United States
           Environmental Protection
           Agency
Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency Response
Washington, DC 20460
EPA/68-/1-7259
November 1988
&EPA   Office of Solid Waste and
           Emergency Response:

           Annual Report, Fiscal Year 1988
                          Resource
                          Conservation
                          and
                          Recovery
                          Act
                                    Underground
                                    Storage Tanks

-------
    Annual Report for
     Fiscal Year 1988
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
           November 1988
                                  I

-------
                    FOREWORD
I am pleased to provide a summary of the accomplishments of the
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) of the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for Fiscal Year 1988.
Considerable progress was made over the last twelve months in
both the development and implementation of programs supporting
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and Super-
fund.

Clearly, the hard work and dedication of the EPA Headquarters and
Regional staff, combined with our State partners, has resulted in a
"banner year" of achievements in the RCRA and Superfund pro-
grams. I want to give special recognition to the many career staff, at
both the State and Federal levels, for their perseverance and com-
mitment to carry out their responsibilities under the national solid
and hazardous waste management programs.

Looking ahead to 1989, we face many new commitments.  The
dynamic nature of these programs, combined with intense  public
and congressional interest, will continue to present new challenges.
However, with the strong base we have developed in support of
these programs, we can continue to build upon the momentum
achieved.

I hope that this report will provide a more complete understanding of
the numerous accomplishments within the national solid and haz-
ardous waste management programs over Fiscal Year 1988, You
are invited to comment on any information presented herein.
                                   J. Winston Porter
                                   Assistant Administrator

-------
                    TABLE OF CONTENTS

FOREWORD	 i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY	 1
SECTION 1  SUPERFUND PROGRAM	7
 RESPONSE ACTIVITIES	7
    Pre-Remedial Actions .,,..,	, . 8
    Removal Actions 	 10
    Remedial Actions	 11
 ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES	 16
    Overview of Enforcement Authorities	 16
    Enforcement Accomplishments	 16
 REGULATIONS, GUIDANCE, AND OTHER ACTIVITIES  	21
    National Contingency Plan  	22
    Hazard Ranking System	23
    RI/FS Guidance	23
    ROD Guidance	24
    Release Notification Program	24
    Removal Program Guidance	24
    Technical Assistance Grants (TAGs) 	25
    Cost Recovery Strategy  	25
    Other Superfund Enforcement Guidance	26
    Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) Program	26
    Emerging Technologies Program	26
    Outreach and Training Activities	27

-------
                   TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION 2 RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT	29
 PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION 	29
    Permitting	29
    Corrective Action	31
    Enforcement 	32
    Data Management	34
 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT INITIATIVES	34
 MAJOR REGULATORY AND GUIDANCE DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES  	37
    Land Ban	37
    Permit Modifications  	,37
    Mobile Treatment Units	38
    RCRA Inspection Manual	38
    Technical Case Development Guidance	38
    Laboratory Audit Inspection Guide	38
    Other Rulemakings 	39
    Reports To Congress 	39
    Guidance Documents Issued	40
SECTION 3 FEDERAL FACILITIES	43
 IDENTIFICATION OF FEDERAL FACILITIES OF CONCERN	43
 ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE MONITORING	44

-------
                   TABLE OF CONTENTS

 PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT OF RESOURCES TO
 ADDRESS CONCERNS	 46
SECTION 4 CHEMICAL EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS AND
           PREVENTION PROGRAM		47
 REGULATORY ACTIVITIES 		,47
 BUILDING REGIONAL AND STATE EMERGENCY
 PREPAREDNESS CAPABILITY	49
 PREVENTION	50
 OUTREACH	, . 50
 INTERNATIONAL ASSISTANCE	50
SECTION 5  UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS	 53
 REGULATORY ACTIVITIES .	,	53
    Technical Standards 	53
    State Program Approval Standards	,	55
    Financial Responsibility Standards	55
 IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITIES	55
    Building State and Local Programs 	55
    LUST Trust Fund Activities  	57
    Outreach Activities	58
    Measuring OUST's Progress 	,	59
APPENDICES
    APPENDIX A: Records of Decision (RODs) Signed in FY 1988
    APPENDIX B: FY 1988 Remedial Design/Remedial Action
              (RD/RA) Settlements
    APPENDIX C: Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation
              (SITE) Program Participants
    APPENDIX D: Emerging Technology Program (ETP) Participants

-------
                    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

    Fiscal year (FY) 1988 was an important year for all programs of the Office of Solid
 Waste and Emergency  Response (OSWER).  Greater emphasis was placed on
 implementation activities and accelerating the pace of the programs.  Our ability to
 make impressive gains in many areas over the past year can be attributed to a solid
 base of experience, the issuance of a substantial number of key guidance and policy
 documents, increased delegations of authority to the Regions, and the presence of a
 strong regulatory framework. This Executive Summary highlights some of the major
 accomplishments and key initiatives undertaken by the OSWER programs in FY 1988,
 More detailed  information is provided in later sections of the report.


ACHIEVEMENT OF RCRA PERMITTING GOALS
    EPA worked  jointly  with  the  States  towards meeting the permitting  goals
 established in the 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Act Amendments (HSWA). HSWA
 requires that EPA issue all land disposal permits by November 8, 1988 and  all
 incinerator permits by November 8, 1989. During FY 1988, EPA processed 117 land
 disposal permit applications under the  Resource Conservation and  Recovery Act
 (RCRA), issuing final permits for 82 and denying permits for 35. By  Novembers, 1988,
 EPA had processed 248 of 264 land disposal  facility  permit applications (94%)
 Significant progress towards the 1989 goal for incinerator permits was also achieved,
 with 33 incinerator permit applications  reviewed and 30 permits issued during FY
 1988. The Agency reviewed closure plans and conducted inspections for the more
 than 1,100 land disposal facilities that have elected  to close their waste management
 operations rather than continue to operate under RCRA permits.


PROGRESS TOWARDS MEETING MAJOR SUPERFUND TARGETS
    The Superf und program experienced considerable growth over the past year with a
 major emphasis on moving more sites into the design and construction phase  of the
 program. A great deal of progress was made towards meeting the statutory goal of
 remedial action starts at  175 sites by October 1989. During FY 1987  and 1988, the
 Agency achieved 74 remedial action starts toward this goal. By the close of the fiscal
 year, the program started 231  of the 275 Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Studies
 (RI/FSs) mandated for initiation within three years of the Superfund Amendments and
 Reauthorization Act (SARA) of  1986. Moreover, over 150 Records of Decision (RODs)
 were signed in  FY 1988 — double the number signed the previous year. In addition,
 332 removal actions were initiated during FY 1988, with 279 removals completed. The
 Superfund enforcement program had the highest number of settlements in any year,
 bringing our total to over  500 and a dollar value of more than one billion. The program

-------
 is now in full swing with good momentum towards meeting  the many important
 statutory commitments.
NEW EMPHASIS PLACED ON SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT

    In FY 1988, building on efforts in prior years, OSWER proposed an Agenda  for
Action for managing solid waste in the future. This Agenda signals a major milestone
for the solid waste programs. Over the past several years,  most program attention
focused on hazardous waste. The strategy demonstrates the Agency's recognition
that municipal and other categories of solid waste can pose equally severe problems
for the environment.  It establishes  a  hierarchy of integrated waste management
techniques to solve the nation's  municipal  waste problems,  including source
reduction, recycling, incineration, and landfilling.  Also, a national goal to recycle 25%
of municipal solid waste by 1992 was set.

    A new leadership role for EPA is also defined, including the following activities: (1)
promote national source reduction and recycling; (2) provide leadership on Federal
procurement of recyclable and reusable products; (3) improve safety of incinerators
and landfills; (4) support a national research agenda; and (5) facilitate State and local
planning through activities such as an information clearinghouse.
IMPLEMENTATION OF RCRA CORRECTIVE ACTION
    OSWER  made  significant  progress  in  implementing  the corrective  action
 provisions established  under the Hazardous and Solid Waste Act  Amendments
 (HSWA)  Sections 3004(u) and 3008(h). OSW continued work on regulations for the
 program throughout the fiscal year and sent them to the Office of Management and
 Budget (OMB)  in October 1988 for final approval before proposal.  Despite  the
 absence of regulations, the Regions continued their implementation efforts using a
 variety of guidances issued by OSW and the Office of Waste Programs Enforcement
 (OWPE). In FY 1988, the Regions completed 353 RCRA Facility Assessments (RFAs)
 at facilities seeking RCRA permits or closing their waste management operations. In
 addition, the RCRA enforcement program greatly expanded its use of Section 3008(h)
 orders to require RCRA facilities to undertake corrective action investigations, issuing
 20 on consent and 5 unilaterally.  Of the 180  permits issued to RCRA facilities in FY
 1988, 110  contained schedules of compliance requiring the facilities to undertake
 corrective action investigations.

-------
FURTHER FEDERAL FACILITIES COMPLIANCE INITIATIVES
    OSWER  continued to focus  special  attention on improving compliance with
 requirements under  RCRA and the  Comprehensive Environmental Response,
 Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) at Federal facilities. The  Federal
 Facilities Task Force, established in FY 1987, made substantial  progress in FY 1988,
 including publication of the Federal Agency Hazardous  Waste Compliance  Docket.
 This docket lists over 1,000 facilities that must conduct Preliminary Assessments (PA)
 to determine the need for further  investigations and possible listing on the National
 Priorities List (NPL). In addition, OSWER negotiated model interagency compliance
 agreements for cleanups under CERCLA and RCRA with  both the  Department of
 Defense and the Department of  Energy.  These models will  be used to develop
 site-specific agreements during FY 1989. Current plans call for developing 40-45
 Federal Facility Agreements in FY 1989.


INCREASED DELEGATION OF RESPONSIBILITIES TO THE REGIONS
    EPA has recognized and chosen to have these complex programs implemented
 by those officials closesttothe problem — either EPA Regional offices or States. Thus,
 increasingly.more responsibility for contracting and program management has been
 delegated to the Regional Offices to enhance their  ability to obtain the resources
 needed to manage ongoing activities without obtaining Headquarters review and
 approval. For example, the Regions have  been delegated full responsibility for RODs
 as well as significant responsibility for Superfund settlements.  Many Regions have
 been delegated responsibility for issuing Section 3008(h) corrective action orders as
 well. Superfund and RCRA are now "the most delegated" programs in the Agency.
 This continued delegation  of responsibilities is part of OSWER's effort to expedite
 program implementation  activities.


CHEMICAL EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS AND PREVENTION PROGRAM
   The Chemical Emergency Preparedness and Prevention (CEPP) Program focused
 on building State capability through a wide range of technical assistance efforts. To
 date, 56 State Emergency Response Committees (SERCs) and more than 3,800 Local
 Emergency Planning Committees (LEPCs) have been established. In FY 1988, CEPP
 assisted these groups with training and guidance for developing required emergency
 preparedness plans, and assisted 41 States and territories in planning and conducting
 a total of 67 emergency preparedness exercises. In June and July,  1988, CEPP
 conducted five information management workshops for SERC and LEPC members.
 During the fiscal year, five  million dollars were allocated for SERCs' and Indian tribes'
 Title III  training through  the Federal  Emergency Management Administration's
 (FEMA's) comprehensive cooperative agreement with each State.

-------
DEVELOPMENT OF AN EFFECTIVE UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK
PROGRAM

   In addition to finalizing the Underground Storage Tank (UST) technical standards
 and  State program approval  regulations, the Regions had awarded  Cooperative
 Agreements to 50 of the 56 States and territories by the end of FY 1988, enabling the
 States to spend Trust Fund resources for corrective action and related program costs.
 The Office of Underground Storage Tanks (OUST) awarded approximately $35 million
 from the Leaking Underground Storage Tank  (LUST) Trust Fund in FY 1988.  In
 addition, OUST is undertaking  a number of activities to build State and local capability,
 including development of a  handbook on compliance and enforcement techniques
 ("Building State Compliance  Programs"), which provides information on outreach
 activities, compliance monitoring and enforcement actions.


MAJOR RULES AND GUIDANCES DEVELOPED
   In addition to the accomplishments outlined above, the programs  also made
 substantial progress  in promulgating the  rules  and guidances that provide the
 foundation for the implementation activities. Major efforts  in this area  include:

      • The Office of Emergency and Remedial Response (OERR), working with
        OWPE, completed revision of the Superfund National  Contingency Plan
        (NCP)  in FY 1988 in preparation for proposal in early FY 1989.


      « OSW issued final land disposal restriction rules for the "First Third" of
        scheduled wastes in  August 1988,  as required by HSWA.


      « OSW issued  final rules governing permit  modifications that  provide
        owner/operators with greater flexibility in the types  of changes they can
        make in their processes without   triggering major permit modification
        procedures.


