruded landfill wastes. A 1990 ROD amended the
original 1988 landfill gas migration control ROD to
include the addition of an upgraded landfill cap. The
amended selected Remedial Action (RA) includes
capping the landfill to reduce surface gas emissions,
to prevent oxygen intrusion and surface water
infiltration, and to provide for erosion control;
installing landfill gas extraction wells around the
perimeter and on the top of the cap; collecting and
treating landfill gas by incineration; and dewatering
saturated landfill zones. The primary contaminants of
concern affecting the air are Volatile Organic
Compounds (VOCs) including benzene,
polychloroethylene (PCE), tetrachloroethylene (TCE),
and toluene.
The Oil landfill is divided by the Pomona Freeway
into two areas, a south parcel and a north parcel. The
south parcel is approximately 145 acres in size and is
characterized by 43 acres of relatively flat top deck
and 102 acres of sloped areas. The majority of the
145-acre south parcel was used for waste disposal
IV-86
-------
whereas approximately 15 acres of the western area
of the north parcel were used for waste disposal.
The landfill is covered by a soil layer of variable
thickness. The cover tends to be thicker on the top
deck and thinner on the slopes and consists of varying
amounts of clay, sand, and silt. The engineering
characteristics of the cover are highly variable and,
generally, are not adequate for landfill closure.
Surface cracking, depressions, and evidence of erosion
exist at many locations around the landfill. The
primary deficiencies of the existing cover are that it
does not: 1) prevent gaseous surface emissions; 2)
prevent oxygen intrusion into the refuse; 3) limit
infiltration of surface water; or 4) provide for
adequate erosion control and storm water management.
The selected remedy protects human health and the
environment through extraction and thermal
destruction of landfill gas and installation of landfill
cover. The thermal destruction will permanently
remove 99.99 percent of the contaminants in the
landfill gas. The landfill cover will be designed to
reduce surface gas emissions and odors; prevent
oxygen intrusion into the refuse, which will allow the
gas systems to work more effectively; prevent surface
water infiltration, which will assist in leachate
management; and promote erosion control. Short-
term risks associated with the selected remedy, as
addressed in the original gas ROD, can be readily
controlled. In addition, no adverse cross-media
impacts are expected from the remedy.
EPA has undertaken the following enforcement
activities since September 1988. In May 1988, a
partial CD between the United States, the State of
California, and approximately 120 PRPs was entered
in the District Court for the Central District of
California, United States, et al v. Chevron Chemical,
et al. The partial CD resolved claims for some State
and Federal past costs, EPA oversight costs, and the
implementation of the first two OUs, Site Control and
Monitoring and Leachate Management. In July 1989,
EPA sent General Notice letters to approximately 91
additional PRPs representing five percent, by volume,
of the manifested liquid wastes. The waste generators
noticed represent approximately 85 percent, by
volume, of the manifested liquid waste. In March
1990, EPA extended an offer to the 91 PRPs noticed
in July 1989 and to previous non-settlors for
settlement of the same issues as the first (past costs to
June 1,1988, liability for the first two OUs, and EPA
oversight cost for the two OUs). The offer closed
August 3, 1990. The settlement resulted in a second
partial CD. The third CD was entered into on March
30, 1992 for the costs of the third OU which
consisted of gas control and landfill cover for the site.
Only the major PRPs, those responsible for 85 percent
of the waste, were involved in these settlements.
Those major PRPs that did not settle will be ordered
to do cleanup work that was not covered in the earlier
OUs. EPA uses this settlement technique as an
incentive to encourage those parties that EPA has not
previously ordered to do cleanup work to settle during
the final negotiations. The estimated value of the
three CDs totalled $205 million.
General notice letters were sent to top 28 (by volume)
de minimis PRPs who were determined by the
manifests. The purpose of this letter was to
encourage some of the largest de minimis PRPs to
form a steering committee early in the de minimis
settlement process. Two Regional Project Managers
(RPMs) working on the site, an Office of Regional
Counsel (ORC) attorney, and a Department of Justice
(DOJ) attorney met with these parties in November.
The PRPs who attended the meeting asked that, prior
to deciding whether to participate in a de minimis
steering committee, they receive a copy of the total
volume of waste attributed to each of them after
initial volume adjustments were made by EPA in
order to determine their individual liability.
Based on these initial adjustments, EPA determined
that 55 PRPs originally in the de minimis category
now have waste above the de minimis limit. Thirteen
of the 55 PRPs were sent general notice letters as part
of the 28 top de minimis parties. These parties are
given the opportunity to challenge their EPA-adjusted
volumes prior to the negotiations. Once the volume
adjustment challenges are incorporated, the de
minimis parties will be sent their special notice letters
informing them of their settlement opportunity.
This pilot project completion date has not yet been
determined.
IV-87
-------
EVALUATION PLAN
This pilot is developing ideas that may be attempted
in practice at a future time. Expected improvements
in effectiveness, efficiency and equity if the pilot
ideas are implemented include:
• Lower transaction costs for de minimis parties,
since the period during which EPA will negotiate
with them will not include negotiations with major
PRPs. The negotiations will be more efficient
because they are only addressing the interests of
similar parties.
• Prevention or reduction of the number of future
third party lawsuits, possible by thousands because
once the de minimis parties agree to settle, they
are protected against third party lawsuits. This
process has the effect of treating the parties
equitably.
• Perception of fairness and equity on the part of all
PRPs and the public because EPA is not excluding
the small parties from negotiations (and
contribution protection), but not including them in
a group that would place the de minimis parties'
need behind those of bigger PRPs.