      • OERR, working with the Superfund Enforcement Division, issued interim
        final guidance on conducting RI/FSs in compliance with CERCLA, SARA,
        and other laws, and  finalized the strategy on achieving the target of 175
        Remedial Design/Remedial Action (RD/RA) starts. Final  RI/FS guidance
        will be issued after the NCP has been promulgated.

-------
• The Preparedness staff promulgated the final rule for SARA Sections
  311-312 on October 15, 1987. This rule establishes requirements for
  material safety data sheets (MSDS) and hazardous chemical inventory
  reporting,


• OUST promulgated final technical standards for USTs and State program
  approval regulations in FY1988 to provide an effective regulatory base for
  implementing this new program.


* OWPE issued an interim policy on the determination of acceptability  of
  facilities for off-site disposal of wastes from Superfund response actions.
  Work was completed on the proposed rule embodying this policy which
  will be published for comment in FY 1989.


• SARA required States to certify that they have adequate capacity to
  properly dispose of wastes from Superfund cleanups,  EPA, working with
  the National Governors' Association (NGA), developed draft guidance for
  the States to follow in meeting the certification requirement. EPA expects
  to issue this guidance in early FY 1989.

-------

-------
                                SECTION 1

                    SUPERFUND PROGRAM

    Since the passage of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA)
 early last fiscal year, the Superfund program has made substantial progress in terms
 of site activity as well as regulatory and policy efforts. Fiscal year 1988 was the first full
 year of SARA implementation. Also during FY 1988, the Superfund program issued
 Interim  guidance on preparing  Records of Decision (RODs).   The Superfund
 program's accomplishments in all of these areas during FY 1988 are described more
 fully below.


RESPONSE ACTIVITIES

    Under the authority of the Superfund site response program, two  types  of
 response activity may  be undertaken — removal and remedial actions.  These
 response actions are carried  out as either fund-lead or enforcement-lead activities,
 depending upon the availability of responsible parties and other considerations,1  A
 pre-remedial Preliminary Assessment (PA) of existing site  information provides the
 basis for determining whether a removal or remedial action should be performed. At
 sites warranting additional study prior to determining the appropriate type of response,
 pre-remedial site inspections  (Sis)  are conducted to further evaluate  potential
 hazards.

    Selection of a long-term remedy for a Superfund site is based on two major studies
 —  a Remedial  Investigation  (Rl) and a Feasibility Study (FS). During the Rl,  EPA
 personnel or contractors collect site-related data with  which to develop a detailed
 understanding of the contamination problem at the site.  During the FS, alternative
 approaches for site remediation are developed and evaluated, and a recommended
 approach is identified.

    Section 116 of SARA prescribes goals and timetables for completing pre-remedial
 work (PAs and Sis) and for initiating remedial work (RI/FSs and RAs). These goals and
 schedules and EPA's progress toward meeting them are detailed below in the sections
 on pre-remedial and remedial actions. It has become more apparent that Superfund
 cleanups are complex, long-term efforts that involve more scientific uncertainty, and
 are more difficult to complete than anticipated in the earlier days of the program.  In
 spite of these challenges, however, the program is making a concerted effort to meet
 the statutory schedules.

    1 For purposes of this report, enforcement-lead activates are (hose carried out by potentially responsible parties
     (PRPs). All federally-financed Superfund activities are referred to as "fund-lead."

-------
Pro-Remedial Actions

    Section 116 of SARA specifies that PAs are to be completed by January 1,1988 for
 all facilities listed in the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
 Liability Information System (CERCLIS) as of October 1986.  In January 1988, the
 Agency announced that it had met the statutory target for achieving PAs, Achieving
 this goal required the completion of almost 1,000 sites in the first quarter of the fiscal
 year.

    Overall, Superfund's pre-remedial program substantially increased its productivity
 in FY 1988, exceeding Agency goals for both PAs and Sis. The PA target of 2,432 for
 FY1988 was exceeded by 21 % for a total of 2,884 completions. There are now 27,000
 sites listed in CERCLIS that have  completed PAs.  Elimination of the PA backlog
 allowed the Agency to establish a new policy requiring that all sites entered into
 CERCLIS recieve PAs within one year. This action was taken to prevent buildup of a
 new backlog.  Exhibit  1  illustrates the cumulative  percentage of PAs completed
 through FY 1988. The FY 1988 SI target of 1,117 was exceeded by 11 % for a total of
                                Exhibit 1
                     Percent of CERCLIS* Sites with
                   Preliminary Assessments Completed
                     Through FY 1988 (Cumulative)
                               FY 1981-1887
                                 24,075
                                 (S0%>
                        Total CERCLIS = 30.013 (estimate)

                      Inventory of potential Superfund sites
 1,237 completions. Approximately 30% or 9,000 of the sites entered in CERCLIS
 through FY 1988 now have completed Sis.  Exhibit 2 compares the number of Sis
 conducted in FY 1988 with the number completed in previous years.

-------
                                Exhibit 2
                     Number of Site Investigations
                              Completed
                  10000

                   9000

                   8000

                   7000

                   $OOO

                   5000

                   4000

                   3000

                   2000

                   1000

                     0
9,064
       FY 1988
       FY 1961-1967
   The Agency also conducted a full-scale reassessment of past low priority sites. It
was necessary to re-evaluate  approximately 5,000 existing PAs in order to more
accurately assess the future SI  workload. Through the PA reassessment process it
was determined that no further remedial action was necessary at approximately 3,000
sites that had  previously been  given low priority site inspection recommendations.
This project saved substantial resources for use at more serious sites.

   An additional  229 sites were listed on the NPL during FY 1988, bringing the total
number of sites on the NPL to 1,175.

   The FY  1987  management initiative to design a strategy that would expedite the
pre-remedial process was further developed and partially implemented in FY 1988.
This initiative has resulted in a restructuring  of the pre-remedial program.  The
purpose of this restructuring is  to provide EPA with enough specific site information
early in the pre-remedial process to decide expeditiously which sites require further
EPA evaluation. The PA has been expanded in scope and involves more site-specific
research, and considers Hazard Ranking System (MRS) factors at both the PA and SI
stages in order to develop a projected MRS score. Sites that have no probability of
being listed on  the NPL  are  designated  "No Further Remedial Action Planned
(NFRAP)" and will receive no further Superfund evaluation. Approximately 11,000 sites
have been so designated.

-------
    The SI is now divided into two steps: (1) the Screening SI, in which a sampling plan
 is developed for a limited number of on-site samples to determine which contaminants
 exist on-site and whether they are migrating; and (2)  the Listing SI, in which more
 extensive analysis is conducted to better determine the extent of contamination and a
 draft MRS score is produced. Using this redesigned pre-remedial system, EPA can
 more quickly determine which sites do not pose a threat significant enough to require
 placement on the NPL, Field tests are currently being performed at seven to ten sites in
 each Region to fine-tune these changes in the pre-remedial program. Testing will be
 complete in 1989 and will result in revised guidance documents, a finalized computer
 scoring system (PRESCORE), and a complete pre-remedial training program.

Removal Actions

    Removal actions generally are short-term actions  intended for  responding  to
 immediate threats to human health, welfare, or the environment. SARA Section 104(e)
 imposes limits of one year and $2 million upon removal actions, although exemptions
 may be granted in some cases. Removals may be undertaken to temporarily stabilize
 or clean up an incident or site until longer-term response actions can be implemented.
 In some cases, no further response  action is necessary.  Since the  inception of the
 Superfund  program,  the  removal program has been highly successful.  Exhibit 3
 shows the total number of removal actions initiated  since the enactment of the
 Comprehensive   Environmental  Response,  Compensation,  and  Liability  Act
 (CERCLA)  in 1980. Fiscal year  1988 accomplishments contribute to the program's
 good record. In FY 1988, 332 removal actions were initiated, and 279 actions were
 completed using CERCLA funds or enforcement authorities.
                                   Exhibit 3
                         Number of Removal Actions
                                  Initiated*
                        1600

                        1400

                        1200

                        1000

                         800

                         600

                         400

                         200

                          0
FY 1981-1987
                             Includes PRP and fund-lead
                             removals at both NPL and
                             non-NPL sites
                                    10

-------
    Removal actions are characterized according to the urgency of the  response
 required.    Incidents  or  sites  requiring  immediate  attention are  considered
 emergencies.  Those that require attention within six months are  time-critical, and
 those that can be postponed for more than six months are non-time-critical.  Classic
 emergencies, such as fires and explosions, and time-critical situations that cannot be
 addressed  by  other  authorities  are the removal program's highest  priority.
 Approximately one-third of the removal  actions carried out each year are classic
 emergencies.  Of the remaining  removals, time-critical removals comprise the vast
 majority. Additional FY  1988 accomplishments relating to Superfund removal actions
 include implementation of recommendations made by the On-Scene  Coordinator
 (OSC) Management Support Task Force. Specifically, the Regions: (1) began hiring
 administrative assistants to support OSCs; (2) installed a removal cost management
 system using portable computers at many sites; and (3) produced and distributed a
 site-file guidance kit.

Re m e dI ialAction s
    Remedial actions  are  long-term cleanup  actions  that  are  undertaken in
 non emergency situations.  Remedial actions usually take longer to complete  than
 removal  actions,  require extensive  study to  select the most effective  remedial
 alternative, and may cost millions of dollars to implement. Overall progress in the
 remedial program for fiscal years 1987 and 1988 is  shown in Exhibit 4.

    Selection of a long-term remedy for  a Superfund site is a multi-step process
 involving  many factors.  Remedial  alternatives are developed  by screening all
 potentially  applicable  technologies   and process  options  (including innovative
 technologies) on the basis of technical  implementability. Technologies and process
 options that cannot be effectively  implemented  are  screened out  using  site
 characterization data from the Rl. The Rl and FS are often conducted concurrently.

    Each  remedial alternative is evaluated with respect to nine criteria  developed by
 EPA to address the statutory requirements of CERCLA Section 121.  The criteria
 include: (1) overall protection of human health and the environment; (2) long-term
 effectiveness; (3) short-term effectiveness;  (4) reduction of toxicity, mobility,  and
 volume of contaminants; (5) compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
 Requirements;   (6)  implementability; (7)  cost; (8) State  acceptance;  and  (9)
 community  reaction.

    Based on the results of the evaluation, the Regional Administrator or Assistant
 Administrator, in consultation with appropriate State personnel, selects the remedy for
 the site, EPA's proposed plan for remediating the contamination is then announced to
 the affected community at a public meeting.  After  the public has had  a chance to
 comment on the plan,  a ROD is prepared.  The ROD  formalizes the selection of a
                                     11

-------
                            Exhibit 4
    Major Superfund  Program Accomplishments
                    FY 1987 and 1988
     653
                                        • FY 1988

                                        CD FY 1987
              231
                                229
           m
 110
•••
 49

  Removals    RI/FS   Subsequent   RODs      RD       RA    Remedial
             First      Rl/FSs              Starts     Starts*   Site Work
             Starts                                      Completions
                                                         and NPL
                                                        Deletions
* RA Starts includes both first and subsequent starts,
 (NOTE: Only "first starts" count towards statutory goal of 175 by October 1989.)
                               12

-------
remedy from the alternatives analyzed in the FS. The ROD also describes the ways in
which the selected remedy satisfies the statutory requirements of CERCLA Section
121.
   The following SARA-mandated schedule governs R!/FSs at facilities placed on the
NPL prior to October 1986:

      •  RI/FSs must be commenced for at least 275 sites by October 1989; or
     »  RI/FSs must be commenced for at least 450 sites by October 1990 and for
        an additional 200 sites by October 1991 for a total of 650 sites by October
        1991,

   Exhibit 4 illustrates the RI/FS accomplishments in FY 1988. These included 101
"first start" R!/FSs and 49 subsequent RI/FSs, As shown in Exhibit 5, EPA has already
accomplished 231 RI/FSs, or 84% of the SARA prescribed goal of initiating RI/FSs at
275 sites by October 1989.  A national goal of completing  most Ri/'FSs  within 18
months continues to be a high priority.
                                    Exhibit 5
                        Progress Toward Meeting SARA
                            Goal of 275 RI/FS  Starts
           Number
           of Sites
400
370
340
310
280
250
220
190
160
130
100
                          • Targets
                          n Accomplishments
                                        HI	-f~j
r
                                                      -: Goal
   One hundred and twelve initial RODs and 41 subsequent RODs were signed in FY
1988, for a total of 153.  (Appendix A provides a list of these RODs  by  Region.)
Selected remedies and costs in FY 1988 are summarized in Exhibit 6.
                                    13