• Better working relations with major PRPs because
they requested that EPA address the de minimis
parties. By answering their request, the major
PRPs may be willing to be more cooperative
during negotiations with the EPA. Major PRPs
benefit by not having to file suit against de
minimis parties who settle. The major PRPs do
not want to be treated as if they are the only
parties that may be held responsible for the
cleanup.
• The pilot will set an example for other Regions to
use for handling small parties short of funds,
• EPA will be able to pay more attention to public
policy issues during the negotiations. During the
de minimis party negotiations, EPA can devote
more time on the concerns of the small parties
such as churches and schools.
The anticipated success of this early negotiation
process can be evaluated using the following
measures which the Region will collect data on:
The time required to mail general notice letters is
less than the national and Regional averages.
The time required to conduct RD/RA negotiations
is less than the national and Regional averages
because the issue of de minimis involvement in
the cleanup has already been addressed.
The time required to conduct PRP steering
committee meetings is less than the national and
Regional averages because of the unique interests
of the similar parties involved (i.e., de minimis
party steering committees are held separately from
major party steering committees).
The time required for cost recovery is less than
the national and Regional averages because of the
better cooperation of all parties during
negotiations.
A reduction in costs required to mail general
notice letters compared to the national and
Regional averages.
A reduction in costs required to conduct RD/RA
negotiations compared to the national and
Regional averages because the issue of de minimis
involvement in the cleanup has already been
addressed.
A reduction in costs required to conduct PRP
steering committee meetings compared to the
national and Regional averages because of the
unique interests of the similar parties involved
(i.e., de minimis party steering committees are
held separately from major party steering
committees).
RESULTS
Initial preliminary results indicate that the Early de
minimis process will yield considerable benefits to the
Region's approach to site cleanup. One of the
benefits to date includes equity responsiveness. Due
to the major PRPs extensive participation, they will
be reluctant to return to the final negotiations with a
complete offer unless the other PRPs also participate.
Subsequent to the latest negotiations, the settling
PRPs filed suit against the noticed but non-settling
parties for contribution to the clean-up costs, an
IV-88
-------
indication of the difficulty ahead should a successful
de minims settlement not occur prior to the final
RD/RA negotiations. Therefore, the Region's ability
to conduct negotiations with the de minimis parties
has reassured the major parties that EPA is equitably
treating all parties involved.
The Regional staff was able to implement a new
method for the noticing strategy which entails a
process for notifying the de minimis parties separately
from the major parties. They also learned how to
productively listen and react to the concerns of the
different parties. In order to do this productively,
negotiations with parties that have different interests
must take place at separate times. The Regional staff
gained experience notifying and settling with Federal,
suite and local entities.
In addition, Region 9 gained experience with the
volume adjustment process for the parties. They also
developed a "fair" settlement scheme for major and de
minimis parties. The major PRPs are more willing to
come to the negotiation table if the know that they
will be treated equitably. Specifically, the major
PRPs want to be assured that the de minimis parties
will not "get off the hook" and that they will pay their
share of the liability. In return, the de minimis parties
are encouraged to settle early because it relieves them
of further liability by third party lawsuits. The
Regional staff also gained experience dealing with
small parties with extremely limited resources. A
major lesson learned from this pilot was the Region's
ability to equitably address large numbers of de
minimis parties and achieve cost recovery in an
expeditious manner.
This pilot process is applicable to sites that have large
numbers of de minimis parties and good volume
records. The increased cost of processing and
negotiating an early de minimis settlement should
increase the possibility of achieving a successful
settlement with the major PRPs for the
implementation of the final remedy. The de minimis
parties will benefit the most from this pilot project
because the EPA Regional office is willing to take the
time to meet with them, educate them, and offer them
contribution protection. In return, EPA learns about
the special interests and needs of de minimis parties.
In addition, the citizens will benefit because they do
not want to see the small businesses harmed.
The pilot findings that could best be transferred to
other sites are: 1) the notice strategy which
encourages de minimis PRPs to form steering
committees which assist the Region in better
communicating with the major PRPs; and 2) the
volume adjustment process with a steering committee
which develops default volumes. These ideas can best
be communicated through meeting and educating the
de minimis PRPs.
IV-89
-------
Region 10
Accelerate Cleanup Through Removal
Yakima Plating, Washington Site
PILOT DESCRIPTION
Region 10 designed a pilot to streamline the Remedial
Action (RA) to accelerate cleanup. Regional staff
believe this pilot saved a considerable amount of time
and resources and met the concerns of the public.
This post-Record of Decision (ROD) RA was
completed using Region 10 removal program
authorities.
This pilot project has been completed with the
following results: completion of the cleanup in a
timely manner; cost savings associated with a reduced
remedial design (RD); elimination of the need for
institutional controls at the site; early designation of
the site as "construction completion"; and planned
early de-listing of the site from the National Priorities
List (NPL).
PILOT STATUS
The Yakima Plating site is located in Yakima,
Washington. The Yakima Plating facility occupied the
western 0.94 acres of a two acre parcel shared with a
separate auto repair business. The site is located
approximately three miles northeast of the Yakima
Municipal airport in central Yakima County,
Washington, in a mixed neighborhood of light
commercial and residential buildings.
The facility conducted electroplating operations of
automobile bumpers from the early 1960s until 1990.