-------
                              Exhibit 6
          Records of Decision (RODs)
                           FY 1988
I. Source Control RODs
A. Treatment Technologies
Incineration/Thermal Destruction
Solidification/Stabilization/Neutralization
Volatilization/Soil Aeration
Soil Washing/Flushing
Biodegradation/Land Application
Vacuum Extraction
Other
B. Containment
C. Other
<^| ihtr»tai
OUUlUidl
II, Non-Source Control RODs
A. Ground Water Management
B, Leachate Treatment
C. Other
Subtotal
Hi, No Further Action
Total*
Fund
18
8
5
3
4
4
2
7
4
4fWif^immm
s;;'Ss;-:SS;w9sJs;f:*;;?; ;
23
1
1

11

Enforcement
4
10 ~l
. _ . |
4
2 -"
6
2^1
L 25
1
cc
DO
14
3
0
17
8
78
Total
22
18
7
«3?
/
6
10
4
32
5
^MiilSfi^giSlii
«!iii:iiliil
37 .
4
I 1 "

18
*S«iv'SSS-«i:--:,t«:>r;S*!<;
   Some of the RODs signt'd -,. FY 1988 (tctailing 153) involve more than one remedy,
                         Remedy Costs
Program
Enforcement
                               14

-------
   As shown in this exhibit, 111 remedies selected during Pf 1988 required source
control, either through treatment or containment.  Treatment technologies included
incineration and thermal destruction; solidification; stabilization and neutralization: soil
aeration; soil washing and flushing; biodegradation; and vacuum extraction. Of the
remaining RODs, 42 involved ground-water action and 16 required no further action.
Five RODs contained both source control and ground-water remedies,
   Under SARA Section 116(e), EPA is further required to start remedial  action at 175
NPL sites by  October  1989, and to initiate such activities  at an additional 200 sites
within the following two years. The program made good progress toward achievement
of the target of remedial action at 175 sites.  Since SARA,  the program has initiated
remedial action at a total of 74 sites (see Exhibit 7). Site completions and NPL deletions
were accomplished at 35 sites in FY1988, raising the total to almost 50. In addition, 99
remedial designs were initiated during FY 1988.

                                Exhibit 7
                 Progress toward Meeting SARA Goal of
                   175 RA First Starts by October 1989
                      100 r		 	 	-	— 	,
                       90
                       80
                       70
                       SO
                       50
                       40
                       30
                       20
                       10
                       0
                                 1987 - 1988
                                  Enforcement
                                  Fund

   Two key management initiatives relating to remedial work that were introduced in
FY 1987 were further developed in FY 1988.  These include the Alternative Remedial
Contracts Strategy (ARCS) and the RI/FS Improvements initiative.  Central to ARCS
are the  concepts of promoting continuity of  remedial performance from the RI/FS
stage to construction management, increasing the level of competition for contract
awards, and  facilitating  delegation of contract management responsibility to the
Regions.

   Awarding an ARCS contract is a two-step process. Negotiations are conducted
with a pooi of firms selected as potential ARCS contractors.  ARCS contracts then are
                                    15

-------
 awarded to several firms within the pool. EPA completed  ARCS negotiations in all
 Regions in FY1988, and awarded ARCS contracts in Regions II, III, and V. The RI/FS
 Improvements Initiative  is discussed later  in this  chapter,   (see "Regulations,
 Guidance, and other Activities.")


ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
   The Superfund enforcement  program made  substantial progress in FY 1988.
 SARA provided  strong  enforcement provisions in  order to compel potentially
 responsible parties (PRPs) to conduct site cleanups or to reimburse the government
 for costs it incurred in conducting cleanups.

Overview of Enforcement Authorities
   EPA uses three major types of efforts to enlist  PRP involvement in cleanups and
 reimbursements.  First, if the PRP is willing and capable of  doing the work, EPA will
 attempt to negotiate an  enforcement agreement  (settlement) with the PRP.  The
 enforcement agreement may be  an agreement entered in court (such as a judicial
 consent decree for RD/RA) or it may be an administrative order for RI/FS removals
 (where EPA and  the PRP sign  an  agreement outside of court).   Both of these
 agreements are enforceable in Federal District Court, and under both agreements,
 EPA  oversees the PRP.  Section 122 of SARA  provides  EPA the authority  and
 parameters for negotiating  these settlements.
   If a settlement is not reached, EPA can use its authority under Section  106 of SARA
 to issue a unilateral judicial and administrative action against  the PRP.  Under this
 course of action, the PRP is directed to perform removal or remedial actions at a site. If
 the PRP chooses not to respond to an administrative order, EPA has the option of filing
 a law  suit to compel performance and seek statutory penalties, and in some instances,
 treble damages.
   Finally, if PRPs do not perform the work and EPA undertakes the work, EPA will file
 suit against the PRPs to recover money spent by the Agency and return it to the Trust
 Fund.  EPA's authority  to conduct these cost recovery  efforts is provided under
 Section 107 of SARA.

EnforcementAccomplishments
   In FY 1988, the Superfund enforcement program met or exceeded most targets,
 resulting in record-setting accomplishments for the year. By the end of the fiscal year,
 EPA had reached settlements with PRPs for them  to conduct responses worth more
 than one billion dollars since the start of the program in 1980. These responses include
 emergency  removals of hazardous substances,  remedial investigation/feasibility
 studies, and remedial actions.
                                    16

-------
   RI/FS first starts by responsible parties (RPs) were targeted at 35 sites, and 48 were
achieved.  This is representative of the increasing role PRPs are playing in the conduct
of RI/FSs.  Exhibit 8 shows that while PRPs conducted only 38% of RI/FSs in FY 1987,
they are expected to conduct 55% of all RI/FSs in FY 1989. RODs where the Ri/FS was
conducted by RPs increased significantly with a total of 51 signed (43 initial RODs and
8 subsequent). The Agency also exceeded its commitment of 20 RP remedial action
starts by accomplishing 21. Cost recovery referrals under Section 107 also exceeded
the target of 49, with 56 cases referred to the Department of Justice (DOJ), seeking
more than $120 million,

                               Exhibit 8
                       Increasing Enforcement
                       Role In RI/FS First Starts
                       FY 1987
                       FY 1988
                       FY 1989
                                   Enforcement

                                   Fund
Settlements. In FY 1988, EPA negotiated more settlements than in any prior year.
This included 29 consent decrees lodged worth approximately $270 million in RD/RA
work. Another  19 consent decrees signed by PRPs for RD/RA are in government
concurrence (value of response is yet to be determined). There were an additional 7
sites where the Agency issued an  unilateral  order for RD/RA which resulted in
settlements worth approximately $50 million. (See Appendix B for a listing of these 36
FY 1988 RD/RA settlements.) The number lodged represents a 300 percent increase
over the number of decrees lodged in FY  1987.  In addition, EPA negotiated Ri/FS
                                    17

-------
settlements at 77 sites worth approximately $85 million and removal settlements at 94
sites valued at approximately $67 million. These settlements are for first or subsequent
starts or for takeover of a project the Agency has started.  Exhibit 9 summarizes the
settlements lodged in FY 1988 and the approximate value of these settlements. The
information in the exhibit is a combination of data reported in CERCLIS and data
manually compiled by the Office of Waste Programs Enforcement (OWPE).
                                   Exhibit 9
                 Number and Value of  Superfund Settlements
     Number of
     Settlements
                        Removal       RI/FS       RO/RA
                        IH FY 1988 (Total = $470 million dollars)
                        HS FY 1980 - 198'? jTofai - $626 million dollars)

   A few of the more noteworthy settlements for FY 1988 include:

      •  Cannons Engineering, NH and MA. This settlement was reached with the
        largest waste generators and the owners of two of the four sites involved in
        the case. The comprehensive settlement includes cost recovery of $17.1
        million, implementation of RD/RA at two sites, and  a removal action at a
        third site. The settlers will reimburse oversight costs as a percentage of
        actual  costs.   Two  additional  de minimis settlements  and  three
        Administrative Orders on Consent added to this Consent Decree to bring
        the  total recovery to $48.1 million   of the  $58,57 million  in total costs
        expected.
      •  Prices Landfill, NJ. The cashout provides for payment of $17,24 million in
        exchange for a covenant not to sue for  past and future  liability.

      •  Tysons  Dump,  PA.  The settlement with  the PRPs provided for 100
        percent cost recovery, an agreement to conduct the  remedy, and
        payment of all oversight costs.  The estimated value of this settlement is
        $10.2 million plus oversight costs.
                                     18

-------
      « Seymour Recycling,  IN.  After eight  years of litigation, some of the
        defendants have agreed to pay $6.5 million in past costs and conduct the
        remedy for an estimated value of settlement of $25 million.

      • Outboard Marine Corporation (OMC), Ml. The settlement provides for the
        PRPs to implement RD/RA involving construction of three containment
        cells, slurry walls and a cap with a synthetic liner.  PCB contaminated soils
        will be excavated, treated, and disposed of off-site. The estimated value
        of the remedy is $20 million. The PRPs will also pay future oversight costs
        to EPA and the  State. Past costs of $1.7 million were waived.

      » Bayou Sorrel, LA,  The settlement provides for the PRPs to fully finance
        RD/RA consisting of construction of a RCRA compliant cap over the site,
        construction of  a slurry  wall and installation of a  storm water/leachate
        collection system.  The remedy is valued at $25 million. The PRPs will also
        pay $800,000 towards past costs and up to $1.8 million in future costs.

      • B.F. Goodrich and Airco Sites, KY. These two adjacent sites were settled
        in one consent decree. The remedy for each was identical: the pumping
        and treating by air  stripping  of contaminated groundwater and  the
        excavation and  capping in place of contaminated soils. The settlement
        calls for the conduct of 100 percent of the remedy for the two sites, and the
        payment of 100 percent of EPA's past  costs and future oversight costs
        although EPA may take action against a non-settling  party through an
        AOU to seek these costs. The value of the remedy is approximately $6
        million and the total past and future costs are estimated to be $800,000.

Cost Recovery... Exhibit 10 highlights the key accomplishments of the cost recovery
program prior to and during FY1988 and shows the number and dollar value of actions
referred to DOJ or settlements filed by DOJ.  During FY 1988, EPA Regional offices
initiated 56 cost recovery referrals with a combined dollar value of $120 million. In
addition to the referrals, 36 Administrative Cost Recovery settlements, valued at over
$20 million dollars, were  achieved in FY 1988.
                                    19

-------
                                    Exhibit  10
                       Number and Value of Cost Recovery
                                    Referrals
         Number of
          Referrals
100

 90

 80

 70

 60

 50

 40

 30

 20

 10

 0
                      Bi FY 1988 (Total = $120 million dollars)
                      |H!J FY 1981 - 1987  (Total - $66 million dollars)


   Two guidance documents for the cost recovery program were also released in
1988. The first is titled, "The Super-fund Cost Recovery Strategy," (OSWER Directive
9832.13). It provides a framework for planning and initiating actions to recover Federal
funds expended by EPA or a State during  CERCLA response actions. The second is
titled, "Guidance on Documenting Decisions  Not to Take Cost Recovery Actions,"
(OSWER Directive 9832.11). This guidance document discusses the information to be
included  in EPA close-out   memoranda  written to document the basis of EPA
decisions when cost recovery of unreimbursed Superfund monies is not being sought.
   EPA also delegated concurrence on most Section 107 cost recovery actions to the
Regions on June 7, 1988 (OSWER Directive 9012.10-a).  EPA Regional  offices now
have a greater amount of authority to resolve Section 107 claims without approval from
EPA Headquarters. Referrals subject to the new  delegation criteria may be referred
directly to the Department of Justice.
Section 106 Enforcement. In FY 1988, EPA issued 14 unilateral administrative orders
under Section 106 of SARA for RD/RA worth more than $136 million (Exhibit 11). Of
these 14, 7 resulted in settlement, 1 resulted in settlement  under a lodged consent
decree, 2 cases were referred to DOJ. and the remaining orders are waiting for a PRP
response. The Agency referred one additional case to the Department of Justice for
injunctive relief for RI/FS and remedial action, the  value of which has not yet been
determined.
                                    20

-------
                                 Exhibit II
                 Administrative Orders Issued Since SARA
               160

               140

               120

               100

      Number of 80
        Orders
               60

               40

               20

                0
                       Removal
  139
 RI/FS

FY 1988

FY 1987
RD/RA
   For the removal program, 116 orders were issued in FY 1988 for removal activities
valued at over $78 million dollars. Of these, 94 resulted in compliance, with a value of
over $67 million dollars. One hundred and two of these resulted in removal starts.

   For FY 1988, there were a total of 156 Administrative Orders on Consent and 61
unilateral Administrative Orders. The overall total of 217 represents  a 62 percent
increase over the total number of orders issued in FY 1987 (135).


REGULATIONS, GUIDANCE, AND OTHER ACTIVITIES
   Concurrent with a significant amount of site activity, there was a substantial amount
of regulatory and guidance development in the Superfund program during FY 1988.
Some of these activities were mandated by CERCLA or SARA. Other efforts stemmed
from the need to improve the pace  of the Superfund program.  Proposed revisions to
the NCR and the MRS are almost complete and scheduled to be published in early FY
1989. Extensive guidance was drafted on how to conduct RI/FSs, Interim guidance
for preparing RODs and proposed plans was released in FY 1988; a final guidance
document, however, will not be issued until the revisions to the NCR are promulgated.
The   following sections outline  these and other  regulatory and guidance activities
undertaken by both Superfund program staff and Superfund enforcement staff during
the past year.
                                    21

-------
National Contingency Plan
    During FY 1988, OSWER announced major revisions to the National Contingency
 Plan (NCR), which comprises the bulk of the Superfund regulatory  program.  In
 addition to incorporating the changes mandated by SARA, the NCR  is being revised
 to: (1) more accurately reflect the sequence of response actions taken pursuant to the
 NCR; (2) clarify existing language on roles, responsibilities, and activities of affected
 parties; and (3) incorporate changes indicated by program experience. The revised
 NCP will reflect the Agency's bias toward active remedies for Superfund cleanups.
 The proposed rule:

      • Proposes using the following nine criteria for evaluating and selecting
        cleanup  remedies:  (1) overall  protection  of human  health and  the
        environment; (2) compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
        Requirements (ARARs);  (3) long-term effectiveness and permanence;
        (4) reduction of toxicity, mobility or volume; (5) short-term effectiveness;
        (6) implementability; (7) cost; (8) State acceptance; and (9) community
        reaction;

      • Incorporates the new statutory requirement that remedies must comply
        not only with ARARs under Federal law, but also with ARARs under State
        environmental or  facility-siting  laws that  are more stringent than
        corresponding Federal standards;

      • Implements  the SARA requirement that  States play a "substantial and
        meaningful"  role in the initiation, development and selection of remedial
        actions,  by  introducing the Superfund Memorandum of Agreement
         (SMOA) and the process of EPA/State concurrence in remedy selection;

      • Specifies public   participation  requirements  including   conducting
        community interviews, developing community relations plans, making
        available for public comment the  proposed cleanup  alternatives and
        responding to comments received;

      «  Incorporates the  new statutory requirements  for the expansion of
         short-term action  expense and time limits from $1 million dollars  and six
         months to $2 million dollars and one year; and

      »  Requests comment on a proposal to defer sites from listing on the NPL if
        the sites can be addressed by other Federal and State environmental
         authorities or by PRPs under enforcement authorities.
                                     22

-------
Hazard Ranking System

    During  FY 1988, OSWER undertook a major revision of the Hazard Rank.nci
 System (MRS), the Superfund pre-remedial tool used to identify sites  warranting
 inclusion on the NPL.   The proposed  changes to the  MRS will make it a more
 comprehensive ranking system, taking into consideration two new exposure pathways
 - the human food chain  and direct contact with soils - and making the definition of
 "sensitive environments" more inclusive.  In addition, the revised MRS wili conside'
 both acute and chronic health effects. The revisions will result in a ranking system that
 is more accurate in assessing potential for exposure, contaminant concentration af, >
 contaminant toxicity. As a result, the  HRS will provide a more selective tooi f
 identifying the most problematic sites.

    The HRS rulemaking  effort passed several important milestones during FY  198ft
 including: (1) workgroup closure; (2) Agency review; and (3) Science Advisory Boa?-:i
 (SAB) review. The proposed HRS incorporating Agency and SAB  revisions was se-a
 to OMB in February 1988 for review and is scheduled to be  proposed early in FY i 9?'^
 In addition, work was initiated during FY 1988 on atwo stage field testing project to ^;>!
 the implementability of the HRS provisions.
RI/FS Guidance

    During FY 1988, the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWE-H)
issued detailed guidance for implementing the RI/FS Improvements Initiative ot FY
1987. The goal of the RI/FS Improvements Initiative is to improve the  schedule and
cost efficiency of the RI/FS process while concurrently improving the technical quality
of RI/FS work. The guidance, focusing on easily  implemented short-term initiatives,
was distributed to the Regions in April 1988. EPA established workgroups to a«iciress
more complex and  longer term  issues, including:  (1) enforcement;  (2) S'.v.o
considerations; (3) interim  action response; (4) technical/procedural aspects  f ,,,
laboratory  support  and  treatability studies);   (5)  procurement actions  (^.o ,
subcontract  procurement)  and;   (6)  program  management  aspects   «? .;
performance-based  goals and risk taking in decision-making).

   An interim final version  of the RI/FS guidance document on addressing  ti's.
issues was distributed to the Regions in October 1988.  This document  reflects s n. /,
RI/FS process outlined in the NCR. The RI/FS is no longer a  two-phase precede
which the Rl is completed prior to the start of the FS. Instead, the RI/FS process is now
a one-phase process with stages feeding into each other and sometimes occurring
simultaneously. The interim final guidance  also reflects other FY 1988 proposed
revisions to the NCP and will be  finalized after promulgation of the revised MOP
                                    23

-------
ROD Guidance
    In addition, EPA began revising the draft ROD guidance in FY 1988 to reflect
 proposed revisions to the NCR. The draft guidance now provides more  specific
 guidance on: (1) implementing remedies organized into several operable units; (2)
 proposing sites for deletion from the NPL; and (3) selecting a "no action" alternative,

Release Notification Program
    Timely notification of hazardous substance releases is critical to the success of the
 response program.  CERCLA Section 103 and SARA Section 304 contain release
 notification requirements for hazardous substances listed  under CERCLA. FY 1988
 regulatory activity in the hazardous substance release notification program consisted
 mainly of designation and reportable quantity (RQ) adjustment rulemakings pursuant
 to CERCLA Sections 102(a) and (b).

Removal Program Guidance
    In order to promote the most efficient use of limited removal program  funds and
 resources, the Emergency Response Division (ERD) issued four guidance documents
 in FY 1988.  These guidance documents assist Regions in  setting priorities so that the
 most serious threats to human health and the environment can be addressed. First, in
 February 1988, ERD issued the revised "Superfund Removal Procedures Manual."
 This manual describes all of the   procedural and administrative  requirements for
 removal actions,  and provides step-by-step directions for preparation and approval
 of documentation.

    Second, the "Removal Program Priorities" memorandum distributed on March 31,
 1988, identifies national priorities for use  of removal resources (e.g.,  time-critical
 removals at NPL sites and at non-NPL sites posing major threats  which cannot be
 addressed by other authorities). It also allows Regional discretion in conducting other
 types of removals within program authorities,  if site-specific conditions necessitate
 such action.

    Third, the "Removal Cost Management  Manual" provides comprehensive cost
 management procedures for use by EPA at CERCLA-authorized removals. Revised
 and reissued in April 1988, the manual includes; (1) a discussion of the concept and an
 approach to cost management; (2) techniques for cost projection  and tracking; and
 (3) techniques for cost control, cost recovery, and cost  documentation.

    Fourth,  the "Removal Actions Universe Study" provides  information  on the
 universe of removals (i.e., numbers of removals, average costs, types of removals,
 and removals by Region).  This study will be used by EPA to develop  policy and
 prepare future budgets that accurately reflect the program's needs.
                                    24

-------
Technical Assistance Grants (TAGs)
    Section 117(e) of SARA provides for technical assistance grants of up to $50,000 to
 be made available to groups of individuals to obtain assistance  in  interpreting
 information related to activities at Superfund sites.  In June  1987, EPA issued an
 advance notice of rulemaking and requested comments on the Technical Assistance
 Grant Program.  In March 1988, EPA issued an interim final rule which discussed
 Technical Assistance Grants (TAG) Program  requirements so the Agency could
 immediately begin to accept applications from citizens' groups for financial assistance,
 while simultaneously accepting comments on and developing the final rule.

    From the time of publication of the interim final rule to the end of fiscal year 1988,
 EPA Regional offices received 79 letters expressing intent to apply for grants and 28
 draft or final grant  applications from citizens' groups. As of September 30, EPA
 awarded  grants to four citizens' groups at sites listed on the NPL. Many more are in
 progress. The four grants awarded in FY 1988 are listed in Exhibit 12, Before the
 creation of the TAG Program, EPA provided financial assistance to citizens' groups at
 both the Lipari Landfill Site in Pitman, NJ and the Stringfellow Site in Glen Avon Heights,
 CA. The citizens,  as well as EPA, have benefitted from the independent advisors' input
 — the groups have a greater understanding of the Superfund process and there is
 enhanced communication between EPA and the citizens.
                              Exhibit  12
          NPL Sites Where TAGs Were Awarded in FY 1988
Region
I!
II
111
V
Name of Site
Love Canal Site,
Niagara Falls, NY
Fulton Terminals Site,
Fulton, NY
Lackawanna Refuse Site,
Old Forge Borough, PA
Industrial Excess Landfill
Site, Uniontown, OH
Grant Recipient
Love Canal Environmental
Action Committee
Fulton Terminals Safe Drinking
Water Action Committee
Old Forge Toxic Waste
Removal Committee
Concerned Citizens of
Lake Township, Inc.
Grant Amount
$43,067
$50,000
$50,000
$50,000
Cost Recovery Strategy
    OWPE issued its final Superfund Cost Recovery Strategy on July 29, 1988. This
 strategy lays out the Agency's case selection priorities and guidelines  and describes
 the cost recovery process for removal and remedial actions.
                                     25

-------
Oth§i..Sjyj38rfynd En.forsem.gnt Guidance

      • Administrative Record Strategy.   OSWER has developed a strategy for
        ensunng that complete administrative records are kept on the  processes
        used for selection of response actions. The strategy includes assessment and
        training in ail ten Regions to ensure that adequate records are being compiled.
        The strategy also includes the  issuance of a guidance document which is
        being used oy the Regions  in draft form pending publication of proposed
        regulations on   administrative  records.  The regulations are slated to be
        Subpart I of the revised  NCR.
         Dispute Resolution Initiative. OSWER has developed a strategy for the use of
         third party neutrals to help resolve Superfund disputes. The strategy includes
         Regional pilot projects to investigate the feasibility of using alternative dispute
         resolution during the   Superfund process.   OSWER is monitoring these
         Regional activities  and will develop a suitable policy after conducting an
         analysis of the pilots.
SupjBrfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) Program
    SARA's emphasis on cleanup and the new cleanup standards established by  the
 statute  require the development of  new treatment technologies.  The  Superfund
 Innovative Technology  Evaluation  (SITE)  Program's objective  is to   develop,
 demonstrate,  and subsequently  encourage  the use of such technologies  as
 alternatives to land disposal. In FY1988, the SITE Program accepted an additional ten
 technologies, bringing the total number of accepted technologies to 29 (see Appendix
 C),  EPA will distribute a fourth request for proposals in January 1989.  Seven field
 demonstrations were completed in FY 1988 for new treatment technologies, including
 infrared incineration,  solidification,  in-situ vacuum  extraction, oxygen-enhanced
 incineration, and  solvent extraction.
Emerging Technologies Program (ETP)
    The Emerging Technologies  Program (ETP) encourages the investigation and
 development of technologies that may be useful for remediation at Superfund sites,
 but that are not yet ready for full-scale demonstration. ETP's goal is  to validate such
 innovative, alternative remediation technologies and prepare them for demonstration.

    ET'P  is  interested  in  developing  cutting-edge  technologies for  recycling,
 separation, detoxification, destruction, and stabilization of hazardous  wastes.  Two
 year funding is available to technology developers through competitive cooperative
                                     26

-------
 agreements. An individual developer may receive up to $150,000 per vBar »'or a
 maximum of $300,000 over two years to bring a promising technology from laboratory
 scale to the pilot stage,

    ETP accepted its first set of proposals from developers in October 168 7   Seven
 projects were awarded a total of $1,000,000 in funding during  FY f 98P (w- Appends
 D).  A second solicitation was released in  September 1988,  and rr —.f!—:5« arc-
 currently being evaluated. A third solicitation is planned for f;rr*-'•••-• >>•>>• - '-s^o, ,*!th
 preproposals due to EPA in October 1989.


Outreach, and Training Activities

    OSWER is  involved in numerous training activities ainw! a; .-•-./-n^iio thf
 effectiveness of its regulatory and enforcement programs inF/  iwt:B -j-SWs. H  Indian
 implementing a new five-year training strategy. This pian IK « '~t>:;tj<  of >-;.-  b-^fi  in
 emphasis from the development of  regulations to irnpiefrientatio-  ,>*  : ogfa;T'S.
 expedited enforcement activities, congressionally mandated acct H^ / c;
 and assisting the States in managing and implementing their own sol;o a> -Jj-
 waste programs.