Yakima Plating operated from three buildings,
including a concrete block structure used for plating
operations, a corrugated metal-sided structure used as
an office and storage, and a wood-frame, plywood-
sided structure also used for storage. Yakima Plating
used above-ground holding tanks, which were stored
within the plating building. These tanks were used
during the electroplating operation for cleaning,
plating, and rinsing processes. Rinse water and spent
plating tank solutions were disposed into a plating
room floor drain which was connected to an
underground sedimentation tank and drain field line
that collected the sedimentation tank overflow and
distributed the wastewater to subsurface soil. The
wastewater system operated from 1965 until plating
operations ceased in 1990. Wastes contained a
variety of metals including nickel, cadmium, and
chromium.
Because the Remedial Investigation and Feasibility
Study (RI/FS) indicated that the extent of site
contaminants was clearly defined and that excavation
and off-site disposal would be straightforward, site
remediation, as outlined in the ROD, was
accomplished through the EPA removal program as a
pilot program. The Removal was formally initiated
on June 15, 1992, upon approval of the Action
Memorandum. The Removal was conducted as a
combined effort between multiple EPA contractors.
The Alternative Remedial Contracting Strategy
(ARCS) support activities included advising the
Remedial Project Manager (RPM), documenting field
activities, and providing sampling support to verify
attainment of the cleanup goals for the site. The
Technical Assistance Team (TAT) provided support
to the EPA On-Scene Coordinator (OSC), which
included performing sampling, providing field
analytical screening, and conducting air monitoring.
The EPA Emergency Response Cleanup Service
(ERCS) contractor provided personnel and equipment
to excavate contaminated soil and containerize plating
wastes. ERCS also subcontracted for laboratory
analytical, transportation, and disposal services. The
EPA and the State of Washington conducted a final
inspection on September 30, 1992. Region 10
continues to monitor the groundwater and has not
shown contamination.
CERCLA requirements for public participation
include releasing the RI/FS Reports and the Proposed
Plan to the public and providing a public comment
period on the FS and Proposed Plan. EPA met these
requirements in August 1991 by placing both
documents in the public information repositories for
the site and mailing copies of the proposed plan to
IV-90
-------
individuals on the mailing list. EPA published a
notice of the release of the RI/FS and proposed plan
in the Yakima Herald on August 12 and September 1,
1991. Notice of the 30 day public comment period
and the public meeting discussing the proposed plan
were included in the newspaper notice. A public
meeting was held on August 21, 1991. The public
comment period ended on September 11, 1991, with
one letter from the public.
The effort consisted of the following activities:
excavating 2,567 cubic yards of contaminated soil and
gravel (this was a five fold increase from the FS
estimate) to the cleanup levels specified in the ROD,
followed by off-site disposal to a hazardous waste
landfill; excavation and removal to a hazardous waste
landfill of three sedimentation tanks; demolition
and/or removal of three on-site buildings; and
neutralization, and containerization of approximately
34 drums of miscellaneous plating-derived waste for
off-site disposal. All containerized wastes were
removed from the site and taken to a Hazardous
Waste Treatment, Storage and Disposal Facility for
treatment and/or final disposal.
All actions met site cleanup goals and significantly
reduced the risks posed by the site.
EVALUATION PLAN
The evaluation plan for this pilot is based on
comparison of the time and cost savings resulting
from performing a removal at a remedial site. In
general, the costs and delays associated with a
Remedial Design (RD) could be avoided. In addition,
a removal approach offers more flexibility in handling
changes in site conditions, which are typically
encountered during soil excavation work. The
Region's evaluation plan recommended, and the
Region will collect data for, the following measures:
• Time to conduct the removal versus time to
perform an RD and RA;
• Extramural cost to conduct the removal versus
cost to perform an RD and RA;
• Intramural cost (measured by actual time using
FTEs) to oversee a removal versus projected
oversight of an RD and RA.
In addition, the effectiveness of the remedy, including
the overall reasonableness of the approach given the
extent of the contamination, was to be reviewed.
The Region constructed the baseline for this pilot. As
this pilot is largely complete, the baseline numbers for
comparison are presented in the results section.
RESULTS
The estimated time saved by conducting a removal at
this site was approximately 15.5 months. It took 3.5
months to complete the removal. The time to conduct
a remedial design/remedial action effort was originally
estimated to be 19 months. This estimate of 19
months was based on FS estimates and best
professional judgement; it included one month for
preparation of RD scope of work, two months to
develop the RD workplan, six months to develop the
actual RD, four months for the bid process, and six
months to implement the RA. The average pipeline
durations in Region 10 in quarters is 2.61 quarters
(7.83 months) for the ROD to RD; 6.53 quarters
(19.59 months) for the RD; 7.38 quarters (22.14
months) for the RA; and a total of 16.52 quarters
(49.56 months) for the post-ROD process.
With respect to cost savings, the Region did not incur
the cost of a formal RD. The estimated cost savings,
based on best professional judgement are $100,000
for a response of this magnitude. In addition,
intramural savings were realized because only 0.3
FTE were used as opposed to 0.8 FTE as would
normally be the case. The total extramural cost for
the removal was approximately $900,000. The
volume of waste removed was higher than originally
estimated (2,567 cubic yards found versus 540 cubic
yards estimated). In addition, several buildings had to
be demolished during the removal. The Region
estimates that the actual removal costs were
comparable to a remedial action (i.e. unit costs would
have been similar using a remedial contract).
Although not the primary focus of this pilot, an issue
of some relevance to the results is the type of contract
vehicle used. Removal contractors operate under cost
reimbursement type contracts while remedial
contractors are covered by fixed price contracts. The
removal contracts are already in place and, therefore,
can be quickly implemented. Remedial contractors
IV-91
-------
must go through a procurement process to establish a
contract at a site and, therefore, have that additional
step to complete before work can begin. In addition,
change orders must be developed for remedial
contractors if the size of work changes also
lengthening the duration of the project.