    The Office of Emergency and Remedial Response (OERR)  also ;n^ ::;; ••:;:. vai ;ety o^
 new Superfund training courses and guidance documents in FY 1986  Ne>v training
 courses  begun in this  fiscal year include: (1) training courses  :•• Arot»;:ao!e -.v
 Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) of RCRA and ?ho ("•'•^-\^ w.- s» •;• Ar/,:.
 Regions II, III, iV, V, and IX; (2) three new Emergency Response Tr--u - ;f '•"•
 (3) a course in Systematic Development of Informed Consent  ano ->'  ^
 Task Manager  course.  In addition, OERR  initiated development ^"  -.?
 Construction Management in Superfund and a Remedial Design Sr.nedi;^

-------
Page Intentionally Blank

-------
                              SECTION 2

 RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT

    The Resource Conservation and Recovery Program made substantial progress in
 addressing the priorities outlined for FY 1988,  Most notably, the program issued 82
 land disposal permits under the Resource Conservation and Recovery  Act (RCRA)
 and denied another 35 in an effort to meet the November 1988 land disposal permitting
 deadline established in the Hazardous and Solid Waste Act Amendments (HSWA).
 Municipal solid waste issues were studied by a special Task Force, which developed
 an agenda for changing the ways in which the nation produces and disposes of solid
 waste, emphasizing source reduction and recycling.  Significant progress was also
 made in implementing the RCRA requirements and improving data management in
 the programs. This section reviews the specific achievements of FY 1988.


PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION
    The RCRA program continued to make progress towards its goal of protecting
 human health  and the environment through the hazardous waste permitting and
 enforcement programs. Priorities for FY 1988 included working toward meeting  the
 Sand disposal and incineration facility permitting deadlines; imposing corrective action
 requirements at  facilities through  permits and enforcement  orders;  and taking
 appropriate enforcement actions for high priority violations identified.  Summaries of
 key activities are provided below.


jPerniitting
    The Agency made significant  progress toward meeting the November 1988
 deadline for land disposal permits in FY 1988.  EPA and the States issued 82 permits
 for land tifsposa!  facilities and denied another 35 such permits,  (See Exhibit 13.)
 Progress toward the November 1988 goal for land disposal facility permitting actions is
 shown in Exhibit 14. Progress was also made toward the November 1989 deadline for
 incinerator permits, as can be seen in  Exhibit 15,  EPA easily met its target of 30 by
 issuing or denying 33 permits to incineration facilities.  The Agency and States also
 approved 14 closure plans for incinerators and 237 closure plans for land disposal
 facilities during this period (see Exhibit 16).
                                   29

-------
140


120


100


 80


 SO


 40


 20
                  Exhibit 13
           Land Disposal Facility
          Permit Actions, FY 1988
• Permits Issued
E3 Permits Denied
                                        Exhibit 14
                      Progress Toward November 1988 Goal of 264
                        Land Disposal Facility Permitting Actions
270

240

210

180

150

120

 90

 60

 30

  0
FY 1938

FY 1982 - 1987
                 Exhibit 15
       incinerator Permit Actions
                 FY 1988
                                      Exhibit  16
                              Closure Plan Approvals

B Permits Issued
CD Permits Denied







800
700
600
i 500




400
300
200

FY 1981 - 1987





100 *1 	
n 1 IffllP"™!!™^^
                                                                             767
                              Incinerators
                                                                          Land Disposal
                                                                            Facilities
                                            30

-------
Corrective Action
    The HSWA corrective action authorities greatly expanded EPA's ability to ensure
 that owners and operators correct releases resulting from past waste management
 practices at RCRA facilities, In FY1988, the Regions undertook the following activities
 to implement the corrective action program: RCRA  Facility Assessments (RFAs) were
 conducted at 228 land disposal facilities, 40 incinerators, and 85 storage facilities. In
 addition, RCRA Facility Investigations (RFIs) were initiated or in progress at 87 land
 disposal facilities,  8 incinerators, and 15 storage facilities. A new corrective  action
 measure is being developed for the Strategic Planning and Management System
 (SPMS) that will assist in tracking the number and  progress of RFIs  underway.

    In  FY 1988,  the  RCRA enforcement program  made substantial progress in
 effectively using the Section 3008(h) authority for corrective action.  Regions issued
 twenty consent orders and five unilateral orders. In addition,  seven Regions were
 delegated authority for issuing consent orders (Regions 3, 4, 5, 6, 8,9, and 10), while
 Regions 4, 8, and  9 also received authorization for issuing unilateral orders. The
 Section 3008(h) model consent order was  made final, and is in use throughout the
 Regions. A draft model unilateral order is in use and is expected to be finalized in early
 FY 1989.

    Guidance was  issued in  May 1988  to direct the Regions  in implementing the
 Environmental Priorities Initiative (EPI) developed  fast year.  EPI is an  integrated
 RCRA/CERCLA management system designed to enable the Agency and the States
 to identify and clean up first those sites that present the greatest threat to human health
 and the environment.   In  FY  1988, in accordance  with guidance provided by
 Headquarters, the  Regions and States  ranked storage and  treatment facilities and
 closing land disposal facilities as high, medium or low priority based on each facility's
 environmental significance. Facilities that are ranked "high priority" are to be entered
 onto CERCLIS and receive CERCLA Preliminary Assessments (PAs) and preliminary
 and projected Hazard Ranking  System (HRS) scores in FY 1989. Medium and low
 priority facilities will be entered onto CERCLIS and receive CERCLA PAs in FY  1990
 and 1991. Certain high priority facilities will also receive a CERCLA  Site Inspection. By
 using the CERCLA  screening mechanism in this way the Agency will be able to focus
 its cleanup efforts on the sites that pose the greatest threat to human health and the
 environment.

    Close coordination with the CERCLA cleanup program includes policies  being
 developed to address corrective action at  RCRA NPL sites. The Office of Waste
 Programs Enforcement (OWPE), in cooperation with the Office  of Emergency and
 Remedial Response  (OERR), has been working on expanding and clarifying the
 RCRA/NPL Listing Policy.  This policy explains under what circumstances RCRA sites
 may be listed on the National Priorities List (NPL): and thus become eligible for

-------
 Superfund monies for remedial activities. During FY1988 the criteria for listing RCRA
 sites on the NPL was expanded in a Federal Register  Notice.  RCRA sites which had
 been proposed during the first four NPL updates were reviewed to determine whether
 they met the new criteria for listing RCRA sites on the NPL. Thirteen of these sites were
 found to meet these criteria and will be reproposed for the NPL, while 30 of these sites
 are to be dropped from the NPL, In FY 1988, Update 7 to the NPL was proposed, which
 included 43  RCRA facilities that meet the criteria for listing on the NPL.

    A revised corrective action order workshop was conducted in Washington, DC and
 five Regions in FY 1988 for audiences of Headquarters staff from OWPE and the Office
 of Solid Waste (OSW),  Regional permits and enforcement  personnel, Regional
 counsel, and State personnel. The two-day workshops covered the authorities that
 can be used to compel corrective action as well as the language and provisions of the
 3008(h) order. The curriculum addressed planning and oversight issues encountered
 throughout the corrective action   process, from the  RFI through the Corrective
 Measures Study (CMS) and the Corrective Measures Implementation (CMI) phase.
 The workshops were taught  by  staff of the Technical Implementation and  Policy
 Sections of the RCRA  Enforcement Division.

Enforcement
    In addition to  corrective action orders, FY 1988  RCRA enforcement priorities
 included:  conducting required high-quality inspections; pursuing actions against
 Significant Non-Compliers (SNCs); enforcing land ban disposal  restrictions, and
 ensuring the adequate availability  of appropriate Superfund treatment and disposal
 capacity through development of the CERCLA Off-site  Policy.

    In December 1987, the Agency issued a revised Off-site Policy that incorporates
 the requirements  set out by  SARA.  The revised policy ensures  that wastes from
 CERCLA sites are sent only to  facilities capable of handling them in an environmentally
 sound manner. The policy also formalizes the Agency's commitment to according
 due process to facilities that are potential recipients of CERCLA wastes. The Off-site
 Policy  further applies  to actions  taken jointly under CERCLA  and other Agency
 statutes. EPA expects to propose  a rule to codify the Off-site Policy in early 1989. The
 rule, however, will  not apply to actions taken under RCRA Section 7003. The draft rule
 has completed Agency and  Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review.

   A key goal of FY 1988 was to conduct at one third of the land disposal facilities either
 a Comprehensive Monitoring Evaluation (CME) or an Operation  and Maintenance
 (O&M) Inspection.  CMEs were conducted at 402 facilities and O&Ms were conducted
 at 25 facilities in FY 1988. Compliance Evaluation  Inspections (CEIs) were conducted
 at 1,338 land disposal facilities by either EPA or the States  in FY 1988, as required by
 HSWA. In addition, treatment and storage facilities owned or operated by Federal,
                                    32

-------
State, or local governments were inspected, as required by Sections 3007(c) and (d).
The RCRA Inspection Enhancement Strategy was developed to increase the quality of
inspections. Final guidance on the strategy was issued in July 1988  and is now beino
implemented in the Regions.

    Emphasis continued to be placed on assuring enforcement against SNCs  (i.e ,
land disposal facilities that have Class I violations of groundwater  monitoring, closure,
or financial responsibility requirements).  At the beginning of the  year, there were 147
SNCs that required formal enforcement  action.  At the end of FY 1988, a!! but 8 had
been addressed by EPA or the  States with enforcement actions or had returned to
compliance (see Exhibit 17).  A revised Environmental Response Policy (ERP) was
finalized in December 1987.  The new ERP provided additional  flexibility  in selecting
enforcement  actions by  changing the  method of defining high priority violations.
Another initiative to increase the Regions' flexibility in tailoring enforcement activities to
better fit their own priorities is the "RIP-flex." Under this  initiative, the Regions may
negotiate with Headquarters to redirect resources and alter priorities within their SPMS
commitments to better reflect Region or State-specific priorities.

                                Exhibit 17
                        Beginning-of-year SNCs
                        with Formal Enforcement
                    Action or Returned to Compliance
                          Total Beglnnlng-of-year
                               SNCs = 147
                         0 SNCs with Formal
                            Enforcement or
                            Returned to Compliance
                         I Still Require Action

   In addition to Regional and State inspections, OWPE supported enforcement  of
the land disposal restrictions through workshops and training.  OWPE, in conjunction
with the Regions and States, conducted an intensive RCRA. Inspector Workshop in ail
ten Regions, the State of Florida, and Washington, DC.  Approximately  i 000 EPA
State, and contractor personnel attended the three and one half day workshops, in
which they learned procedures to be used when conducting inspections of hazardous
waste generators, transporters, and treatment, storage and disposal facilities. Topics
                                     33

-------
covered included evidence,  generator requirements, permitted facility irispections,
access issues, regulatory interpretations, industrial processes, photo interpretation of
hazardous waste facilities, the inspector as a witness, report writing, sampling and site
reconnaissance, environmental crime, enforcement authorities, and HSWA.

   Training on the Technical Enforcement Guidance Document was conducted in five
locations nationwide during FY1988. The training was revised and updated to include
new information on the Compliance Order Guidance and Laboratory Audit Inspection.


Data Management
   Significant progress was made in FY 1988 in streamlining reporting requirements
and procedures.  The Resource Conservation and Recovery   Information System
(RCRIS) is under development to better manage the RCRA program at both the State
and national levels.  Conversion of data from the Hazardous Waste Data Management
System to RCRIS began in FY 1988, Design and programming continued throughout
the fiscal year for RCRIS's seven major  components, which include:

      • Handler Identification;

      • Permitting/Closure/Post Closure;

      * Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement;

      » Corrective Action;

      • Data Quality/Data Management;

      • Program Management; and

      » Facility Management Planning.

    Field tests of the various aspects of the system (e.g., conversion of HWDMS data to
RCRIS) began in August 1988 in conjunction with several States. These field tests are
being used to refine the system before  a three- month pilot project  is conducted in
March 1989. The pilot project will be conducted in  Region !V  and will involve the States
of Florida, Georgia, Kentucky,  and Mississippi.


SOLID WASTE  MANAGEMENT INITIATIVES
    HSWA required the Agency to conduct a study of the extent to which the existing
Subtitle D land disposal  criteria  are adequate  to protect human  health and the
                                     34

-------
environment from groundwater contamination.  This study  resulted in a Report to
Congress that concluded  the  criteria were inadequate  and recommended their
revision.  OSWER followed up on this recommendation by  proposing revised criteria
for land disposal on August 30, 1988.

   Concurrent with the study of land disposal criteria, the Agency created a Municipal
Solid Waste Task Force in February 1988 to fashion a strategy for  improving  the
nation's management of municipal solid waste. The Task Force's report was released
for public comment in September 1988, with the final report due in January 1989  The
report recommends using  a hierarchy of integrated waste management to solve
municipal waste problems at the  local, regional, and national levels. The hierarchy
favors source reduction to first decrease the volume and toxicity of wastes. Recycling
is the preferred management option to further reduce potential risks to human health
and the environment, divert wastes from diminishing landfill capacity, and slow the
depletion of nonrenewable natural resources.  The EPA action agenda calls for
reducing  landfill use from the current 80% level to 55% by  1992, while incineration
would rise from  10% to about 20% (see Exhibit 18).

   Perhaps the most significant feature of EPA's proposed  Agenda for Action is that it
commits  the Federal  Government to a  renewed leadership  role  in  solid waste
management. There are a number of significant activities planned,  as follows:

     1. EPA intends to promote  source reduction and recycling and has set a
        national recycling goal  of 25% by 1992.

     2. EPA is committed to providing  leadership on Federal  procurement of
        recyclable and  reusable products.  Guidelines  in several  areas have
        already been issued (e.g., used oil, tires, paper, etc.).

     3. EPA is continuing its work towards making incinerators and landfills safer.
        For example, new criteria for municipal landfills were recently proposed;
        in 1987, technical guidance was provided to the  States for new major
        solid waste incinerators; and air emission regulations for both new and
        existing incinerators will be proposed in  late 1989.

     4. EPA supports  a  national  research  agenda  to  lead to  a better
        understanding of municipal waste management.  Among other things,
        EPA will look at how ash residues should be characterized; the presence
        and fate of toxic substances in the municipal waste stream; techniques for
        the recycling and reuse of ash through solidification; how plastics break
        down  after  disposal;  and  technical  and  other  issues  related to
        development of degradable  plastics.
                                    35

-------
                     Exhibit 18
  EPA Goals For Municipal Solid Waste Management
CURRENT SITUATION
   GOALS FOR 1992
      HIM

   INCINERATE 10%
    1  4 I I 1 I tf

    RECYCLE 10%L
   •*-—l_i—*—*-*»
  Trm
    LANDFILL
      55%

   II II  I
  INCINERATE 20%

  limn
REDUCBRECYCLE 25%
            k-"

-------
      5, EPA will  help facilitate State and iocai planning and is committed  to
        establishing a national information clearinghouse.
MAJOR REGUI.ATQRY AND GUIDANCE DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES
    HSWA recognized that  land disposal  should  be the  least favored method of
 managing hazardous waste because of tne potential for groundwater contamination
 and other hazards associated with land disposal.  Tne program  for restricting land
 disposal of waste includes a series of dc-adlines for issuing regulations that specify
 levels of treatment needed before the  residues left after treatment are acceptable for
 land disposal. During FY 1988, the Agency continued to meet the schedule set for
 issuing rules under the land ban  EPA issued regulations in August 1988 covering
 disposal of the "First Third" of RCRA hazardous wastes,

    In addition to  rulemaking  and enforcement,  OSWER is  providing orientation
 training to the Regions  to  educate  them about the land  ban.   A Land Disposal
 Restriction Strategy and Inspection Manual has been developed to assist the Regions
 and States in implementing the regulations.


Permit Modjfications
    EPA issued new permit  modification regulations on September 28. 1988 which
 replace the previous major/minor categories with a new three-class  system. Under
 the old system, any change to the permit initiated by the  permittee required prior
 approval from EPA, which  was often a time-consuming  and resource-intensive
 process. As a result, facilities found it difficult to  make routine changes necessary to
 maintain effective operations, to introduce  improved technologies, and to respond
 quickly to shifts in the types of waste generated. The new three-class system makes it
 easier for facilities to make changes that are administrative or routine in nature (Class
 1) or do not  substantially alter the facility's design or management practices (Class 2)
 by requiring notification of EPA but not requiring prior approval. (EPA still has the right
 to review and deny Class 1 and 2 permit modifications.)  Changes that substantially
 alter the facility or its operation (Class 3) still require a draft permit modification to be
 submitted and approved by EPA before the  facility may initiate them. This rule,
 developed as a result of OSWER's participation in a negotiated ruternaking effort, also
 expands public involvement opportunities during significant permit modifications.
                                     37

-------
Mobile Treatment Units

    Regulations for a new system for permitting mobile treatment units (MTUs)  were
 proposed on JuneS, 1987. During FY1988, the Agency revised the proposed rule and
 placed it into Agency review.  The new rule, which is expected to be promulgated in
 early 1989, should have a significant impact on streamlining the process for bringing
 MTUs on-line.  By promoting faster  permitting of MTUs, the new system should
 expedite cleanup at facilities required to conduct remedial actions, increase capacity
 development, and facilitate the use of alternative treatment systems.
RCRA Inspection Manual
    In March 1988, OSWER issued a new RCRA Inspection Manual to replace the 1981
 Compliance Evaluation Inspection Manual.  The revised manual is a comprehensive
 guide for State and Regional staff and contractors on how to conduct effective RCRA
 inspections.  Topics discussed in the manual include preparation for inspections,
 permit review, communicating with owner/operators, post-inspection activities, report
 preparation, and keeping up to date with RCRA. The manual also provides inspection
 procedures and  checklists for generators and treatment, storage,  and disposal
 facilities.
Technical Case Development Guidance

    In June 1988, OSWER issued final guidance that for the first time consolidates
 information  useful to RCRA inspectors, enforcement officers, and attorneys  for
 reference in the development of enforcement cases. The guidance covers various
 aspects  of technical  case development including:   the  role  of  inspectors,
 pre-inspection   activities,  investigative  procedures,  sampling,   administrative
 procedures, and preparing technical information to support  litigation. The guidance
 includes a number of technical resources available to assist RCRA case development
 and a bibliography of references.
Laboratory Audit Inspection Guide
    In September 1988, OSWER issued this guidance detailing Laboratory Audit
 Inspection (LAI) procedures. The LAI is designed to supplement the existing RCRA
 groundwater monitoring inspection process by  evaluating the adequacy of the
 laboratory program used for the analysis of a facility's groundwater samples. The
 guidance includes procedures for evaluating the owner/operator's  sampling and
 analysis  plan, general staffing, equipment, the maintenance   program,  quality
 assurance and control procedures, sample tracking, and analytical procedures.
                                     38

-------
Other Rulemakings

    OSWER  staff devoted  a significant effort to developing corrective action
 regulations in FY 1988 under Section 3004(u) of HSWA.  The proposed rule went
 through final Work Group closure and received concurrence during Agency review. In
 addition, the Economic Analysis Staff completed its regulatory impact analysis and the
 Agency anticipates proposing RCRA corrective action  regulations in early FY 1989.
 Other major rulemakings completed or underway  include:

      » Land Disposal Restrictions: First Third Wastes;


      » Codification Rule for the 1984 Amendments;


      » Revision of Subpart H Liability Regulations: Corporate Guarantee;


      • Deferred Closure Rule;


      » Groundwater Monitoring at Hazardous Waste Facilities (proposed);


      • Hazardous Waste Incinerator Amendments;


      • Revisions to  Definition of Solid Waste;


      • Exemption for Samples Used in Treatabiltty Studies; and


      • Regulations Covering Hazardous Waste Burning in Boilers and Industrial
        Furnaces (Administrative portion issued as final;   technical portion is
        proposed).


Reports To Congress
    OSWER submitted three major reports to Congress in FY 1988.  The Report  to
 Congress on Wastes  from Combustion of Coal by  Electric Utility Power Plants was
 delivered in March 1988.  In the report, the Agency concluded that coal combustion
 waste  streams  do  not  exhibit hazardous  characteristics under  current RCRA
 regulations and, therefore, the Agency does not intend to regulate them under Subtitle
 C.  The report expressed the Agency's concern, however, that several other wastes
                                    39

-------
may exhibit corrosivity or EP toxicity  characteristics and may merit regulation under
Subtitle C. These include wastes produced during equipment maintenance and water
purification.

   The final Report to Congress on Subtitle D concluded that the existing  criteria do
not contain adequate provisions to ensure protection of human  health and the
environment,  and  that  even  if they  did,  the  criteria are not being  effectively
implemented by States. The report recommended revision of the Subtitle D criteria,
greater emphasis on recycling, and technical assistance for the States.

   The Report to  Congress on  the  Management of Wastes from Exploration,
Development, and Production of Crude Oil, Natural Gas, and Geothermal Energy was
submitted to Congress in  December 1987 and  was followed  by a  regulatory
determination on June 29,1988. The determination concluded that Subtitle C controls
were not warranted for these wastes.

Guidance Documents Issued
   OSWER issued a number of guidances on various technical and policy  aspects of
the RCRA program in Ft 1988, including:

      • Guidance  Manual  for Subpart  G Closure  and  Post-Closure Care
        Standards and Subpart H Cost Estimating Requirements;

      • Minimum Technology Guidance on Double Liner Systems — Design,
        Construction, and Operation;

      * Guidance  on   Limiting Metals  Emissions from  Hazardous  Waste
        Incinerators;

      • Guidance  on   Carbon Monoxide  Controls  for  Hazardous  Waste
        Incinerators;

      • Guidance  on Trial Burn Reporting and Setting Permit Conditions;

      * Minimum Technology Guidance  on Leak  Detection Systems for Land
        Disposal Units;

      * Hazardous Waste Incineration Measurement Guidance;
                                    40

-------
» Clean Closure of Hazardous Waste Tank Systems and Container Units;


• Off-Site Policy;


• RCRA Evaluation Guide;


• RCRA Inspection Manual;


• RCRA State Oversight Inspection Guide;


• RCRA Case Development Guidance;


« Hazardous Waste Tank Systems Inspection Manual;


« Revised Enforcement Response Policy;


• RCRA Inspection Enhancement Strategy;


• Incinerability Index (primary index developed: ongoing over next one  to
  two years); and


• Surface Impoundment Retrofitting Requirements Enforcement Strategy.
                             41

-------
Page Intentionally Blank

-------
                               SECTION 3

                      FEDERAL FACILITIES

    FY 1988  brought  recognition for the effectiveness of the Federal  Facilities
 Compliance Task Force, established during FY 1987 to serve  as a focal point for
 solving compliance issues under the Resource Conservafon and Recovery Act
 (RCRA) and the  Comprehensive Environmental Response,  Compensation,  and
 Liability Act (CERCLA) at Federal facilities.  This year the Task Force was given
 permanent organizational status. It is now known as the Federal Facilities Hazardous
 Waste Compliance Office and is located within OV  'E.

    The Office of Solid Waste and  Emergency Response (OSWER) has made
 significant progress in bringing order to the array of complex and controversial issues
 involved in manag ,ig and cleaning up solid and hazardous  waste at cederal facilities
 OSWER has responded to this challenge with the following three-nart  strategy:

     (1) Identification of Federal facilities of concern;

     (2) Enforcement and compliance monitoring at these facilities, and

     (3) Planning and management of resources to address concerns at rhej /
        faciiities.


IDENTIFICATION OF FEDERAL FACILITIES OF CONCERN
    OSWER has accomplished part one rf this strategy - identification of  Federal
 facilities of concern - by developing and p  lishing in the Federal Register the Faderai
 Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance D icket, a computerized data, base defining
 the universe of potential Federal facilities with hazardous waste  problems.  This
 Docket, required under the Superfund Ai endments and Reauthorization Act (SARA)
 Section 120(c) and involving the cooperation of over twenty Federal agencies, lists
 over 1,000 facilities.  Each of these facilities must conduct a Preliminary  Assessment
 (PA) to determine whether the  facility poses a threat to health and the  environment
 significant enough to warrant further investigation. EPA estimates that half of the 1,170
 Federal facilities on the Docket will warrant further investigation  and Hazard Ranking
 System (HRS) scoring to  determine whether the facility should be placed on the
 National Priorities List (NPL).

    Publication of the Docket set into motion a series of statutory deadlines for these
 assessments of hazardous waste problems  at Federal facilities, as  well as for the
                                    43

-------
evaluation and potential Sitting of Docket facilities on the  NPL. In conjunction with the
compilation of the Docket, OSVV «' developed comprehensive guidance for Federal
agencies to use in assessing Federal fv.  ties for possible NPL listing, resulting in the
evaluation of over 100  facilities this fiscal year  of which between 30 and 40  will be
included in a special NPL Update to be promulgated in early 1989. In addition, the fiist
biannua! update of the Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket was
rsued in November 1988.