IV-92
-------
Region 10
Accelerate Cleanup Through Removal
Allied Plating, Oregon Site
PILOT DESCRIPTION
This pilot project involves pre-ROD remediation
activities at the Allied Plating site. The Allied Plating
site was remediated with a pre-ROD removal
performed by the Region 10 removal program. The
goal of the pilot was that a no further action ROD
would be prepared for signature once the removal was
successful in meeting site remediation goals. Upon
completion of the no further action ROD, the site
would be eligible for "construction completion." An
early "construction completion" status will result in an
early de-listing of the site from the National Priorities
List (NPL).
Under this accelerated pilot approach, the remediation
activities took place prior the signing of the ROD.
Using the traditional cleanup process, the Remedial
Action (RA) for a site takes place after the ROD is
signed. During the removal phase, the Region was
able to complete their remediation efforts.
PILOT STATUS
Allied Plating site located in Portland, Oregon, was
the site of a chrome plating facility from the 1950s to
1984. Wastewater from the facility was discharged to
a low lying area on the property forming a surface
impoundment. The metals from the plating
wastewater precipitated out leaving a layer of plating
waste covering the impoundment and surrounding
area. The Remedial Investigation (RI) indicated that
this was the only area of contamination on the
property. The Region also concluded that
ground water contamination was no longer a problem,
and determined that the plating waste was limited to
the top six to twelve inches of the contaminated soil.
The site is flooded for approximately nine months per
year. A problem existed in that if the site cleanup
was not completed by November, the work would
have to be postponed until the next summer due to
the onset of the rainy season. Two potential solutions
were to attempt a pre-ROD removal that would lead
to a no further action ROD, or to complete a ROD
and then proceed to an expedited design construction
phase with an in-house design accomplished by the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE). The
Region decided to conduct the pre-ROD removal.
When the pilot was accepted by EPA Headquarters,
removal contract capacity was not available in the
Region. Instead, EPA used the USAGE and their
Rapid Response Contractor to perform the removal.
Therefore, in addition to a means to expedite site
cleanup, EPA investigated an alternative contractor
mechanism. The removal took place from October 20
to November 10, 1992. Approximately 1200 cubic
yards of contaminated soil and debris were removed
from the site. The majority of the material was
disposed of using the debris exemption, as most of
the material consisted of clumps of grass and leaf
mold. A few minor hurdles were quickly handled
during the removal. The pond was slurred out and
the solids removed by filter press. When it was
found that the solids were not separating, a sample
was sent to the OHM lab and a coagulant mix was
developed. As the test occurred during a weekend, no
down time occurred. The water from the pond did
not meet treatment standards for discharge to the
Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW). On-site
treatment was attempted, but when the water did not
meet standards, it was disposed of off-site.
The Quality Assurance Plan (QAP) for the removal
was not given to EPA to review until the action was
ongoing. Upon review it became apparent that the
proposed QA process would not necessarily produce
evidence quality data. Rather than lose time by
having the USAGE redevelop their plan, EPA took
splits of all of the validations samples, prepared a
QAP, and had the validation samples analyzed by an
EPA lab. The removal met the action levels for the
project and the objective of having the cleanup
completed before the start of the rainy season was
achieved. The State and the Potentially Responsible
IV-93
-------
Party (PRP) informally agreed in advance of the
removal, with the measures to be taken by the EPA.
This pilot project was completed; the removal action
was accomplished in November, 1992 with a no
further action ROD in June 1993. EPA and the
USAGE are currently projecting cost and time savings
and accomplishing follow-up activities. The final
Regional report will be completed when the USAGE
submits site information.
EVALUATION PLAN
The evaluation plan for this pilot is based on
comparison of the time and cost savings resulting
from performing a removal at a pre-ROD site, leading
to a "No action" ROD. In general, the time and costs
associated with a remedial pipeline could be avoided,
leading to greater efficiency. The Region's evaluation
plan recommended comparison to show greater
efficiencies against the following measures for which
they will collect the data:
• Time to conduct the removal from planning
through execution and complete the no action
ROD versus time to complete a ROD and perform
a standard RD/RA;
• Extramural cost to conduct the removal versus
costs of other site remedies discussed in the draft
FS, i.e., to perform an RD/RA; and
• Intramural cost (measured by actual time using
Fibs) to manage the pilot versus projected time
to oversee a Fund lead RD/RA.
In addition, the effectiveness of the removal is to be
reviewed, including the overall reasonableness of the
approach given the nature and extent of the
contamination.
RESULTS
The results from the pilot include:
• The successful cleanup of a site by using a pre-
ROD removal and eliminating the need for an
RD/RA.
• Estimated time saved in remediating the site via a
removal is approximately 16.5 months based on
comparison of actual time required to complete
the removal (2.5 months) versus the predicted
time to conduct an RD/RA effort (19 months).
Actual time represents time from signing of the
Interagency Agreement with the USAGE (August
31, 1992) through completion of the field removal
(November 10, 1992). Total estimated time is
based on the following assumed durations: one
month for preparation of RD scope of work, two
months to develop RD workplan, six months to
develop actual RD, four months for the bid
process, and six months to implement RA.
Estimated times are based on best professional
judgement since the draft FS did not contain
estimates of time required to implement various
remedy options. ROD preparation time is not
included in either the actual or estimated durations
since the activity would have been required in
either case.
• The actual cost of conducting the pre-ROD
removal using the USAGE Rapid Response
program was approximately $1.1 million
(including contractor costs, disposal costs, and
USAGE oversight/overhead costs). Estimated cost
for implementing site cleanup via on-site
containment was approximately $1.5 million.