                    COMPLIANCE MONITORING
   The second  part of OSWER's  Federal Facilities strategy  - enforcement  ^nd
compliance monitoring at facilities of concern - has been accomplished during PY
198B  by  developing practical,  action-oriented policies for resolving compliance
disputes,  selecting  an  enforcement  approach,  and developing  interagency
agreements governing  cleanups.   Of special note,  in January  1988, OSWER
developed a comprehensive enforcement strategy entitled, "Enforcement Actions
under RCRA  and CERCLA at Federal Facilities,"  which discusses  the  range of
enforcement opTions available to  EPA  under  RCRA  and  CERCLA  to  obtain
'•Tivironmenta! compliance and cleanup at Federal facilities. In addition, this policy
document  identifies criteria for the EPA Regions to consider in  selecting an
enforcement strategy,

   ;n  March I988, OSWER issued  another important guidance document entitled
"Elevation Process for Achieving Federal Facility Compliance Under RCRA," wh»ch
identifies procedures for elevating compliance disputes at Federal facilities  to higher
•eve's of authority within EPA in order to keep the enforcement process moving.  This
guidance document was designed to  ensure timely resolution of significant RCRA
compliance issues.   These guidelines have  helped  achieve  RCRA compliance
agreements at  three facilities during FY 1988, including:

    (1)  Iowa Army Ammunition Plant (Region VII);


    (2)  Picatinny Arsenal (Region !l); and


    (3)  Hoiloman Air Force Base (Region VI),

   Thirdly,  during the spring and summer of 1988, OSWER successfully negotiated
mode! provisions with both the Department of Energy (DOE)  and Department of
Defense (DOD) to be included in all Federal Facility Agreements for Superfund cleanup
of DOE and DOD facilities.   The  model provisions  clearly establish the  relative
                                    44

-------
responsibilities and working relationships between the agencies during the Superfund
cleanup process.

   EPA,  DOE, and  DOD  have agreed  that the  mode!  provisions  should be
incorporated into site-specific agreements for Federal facilities.  These agreements
will be negotiated among  representatives of EPA, the Federal facility, and the
appropriate State.  In the course of these negotiations, States will be encouraged to
participate in all phases of the cleanup process,  individual State concerns will be
integrated, as appropriate, into the final site-specific agreement.

   Key elements of the model provisions are as follows:

      *  Establishes  the  DOE  and  DOD  commitment  to  fully study  the
        environmental  problem at  the  Federal   facility  and  perform  the
        EPA^approved cleanup of the facifity.


      »  Establishes the EPA commitment to review and comment on DOE and
        DOD plans and studies at the facility.


      «  Establishes a mechanism for resolution  of disputes arising under the
        agreement, including technical disputes.  The Administrator will resolve
        any disputes under the agreement which cannot otherwise be resolved by
        EPA and DOE and DOD staff.
      •  Establishes the  significance of specific timetables, deadlines,  and
        schedules for completion of the major tasks to be performed pursuant to
        the agreement.


      *  Establishes that EPA may assess stipulated penalties in the event of a
        DOE or DOD failure to comply with the timetables, deadlines, or the
        remedial requirements established pursuant to the agreement.


      •  Establishes that the agreement, and the commitments of the parties
        established by the agreement, will be fully binding and enforceable by the
        parties to the agreement, States (even if not a party to the agreement), and
        citizens.

   The  model  provisions will  expedite  site-specific cleanup negotiations and,
therefore,  cleanup of  Federal  facilities.  There are  currently 25  Federal  Facility

-------
Agreements under EPA/State/Federal facility negotiation. OSWER anticipates that FY
1989 will yield 40-45 Federal Facility Agreements. During FY 1990, OSWER expects
Records of Decision (RODs) to be signed and implementation of technical remedies to
begin at numerous Federal facilities.


PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT OF RESOURCES TO ADDRESS CONCERNS
   Under part three of the Federal Facilities Compliance Strategy -  planning and
management of resources to address concerns at these facilities,  OSWER  has
succeeded in  having  Federal facility targets  incorporated  into  the  agency's
accountability and resource allocation systems for the first time.

   Finally, OSWER's staff analyzed five different legislative proposals relating to waste
management at Federal facilities during  FY 1988 and  coordinated the  Agency's
comments and testimony on each of them.  In addition,  OSWER developed the
Federal Real Property Transfer Regulations,  as required by  SARA Section 120(h).
These proposed regulations, which govern the manner in  which notice is given to
buyers of Federal land where hazardous materials have  been released or  stored for
one  year or more, are currently being reviewed by OMB.
                                    46

-------
                              SECTION 4
       CHEMICAL EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
               AND  PREVENTION  PROGRAM
    FY 1988 was the second year of implementation for Title III of the  Superfund
 Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) - The  Emergency Planning  and
 Community Right-to-Know Act (see Exhibit 19).  The  principle objectives of the
 Chemica! Emergency Preparedness and Prevention (CEPP) Program Staff were to
 complete the rulemaking process in accordance with statutory requirements, to build
 State and local capabilities to implement Title Ill's preparedness provisions, and to
 initiate a program to help prevent chemical accidents. Highlights of the CEPP program
 are presented below.
REGULATORY ACTIVITIES

   The Preparedness Staff met all statutory deadlines under Title 111 and began new
 rulemaking initiatives. The final rule for SARA Sections 311-312 was promulgated on
 October 15, 1987. This rule established requirements for material safety data sheets
 (MSDS) and hazardous chemical inventory reporting. The initial rate of compliance to;
 Section 311 MSDS or list submissions (due October 17, 1987) and for Section 312
 inventory submissions (due March 1, 1989) was estimated at less than 50 percent n
 the anticipated levels. The scope of this rule was expanded as of September 24,1988
 to the non manufacturing sector as a result of the Occupational Safety and Heart]'.
 Administration's (OSHA) expansion  of the Hazard Communication Standaid   ins-
 Preparedness Staff also began analyses of alternatives for  a rule establishing  a
 permanent reporting threshold for Sections 311-312 reporting.  This rule is scheduled
 to be published in January of 1989.

   The Preparedness Staff supported the publication of the proposed rule for d,-M<, n;; ig
 trade secrets in Title III on October 15, 1987 and the final rule on July 29, 1986   The
 Staff continued to coordinate with the Office of Toxic Substances, which has the lead
 for the SARA  Section 313 toxic chemical release inventory.  The final rule for this
 Section was published on February 16, 1988. Over 72,500 inventory forms have been
 filed  f-"om over 17,500 facilities,

   The Preoaredness Staff has coordinated the  development of the Enforcernen.
 Strategy for Title III  with  the Office of Waste Programs Enforcement (OWPF)  
-------
                                                                     Exhibit 19
                                           Major  Responsibilitites  Under Title III
        EPA/Federal
    Provides support to
      States and local
      agencies by:

    Q Issuing regulations and
      maintaining list of
      regulated chemicals;

    o Maintaining the Toxic
      Chemical Release
      Inventory data base
      (Section 313);

    Q Developing policy and
      guidance; and

    Q Providing technical
      assistance to States,
      SERCs, and LEPCs.
       States
Provide support to SERCs
  and LEPCs by:

a Appointing SERCs;

3 Receiving and dissemi-
  nating information; and

_i Under certain circum-
  stances, designating
  additional facilities or
  chemicals as subject to
  Titte 111 requirements.
  State Emergency
      Response
    Commissions
       (SERCs)
Provide support to LEPCs
  by:

a Designating local emer-
  gency planning districts;

J Appointing LEPCs for each
  district;

Q Reviewing local emergency
  plans; and

a Receiving and disseminat-
  ing information.
I

       Locai Emergency
           Planning
         Commissions
            (LEPCs)
                                                         Foster emergency prepared-
                                                          ness assistance to local
                                                          communities by:

                                                         a Developing and maintain-
                                                          ing emergency plans; and

                                                         a Receiving and disseminat-
                                                          ing information.
                                         Facilities
                                                                                                                       Plan for and respond ap-
                                                                                                                         propriately to chemical
                                                                                                                         emergencies by:

                                                                                                                       Q Designating emergency
                                                                                                                         coordinators;

                                                                                                                       Q Providing inventory infor-
                                                                                                                         mation to LEPCs and
                                                                                                                         SERCs;

                                                                                                                       a Notifying LEPCs and
                                                                                                                         SERCs of emergency
                                                                                                                         chemical releases; and

                                                                                                                       Q Providing information
                                                                                                                         about chemical releases
                                                                                                                         to the community.
pao09Ha

-------
BUILDING REGIONAL AND STATE EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS CAPABILITY
   In accordance with the "cascading" approach to Title 111 implementation, which
entails a minimal support role in implementation  for EPA Headquarters and an
expanded role for local agencies, the Preparedness Staff focused on assisting States
and localities to plan for and respond to major chemical accidents. One highlight of
this  effort  was  the  Deputy Regional Administrators' White Paper  on Title III
implementation.  This paper, written  from the perspective of the Regions and States
with  Headquarters assistance, evaluated the  implementation effort to  date  and
provided recommendations for improvement. The White Paper was presented to the
Administrator on  February  25, 1988 and  the Title 111 workgroup  has  used the
recommendations to guide its efforts in FY1988. EPA Regions also assisted 41 3inU-;s
and territories in  planning and  conducting a totai of 67 table top and field simulation
exercises in emergency preparedness.

   To date, 56 active State  Emergency Response  Committees (SERCs) and over
3,800 Local Emergency Planning Committees  (LEPCs)  have been  established.
Regional Offices continued to assist in increasing the capability of these  groups
through five information management workshops for SERC and LEPC members held
in June and July. Five million dollars in funding for Title III training for SERCs and Indian
l':bes was allocated through  the Federal Emergency Management Administration's
(FEMA's) comprehensive cooperative agreement with each State. SERC and LEPC
representatives attended a National Governors'  Association/EPA conference in June
1988 to share information and discuss successful implementation techniques

   Another highlight of the year was the 1988 Hazardous Spills Conference in May,
which EPA co-sponsored with the American Institute of Chemical Engineers  and
National Response Team (NRT). The Preparedness Staff was an active participant in
the conference,  with  personnel serving on  the conference   program committee,
presenting papers, moderating discussions, and  participating on panels of many
subcommittees.

   in December 1987, EPA, FEMA, and the Department of Transportation  published
the Technical Guidance for Hazards Analysis. Preparedness Staff, with the technical
support of the Office of Toxic Substances, contributed to  this document. This key
guidance was used by the SERCs and LEPCs as they developed their plans for the
October 17, 1988 plan submission deadline.  A training module on this guidance  was
developed and implemented. The NRT developed its Criteria for Regional Response
Team Review of Hazardous Materials Emergency Plans and the Regions distributed
an exercise guide to assist SERCs and LEPCs in testing their plans. The Preparedness
Staff supported the National  Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in refining the
CAMEO tl software to include  planning, hazards  analysis, and Title III  information
management components.
                                    49

-------
   The National Incident Coordination Team (NICT) was established in May of 1988.
The  NICT  is a mechanism for coordinating Agency  response to  incidents  and
emergency situations of national and international significance. The Team will provide
a contact mechanism for media, Congress, and Federal agencies while serving to
coordinate information internally.

PREVENTION
   This  year, the Preparedness  Staff  launched its prevention  program, which
complements preparedness efforts  by  seeking  ways  to foster efforts to prevent
chemical accidents from occurring. In FY 1988, the prevention program focused on
developing an understanding of the problem and the role of government in addressing
the problem.
   One highlig; it of the prevention initiative  was presentation of the SARA  Section
305(b) Review of Emergency Systems  to  Congress in June 1988.  The  study,
completed by OSWER with the cooperative effort of several Agency offices and FEMA,
described systems for detecting, monitoring, preventing, and alerting the public to
releases of extremely hazardous substances. The Chemical Process Safety Training
developed for site visits performed in the  study has been modified for presentation to
the Regions in preparation for chemical safety audits to be performed in FY 1989. In
addition, the Agency  reconvened the Prevention Work Group to identify and discuss
issues relating to accident data bases, audits, research, and further areas of study.
   The Accidental Release Information  Program was evaluated and revised in
September and will continue to collect data for a national database  on the causes of
accidental  releases and prevention  technologies.  The Preparedness  Staff  also
continued analysis of the potential impacts of air toxics  provisions in pending Clean Air
Act reauthorization legislation.

OUTREACH
   The  outreach subcommittee  of  the Title  III  Workgroup coordinated various
publications in FY 1988 to assist in educating the public and the regulated community
on the provisions of Title ill. The revised Title 111 Fact Sheet was published in August.
Over 40 organizations  supported  development of a  brochure targeted at LEPC
members entitled "It's  Not  Over in October" and a generic Title III brochure. A
brochure for small businesses detailing the provisions of SARA Sections 311 -312 was
published in September 1988.