Therefore, it is estimated that use of a pre-ROD
removal resulted in a savings of approximately
$400,000. In addition, the Region saved at least
$100,000 by not conducting a formal RD (based
on best professional judgement for a response of
this magnitude).
IV-94
-------
Region 10
Demonstration Pilot
Alaskan Battery Enterprises, Alaska Site
PILOT DESCRIPTION
This pilot project involves pre-Record of Decision
(ROD) remediation activities. Regional staff
conducted pre-ROD remediation of the site chosen for
pilot application via a Superfund Innovative
Technologies Evaluation (SITE) demonstration
project. The SITE program designated the Alaskan
Battery Enterprises (ABE) site as a demonstration
pilot for a new soil washing technology that removes
lead contamination from soil. The objective of the
pilot was to clean all soil at the site to levels below
EPA's action level. If successful, EPA could issue a
ROD for no further remedial actions at this site and
achieve early construction completion and avoid the
need for a subsequent Remedial Design and Remedial
Action (RD/RA). The SITE demonstration involved:
1) excavation and soil washing of all site soils
exceeding cleanup goals, 2) backfilling of excavated
areas with clean, treated soil, and 3) off-site disposal
of all treated soil that did not meet cleanup goals.
Under the pre-ROD SITE process, remediation
activities are conducted prior to the ROD. The
traditional Superfund cleanup process provided for
remediation activities to occur after the ROD is
signed. The Region estimates that time and money
can be saved through the implementation of this pilot
process because the RA does have to wait until after
the ROD phase; there is no delay waiting for the
ROD to be signed.
PROJECT STATUS
The Alaskan Battery Enterprises (ABE) site is a one
acre battery manufacturing/recycling facility located
in Fairbanks, Alaska. It operated during the period of
1962 to 1988. The manufacturing and recycling
operations at the facility resulted in elevated levels of
lead in the soil from buried battery castings and
releases of used battery acid.
EPA conducted a removal in 1988-89 in which
approximately 4,000 cubic yards of soil were taken to
a hazardous waste disposal facility in Utah. The site
was placed on the National Priorities List (NPL) in
1989. EPA started a Remedial Investigation and
Feasibility Study (RI/FS) in 1991 which sampled
surface and subsurface soil and groundwater from
nine monitoring wells to determine the extent of
remaining lead contamination. Results showed that
there were areas that contained lead above EPA's
cleanup action level of 1,000 ppm. Groundwater
contained elevated levels of lead, but this was
apparently bound to silt particles due to incomplete
well development. The RI/FS reports were completed
in August 1992.
In March 1992 the ABE site was selected as the
location of a SITE demonstration. A public comment
period for the SITE demonstration was conducted
during May, 1992, and a public meeting was held.
Comments received indicated that the community and
the Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs) were in
favor of the proposed soil washing demonstration. In
September, 1992, the SITE demonstration was
completed and all soil above the action level,
approximately 150 cubic yards, had been excavated
and treated. The excavated areas were backfilled with
clean soil and the treated soil which did not meet the
cleanup goal was placed in drums and will be taken
to a hazardous waste disposal facility in June, 1993.
A public comment period and public meeting
occurred in November, 1992 to receive community
response to the proposed plan for this site. The
community was in favor of no further action. A no
further action ROD was issued in March, 1993. The
groundwater will be monitored for two years to
confirm that no human health risks exist. The site
will be listed as construction completed.
IV-95
-------
EVALUATION PLAN
The evaluation plan for this pilot is based on
comparison of the time and cost savings resulting
from performing a removal at a remedial site, leading
to a no further action ROD. In general, the time and
costs associated with a remedial pipeline could be
avoided, leading to greater efficiency. In addition, the
removal action demonstrated a new technology, which
aids overall program effectiveness. The Region's
evaluation plan recommended comparison to show
greater efficiencies against the following measures:
• Time to conduct the SITE demonstration and
complete the no further action ROD versus time to
complete a ROD and perform an RD and RA;
• Extramural cost to conduct the SITE
demonstration versus cost to perform an RD and
RA;
• Intramural cost (measured by actual time using
FTEs) to manage the SITE demonstration versus
projected time to negotiate a Consent Decree and
oversee an RD and RA.
In addition, the effectiveness of the SITE
demonstration is to be reviewed, including the overall
reasonableness of the approach given the nature of the
contamination and soil type.
The Region constructed the baseline for this pilot. As
the no further action ROD was completed in March,
1993, the baseline numbers for comparison are
presented in the results section.
exceeded the FS cost estimate to remediate the site by
excavation and off-site disposal ($500,000).
However, funds spent by the SITE Program are not
recoverable or site-specific costs, but are intended to
promote the use of innovative remedial technology at
other Superfund and hazardous waste sites across the
country. The cost of conducting the SITE
demonstration at the ABE site included the following
elements: 1) developing a Sampling and Analysis
Plan for the demonstration; 2) preparing the site
staging area; 3) on-site supervision by EPA's
contractor of the test runs conducted by the
technology vendor; 4) sampling and analysis costs for
the test runs; and 5) data evaluation and final
technical report preparation. The volume of soil
actually exceeding the cleanup goal and requiring
treatment by soil washing during the SITE
demonstration (140 cubic yards) was less than had
been conservatively estimated in the FS (500 cubic
yards).
Cost of the demonstration and no further action ROD
was lower than average national and Regional
remedial costs, which average as follows:
Extramural
costs of RD
Extramural
costs of RA
National Regional
$694,176 $1,000,500
$4,105,828 $5,496,188
Comparison to these remedial averages
perspective to the results of this pilot.
adds
RESULTS
The pilot approach showed considerable savings in
time. The use of the soil washing technology
expedited the cleanup process by ten months. Actual
time required for cleanup was approximately twelve
months. The predicted time for cleanup was
approximately 22 months based on the FS estimates
and best professional judgement assumptions. (See
Region's Evaluation Plan for details.)
The funds spent by the Office of Research and
Development through the SITE program to conduct
the soil washing demonstration ($1.3 million),
IV-96
-------
Region 10
Outreach Specialist
PILOT DESCRIPTION
The goal of the Outreach Specialist Pilot project is to
enable the public to make informed judgments about
the Superfund program and to develop an
understanding of the Superfund Accelerated Cleanup
Model (SACM) within the Region. The objective of
this pilot is to develop and oversee a focused outreach
agenda aimed at enhancing the Region's Superfund
outreach efforts. Going beyond site-specific
community relations, the Region will also coordinate
with Headquarters to communicate Superfund
accomplishments on a larger scale. Using this
initiative, an Outreach Specialist will ensure that the
public, broadly defined to include most of EPA's
customers, routinely receives factual information
about Superfund.
Under the Outreach Pilot, regional staff are
conducting more general types of Superfund outreach,
with emphasis on responding to the public and media
quickly and more efficiently. An Outreach Specialist
has been designated to promote effective
communication regarding Superfund activities across
the Regions.
The designated activities for the pilot include: 1)
defining and identifying target audiences/customers;
2) creating tools and vehicles for communicating
legitimate successes of the Superfund program: 3)
updating the Region 10 Superfund Accomplishments
Report; 4) establishing a public networking system
for Superfund outreach; 5) developing a network
system between Region 10, EPA Headquarters, and
the other Regions to promote a national Superfund
outreach campaign; and 6) identifying specific sites
and issues for targeted success stories.
This pilot goes beyond traditional approaches because
it emphasizes the importance of all program staff
participation in outreach activities. Under the pilot
initiative, Region 10 public outreach activities are
better coordinated, and more effectively and
efficiently communicated to the public.
PILOT STATUS
In November, 1992, an Outreach Specialist was hired
by the Region. Her office is in the Hazardous Waste
Division, Program Management Branch, Community
Relations Section. While other community relations
coordinators focus primarily on site specific work,
this person is currently focusing on outreach. Target
audiences throughout the Region have been identified,
which include Congressional and State offices, health
agencies, environmental organizations, media sources
and public awareness groups. Some of the tools used
are Superfund Fact Sheets, including a SACM Fact
Sheet, which describes how SACM will be
implemented at the Regional level. In addition, the
Region is developing an overall accomplishment
report containing success stories, such as the Yakima
Plating site and the Allied Plating site in a form
where the data is clearly understood.
A focus group was held in February, 1993, to gather
information about how members of the public
perceive Superfund. Environmental groups, industries
and state governments were represented.
Two Regional forums were held for all employees
during which members of the Regional Decision
Team answered questions on SACM. The forums
focused on how to use SACM to accomplish tasks,
and raised Regional awareness about SACM.
EVALUATION PLAN
Evaluation of this pilot will be largely subjective.
The expected benefits from the pilot that should
increase program effectiveness are listed below.
• Establish a public involvement culture that extends
beyond site-specific community relations. A
change in culture will provide outreach
opportunities at the regional and national levels
that will be informative to interest groups, the
press, and Congressional offices, regarding the
IV-97
-------
EPA's commitment to streamline the Superfund
program by employing SACM principles.
• The Region expects to inform well organized
critics of the Superfund program of the success in
the program.
• Benefits will continue to arise from this pilot since
emphasis is placed on participation in outreach by
all Program Staff.
Attempting to define a quantitative variable for this
pilot is very difficult since nationally available
standards of time and cost to use for comparison are
not available except at an extremely gross level.
Region 10 is developing a questionnaire targeted for
distribution in early September. This questionnaire
will be distributed to Remedial Project Managers
(RPMs), On-Scene Coordinators (OSCs), and Site
Assessment Managers (S AMs). It will help assess the
impact of the attitudes towards SACM and the
effectiveness of the outreach pilot. The results of the
survey will be reported in the pilot's final report.
hazardous waste programs and how to measure
success. Focus group attendees included
representatives from state agencies, industry, and non-
profit groups. A number of ideas were communicated
and there appeared to be consensus that activities such
as construction completions could be an effective
measure of success.
The Region believes that the benefits of having an
Outreach Specialist will continue to accrue from this
pilot because of the emphasis placed on participation
in outreach by all program staff.
RESULTS
This pilot process has yielded considerable results
regarding the Region's approach to site cleanup.
There is less misunderstanding of SACM in the
Regions because of a designated contact person.
Using this pilot approach, the Region hopes to
balance criticism of the Superfund program and
SACM by communicating the realities of the process
and accomplishments of the program to the public.
Designating a person within the Community Relations
Office as the Outreach Specialist has provided for
additional focus on outreach. The tools of
communication, such as Fact Sheets, are an effective
means of conveying Superfund accomplishments.
Establishing a public involvement culture that extends
beyond site-specific community relations will provide
outreach opportunities at the regional level and the
national level that will be informative to interest
groups, the press, and Congressional offices.
As part of the pilot, in February, 1993, Region 10
invited a number of people to participate in a focus
group to discuss the overall mission of EPA's
IV-98
-------
Region 10
PRP Search Initiative
PILOT DESCRIPTION
Region 10 developed this pilot project to speed and
facilitate Superfund settlements, unilateral
enforcement actions, and civil judicial referrals by
improving the quality and timeliness of Potentially
Responsible Party (PRP) searches. The PRP search
is a report that combines information collection and
legal analysis for the purpose of identifying parties
who may be liable for cost recovery under Section
107 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA). Section
107 sets the liability for those found responsible for
release of a hazardous substance.
In the past, some PRP searches were not completed in
a timely manner and some were not thoroughly
completed, leading to delays in the negotiation
process. For a limited number of cases, the
Department of Justice needed to request additional
search support late in the process and the searches
had to be reworked expeditiously. These
"emergency" requests were not an efficient use of
resources, and illustrated the need for a better
definition of PRP search accomplishment
expectations. The pilot also addresses the
consideration of environmental equity issues during
the search process. The project was proposed under
the Total Quality Management (TQM) process using
a Quality Action Team (QAT).
The QAT recommended that two civil investigators
(CIs) be hired on a "term" basis to supplement the
Region's three permanent CIs, that an Enforcement
Support Group (ESG) be established, and that a full-
time PRP Search Coordinator (PRP SC) position be
created. The two new investigators would be
dedicated to conducting PRP searches on Superfund
sites, and an Enforcement Support Group (ESG) be
established to provide assistance to the PRP Search
Coordinator who would have responsibility for
managing Superfund PRP searches thereby enhancing
the Region's capacity for investigative and litigation
support.
In recognition of resource limits, the QAT structured
the Region 10 ESG differently than similar groups in
other regions by presuming that a commitment of 0.1
Full Time Equivalent (FTE) from each ESG member
will be sufficient to provide adequate support to the
PRP SC. The QAT proposed that the ESG would be
comprised of PRP search experts from all involved
Branches: Superfund Remedial, Superfund Response
and Investigations, Office of Regional Counsel (ORC)
Hazardous Waste, and from the Engineering and
Investigation Program within our Environmental
Services Division (BSD).
To promote efficiency, the QAT drafted a step-by-
step Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for
implementing PRP searches. The SOP draft defines
roles and responsibilities for case team members and
establishes management review points that are
integrated with enforcement and remedial procedures.
The pilot project also addresses the need to improve
the use of contractors to perform discrete portions of
PRP searches, thereby allowing our CIs to perform
the more sensitive tasks, such as adversarial
interviews.
PILOT STATUS
In response to Region 10's request, the Superfund
Revitalization Office (SRO) provided two years of
funding for two CIs. The investigators began
working during the last quarter of FY 92. The
presence of these term-appointed civil investigators
enabled more PRP searches to be undertaken, and
allowed more time for the permanent CIs to
participate on the QAT and work to help define the
SOP.
The QAT recommendation for the establishment of a
PRP SC supported by Region 10 management and the
position was filled competitively June 1, 1993. The
establishment of the ESG was completed this October
and the Region is now organizing that group under
the leadership of the PRP SC. Their first job will be
IV-99
-------
to finalize the draft SOP incorporating consideration
of the SACM approach.
The PRP SC is responsible for eliminating the
potential for missed opportunities to identify viable
PRPs and to pursue recovery of funds spent for site
activities. His duties have been communicated to the
staff and are listed below.
1. Control Flow of PRP Search Work: Coordinate
all requests for PRP search work for Remedial
Project Managers (RPMs), On-Scene Coordinators
(OSCs), ORC, and DOJ. Meet regularly with the
CIs and with PRP search teams to discuss specific
work needs.
2. Prioritization of PRP Searches: Attend meetings
of SRB, PMB, Superfund Response and
Investigations Branch (SRIB), ORC management
and CIs to discuss prioritization of PRP Search
work.
3. Forward Planning: Track upcoming SCAP
commitments and Statute of Limitation deadlines.
Collect information and inform CIs of upcoming
remedial, removal, and cost recovery targets.
4. Tracking: Track the status of ongoing PRP
searches, and schedule updates of prior PRP
searches when necessary for negotiations or cost
recovery referrals.
5. Contract Work: Create generic Statements of
Work (SOW) for certain aspects of PRP search
work. Serve as Work Assignment Manager
(WAM) for some PRP search work assignments
and monitor the performance of the PRP search
contractor.
6. Expert Function: Develop institutional memory in
form of PRP SC manual and library. Act as a
source of information to RPMs, OSCs, and other
users for current guidance, important court
decisions, and any new information relevant to
PRP searches.
7. Establish PRP Search Procedures: Establish
guidance on performing PRP searches, e.g.: how
work is to be prioritized within a single search,
when searches should be stopped, when to pursue
de minimis parties, Freedom of Information Act
concerns, etc.
8. Training: Provide training to Region 10 staff on
current headquarters and regional policy affecting
PRP searches.
The services of one of the term appointed CI are
being retained through February 1994. The CI will
be working on the Blackbird Mining Site, partially
due to the extended transition period between the old
and new Enforcement Contracts.
PILOT RESULTS
Implementation of this project has improved the
Region's capacity for completing PRP searches in a
thorough, timely manner, and for providing support to
investigations and litigation.
Two early accomplishments of the project have
improved our PRP search process by strengthening
enforcement efforts and supporting the principle of
"the polluter pays." The first accomplishment was the
hiring of the two term-appointed civil investigators
with the use of pilot project funds obtained from
Superfund Revitalization Office. The work done by
these two investigators directly contributed to at least
five PRP searches being completed much sooner than
they otherwise could have been. The second
accomplishment was the creation of the full-time PRP
Search Coordinator position by the Hazardous Waste
Division.
The pilot has enhanced enforcement fairness by
facilitating our ability to readily pursue de minimis
settlements with small volume waste contributors.
Full inclusion of SACM principles in Region 10
procedures will soon be accomplished with SOPs.
The addition of the PRP SC is enabling us to make
more efficient use of our contract support resources.
The Coordinator is managing a contractor work
assignment to create a database that will capture
information from Hazardous Waste Manifests. The
database will be used to sort and track site
IV-100
-------
information useful for dealing handling small volume
waste contributors in de minimis settlements.
Although still in its nascent phase, the project has
resulted in quantitative improvements at a number of
sites. To support this assertion a number of involved
parties were queried and their responses follow.
• The senior CI reports that the overall management
of PRP searches was enhanced by the addition of
the two term-appointed CIs provided under the
pilot. His section has completed five PRP
searches since hiring the additional CIs, and he
anticipates completion of two more searches.
Without the funds provided by the Superfund
Revitalization Office, none of these searches
would have been completed before the third
quarter of 1994. The potential for cost recovery
on these sites is high because of the quality of the
evidence of liability, thorough identification of the
PRPs and better documentation of financial
viability. DOJ has requested assistance on some
previously referred cases, which the CIs have been
called on to provide follow-up support. Future
requests for litigation support from DOJ, however,
on the seven sites mentioned above should be
minimal because of the high quality. Eight more
work requests made in FY 93 were completed by
September 30, 1993. The FY 93 total of sixteen
is a significant increase over the eleven
completions of FY 92. According to Finance
Office reports, CIs devoted 7,738 hours to
Superfund support, an 89 percent increase over the
4,088 hours for FY 92.
The Cost Recovery Coordinator reports that in FY
93 thorough PRP search reports (made possible
by the addition of the term-appointees) enabled
the Region to close out three cases by issuing
decision memos to not pursue cost recovery
actions due to non-viable PRPs. The decisions
were made well ahead of the Statute of
Limitations; therefore, had the PRPs been viable,
EPA could have pursued them in a timely manner.
• A representative from the removal section said
that before the project, PRP search support for the
removal program was (justifiably) a low priority
based on low cost recovery potential and low site
costs. The PRP search support by CIs to the
removal section was generally limited to what was
needed for access and Administrative Order on
Consent (AOC) documentation. By providing
additional resources, the pilot project assisted the
removal program by enabling five cost recovery
packages to be accelerated and prepared for
closure much sooner than usual.
The Remedial Project Manager (RPM) at a site
involving groundwater contamination said that the
addition of the two investigators complemented
the on-going initiative of using SACM at the site,
and enabled the Region to quickly complete the
PRP search without which the SACM initiatives
could not have been attempted.
The Region 10 attorney handling one of the
Region's largest sites (a municipal landfill) stated
that the addition of the investigators was
responsible for accomplishing Tier I PRP search
activity prior to actual listing of the site. The
completion of that task expedited the early
issuance of Section 104(e) information request
letters at the end of the public comment period for
the listing proposal. The transactional documents
received from the landfill operator in response to
the early Section 104(e) letters were entered into
a database and ranked by volume. PRPs
identified from that search have since agreed to
perform the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility
Study (RI/FS) under an administrative order. EPA
assisted the PRPs by establishing an allocation
agreement which used the volumetric database,
with shares presented during Special Notice
negotiations in the form of a "non-binding interim
allocation proposal."
A Superfund section chief described how the
early, more complete PRP search results permitted
serious consideration of fairness and equity in the
decision-making process on three of our most
complex sites leading to a more equitable
allocation of responsibility. The fist site is the
landfill mentioned above and the other two sites
involve very large areas of contaminated marine
sediments. On those two sites the Region elected
to hold PRPs liable only for the problem areas in
which they are located, rather than to more
broadly apply the CERCLA liability scheme
holding them liable for the entire site. This
discretion in fairly noticing appropriate PRPs and
IV-101
-------
separating liability will speed and facilitate the
settlements and reduce transaction costs.
PILOT EVALUATION
In addition to the benefits mentioned in "Pilot
Results", the Region will evaluate the following three
measures comparing pre-pilot and post-pilot
accomplishments:
Time required to conduct PRP searches. The addition
of a PRP Search Coordinator has allowed the CIs to
focus more on conducting investigations and less on
managing contractors and performing administrative
duties. This specialization of labor will reduce the
amount of time required for each search. A
quantitative analysis will not be available until the
new SOP has been in place long enough to fully
impact post-pilot PRP searches.
Costs of conducting PRP searches.
The
implementation of the SOP, closer management of
contractor resources, and the time-savings cited above
will reduce the costs of PRP searches. A quantitative
analysis will not be available until the new SOP has
been in place long enough to fully impact post-pilot
PRP searches.
Communication between parties involved in PRP
search process. The region has started conducting
regular prioritization meetings with participation by
ORC, SRB, PMB, SRIB, and the CIs from BSD.
The PRP Search Coordinator is facilitating exchange
of information among those involved in the PRP
search process by arranging for cross-programmatic
awareness briefings.
Those involved in the PRP search process are now
operating from the same list of sites and site
priorities.
The establishment of the ESG will insure that each
Branch knows something about what the other
branches are doing or planning at each site, and has
an opportunity to contribute ideas.
FUTURE PILOT EVALUATION
Evaluations will be conducted at six-month intervals
beginning in the middle of 1994. We will reevaluate
the time, cost, and communication measures. This
will include surveying customers of PRP searches.
The evaluation of the PRP SC will be conducted as a
normal part of the performance appraisal process.
IV-102
------- |