INTERNATIONAL ASSISTANCE
   The  Preparedness  Staff has also coordinated with emergency response  and
preparedness and prevention organizations around the world. The Joint Contingency
                                     50

-------
Plan (JCP) with Mexico was signed in January and work continues on the Canadian
plan.   The Organization for Economic Cooperation and  Development Ad Hoc
Workgroup on Chemical Accidents, in which the Preparedness Staff participates, has
developed plans for conferences over the next two years concerning preparedness
and prevention.   The Preparedness Staff is also assisting the United  Nations
Environmental Program in developing a pilot  preparedness project that combines
elements of the Community Awareness and  Emergency Response program and NRT
Hazardous Materials Emergency Planning  Guide for use in developing countries.
                                   51

-------
Page Intentionally Blank

-------
                                         5

            UNDERGROUND

    During FY1988, the Office of Underground        Tanks (OUST) completed two
 major rulemakings, neared completion on a third, and undertook a variety of program
 activities to build an effective national Underground Storage Tank (UST) program and
 improve UST management.  (Exhibit 20 displays UST program responsibilities and
 relationships.)  In September 1988, EPA promulgated final technical standards for
 USTs and State program approval standards, OUST responded to comments on the
 financial responsibility regulations proposed in April 1987 and will issue the final rules
 during the first quarter of FY "<989, Implementation activities have increased during the
 past fiscal year with the  primary emphasis on building strong  State and local
 programs.  These activities include the awarding of Leaking Underground Storage
 Tank (LUST) Trust Fund cooperative agreements    the development of LUST Trust
 Fund guidance, the development of a handbook on State program  approval, and
 technical assistance  in the  form  of Targeted Improvement  Projects (TIPs) and
 outreach materials. A variety of measures suggest that OUST's efforts are resulting in
 improved UST management.

REGULATORY

Technical Standards
    OUST responded to more than 5,000 public comments on the proposed technical
 standards For USTs.  More than 1,100 manufacturers, owners, installers, tank testers,
 environmental groups,             loca!                             on the
 proposed standards.  These comments and additional information obtained through
 EPA's research efforts contributed to the development  of OUST's  final technical
 standards regulation. The final rule  establishes requirements  for new tank design,
 construction, and installation; existing tank upgrade and repair;
 standards;   and          investigation,  confirmation,  and corrective  action
 requirements. The rule was published in the Federal Register on September 23,1988
 and will be effective  90 days later (December 23,  1988).

    OUST prepared  a Draft Report to Congress and Background  Document  in
 response to  a request by Congress for additional  information about heating oi! and
 motor fuel tanks,  which are exempt from Subtitle I of RCRA.  The Report  and
 Background Document      completed  in  two stages.  In the first stage,  OUST
 assessed the size, geographic location, and other characteristics of the exempt UST
 population, including the extent of known releases from these tanks.  This information
 was reviewed by EPA, State government, and industry  representatives.  During the
                                    53

-------
                                Exhibit 20
                 The National  UST Program
                  56 STATE UST PROGRAMS
• Manage Program
• Develop/Revise Program
• Support County & Local
  Program Implementation
• inform Regulated Community
• Monitor Compliance & Enforce
  Requirements
• Coordinate Public Participation
• Conduct Cleanups
• Oversee RP Cleanups
• Conduct Cost Recovery
• Manage Trust Fund
  Monies
                    10 REGIONAL UST OFFICES
              • Support State Program
                Development
              • Implement Targeted
                Improvement Projects
              • Administer Trust Fund
              • Manage Grants
              • Provide Technical
                Assistance to States
                & Local Governments

G~
>
r*|
t
t
t

T)

                                  OUST
                      Develop Regulations & National Policy
                      Provide Support and Technical Assistance to Regions
                      Support Trust Fund Administration
                      Measure National Program Progress                /
                      Manage National Program                       /
    Note: Arrows indicate direction of flow of support and services.
                                                (80091-3

-------
 second stage, these comments — augmented with additional analyses and data
 obtained  from  UST industry representatives  and government officials  — were
 incorporated into the draft report.  The final report will discuss the leak potential of
 exempt USTs, assess the hazards, and recommend regulatory and non-regulatory
 measures that might be appropriate. The report is scheduled for delivery to Congress
 in the winter of 1988.

State Program Approval Standards
    OUST responded to over 200 comments received on the proposed State program
 approval regulation. The final rule, which becomes effective on the same date as the
 Technical Standards rule, establishes requirements for the approval  of State UST
 programs to operate in lieu of the Federal  requirements. The  regulation uses an
 innovative Federal objectives approach to provide flexibility for judging the stringency
 and adequacy of enforcement under State programs.  OUST's strategy is to ensure
 that a baseline level of environmental protection is maintained while allowing flexibility
 in the methods the States may select to obtain that protection.

Firianciai Responsibility Standards
    Final financial responsibility requirements were published in the Federal Register
 on October 26,1988. OUST analyzed and responded to more than 1,000 comments
 received on the  April 1987  proposed rules. Major issues  raised by eommenters
 included coverage requirements; timing of requirements; applicability of requirements
 to municipalities; and suspension of enforcement provisions. In addition to analyzing
 the financial responsibility  requirements, OUST continues to assist  States in the
 development of  State  financial assurance  programs as well as working with the
 insurance industry to help them understand the risks associated with underground
 storage tanks. EPA's primary objective in these  efforts is to encourage the availability
 and use of financial assurance mechanisms so  that funds will be available to pay for
 cleaning up ieaks from  USTs and for third party damages caused by leaks.


IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITIES

Building State and Local Programs
    OUST's focus is on the achievement of long range goals and the need to  build a
 relationship with State and local governments so that all levels of government can work
 together to improve tank management over the next decade. The Office's approach to
 the task of implementing  its program  is different from that undertaken by most of
 EPA's other regulatory programs.  This difference is due to three factors:  the large
 number of facilities to be regulated; the nature  of the regulated community; and the
 nature of the regulatory work. Consequently, OUST believes that, in the long run, UST
                                    55

-------
systems will be most successfully regulated by State and local governments. EPA will
provide leadership, technical assistance, and enforcement backup as necessary. In
February  1988,  UST staff met with  franchise managers  from several  major
corporations to discuss ways  in which EPA could use franchising principles in
effectively supporting State programs.

   Many States and localities already have UST programs in place. The number of
States that regulate USTs grew from three in 1980 to 42 in 1988. Today, 88 percent of
the nation's underground tanks are subject to State  legislation.  Fifty States and
territories have LUST Trust Fund Cooperative Agreements in place. Nearly 30 States
have  UST regulatory programs  and many  hundreds  of counties and  cities have
developed local UST ordinances and programs that often operate independently of
the State. The number of people working on UST programs at the State level has
grown dramatically from approximately 100 State staff in 1984 to over 600 today.
Because many of the States and localities plan to use EPA's rules to guide their
programs' development, EPA expects the current high level of UST program activity
nationwide to increase rapidly with promulgation of the Federal technical  standards.

   EPA expects most of the States to apply for approval to administer their own UST
programs in  compliance with  Federal  requirements.   OUST  has simplified the
application process by providing clear guidance as to what constitutes an approvable
State program, and  what constitutes a complete application.  The Regional offices
conducted test runs of the guidance and sample application in eleven States.  The
objectives of these test runs were to evaluate the usefulness of this guidance and
promote State delegation as soon as possible.

   To assist States in developing effective compliance and enforcement programs,
OUST developed a handbook on compliance and enforcement techniques ("Building
State Compliance Programs," EPA/530/UST-88/003). Included in the handbook is
information on outreach activities, compliance monitoring, and enforcement actions.
The handbook does not present any one "right" way to do enforcement but gives State
and local program officials several examples of successful techniques that might be
applicable to their program. The handbook also contains a "users guide to selected
compliance techniques" which provides selected examples of the forms, fliers, letters,
data sources, etc. that have been useful in compliance monitoring and enforcement in
States and localities.

   EPA Regional offices are working closely with States to enhance  their  level of
performance.  The Regions have awarded UST grants to help States  develop their
programs. States and Regions have worked together to address  problem areas
through  specific Targeted  Improvement Projects  (TIPs),  including training and
technical support services. For example, Region X is assisting the State of Washington
                                    56

-------
if i developing a decentralized compliance inspection  program. Region 1 is working
with Rhode Island to establish a targeting system for inspecting facilities.

   Headquarters  continues to foster the development of State  and local  UST
programs by producing the following:

      «  A report on funding options for State and local governments;


      »  Guidance on the development of State financial assurance programs;


      »  Technical  studies on UST corrective action,  release detection, and
        release prevention technologies;


      *  Grants to the New England interstate Water Pollution Association of State
        and Territorial Waste Management Organizations, and U.S.  Conference
        of Mayors; and


      *  A transition strategy that provides guidance for the period between the
        effective date of the regulations and program approval for the States,
                Activities
   At the end of FY 1988, the Regions had negotiated with and awarded cooperative
agreements to 50 of 56 States and Territories,  Cooperative agreements between
States and  EPA enable the States to spend Trust Fund resources for cleanups and
^•'•sedated  program  costs.  During the fiscal year,  the  Regions had  awarded
approximately $35 million from the LUST Trust Fund

   Siates have already identified thousands of  sites where responsible  parties are
Beginning cleanups, and States have begun more than  155 corrective actions using
Trust Fund monies.  States will continue to encourage owners and operators  to
conduct  corrective actions, and will  take appropriate  response and enforcement
actions where owners and operators are unabie or unwilling to perform corrective
actions.

   OUST iaid ihe foundation for its cost recovery program and took significant steps
toward its implementation during FY  1988.  OUST worked  closely with other  EPA
offices and Department of Justice (DOJ) to develop a cost recovery policy that allow;-
the States to use the monies recovered from responsible parties at LUST Trust Fund
funded cleanuo sites for additional LUST work and to achieve settlements without the
                                    57

-------
direct involvement of EPA. This approach is consistent with OUST's strategy to
implement the program  at the State level.   It provides an incentive  to States to
aggressively pursue cost recovery  actions.  States can use these funds to enforce
responsible party cleanups or  to undertake State-lead corrective actions, OUST has
developed and issued  an OSWER directive that presents the key elements of the
program and provides ihe States with guidance for implementing a sound program.
Currently, OUST is  conducting three  pilot studies  in New York, Minnesota and
Maryland to explore innovative and effective ways to pursue cost recovery.

Outreach Activities
    OUST has developed an outreach strategy that identifies  various  potential
audiences (e.g., owners and operators, State and ioca! officials, trade associations,
Congress) for UST outreach material and determines how to make materials available
to various potential  audiences. Consistent with the overall OUST position that UST
regulatory activities should occur at the State  and iocai levels, OUST prepares the
materials and then  makes them available to  States, trade  associations, and other
groups who, in turn, deliver the materials to owners and operators. In some cases,
OUST provides camera-ready copy to States who can   State-specific information
and then reproduce and  distribute the product.
    During  FY 1988, OUST  continued its production of   materials that will  help
owner/operators understand and comply with the new requirements and help specific
audiences, such as inspectors, States, and local officials, to do a better job of program
implementation.  OUST developed the  following materials  to inform the regulated
community about the UST Program:
    Bulletin and Newsletter:
      •  A quarterly bulletin,  ' Lustline," aimed at State  officials,  discusses the
         latest UST issues and developments;
      •  A technical newsletter focusing on technical  information exchange;
    Videos:
      »  Demonstrating  proper tank  installation (for inspectors and owner/
         operators);
      •  Demonstrating safe tank closure practices (for inspectors);
    IBrochures:
      •  A summary of  the      regulations  ("Musts for  LISTS")  (for owner/
         operators);
      »  A description of external leak detection i nethoc;-  ("Leak  Lookout") (for
         owner/operators); and
      *  A description of State financial assurance pf- grams   ("Dollars arid
         Sense");
                                     58

-------
       •  "Corrective Action Technologies";
       »  "Building State Compliance Programs", and
       «  "Funding Options for State and Local Governments."
                         on the final regulations.
"ank Talk II
 Measuring (X'sT1* -•.  ,- -,s,=

    According to a vans/iy of measures, OUST's efforts are resulting in improved LIST
 management performance. The most dramatic evidence of the program's impact has
 been the  increased pace  of tank replacement and tank replacement programs
 undertaken by trie major oii companies.  According to experts interviewed by OUST,
 over 90 percent of the new tanks soid are used to replace existing tanks. Although tank
 sales between 1980 and 1986 remained fiat, we have seen a 15 percent increase in
 tank      over the past two yeais  (see Exhibit 21).
                        Exhibit 2 J
                      > Tank                 (1980-1987)
                 I O
                                                               Bare Steel*

                                                               Protected Tanks
                                                 :-»*»5_, , 4
       60   81   B?   83  84   85  f/i   07
                      Year
         ulawi1 ianks
        "Includes;

Sources:          Petroteum Tank and Pipe Institute. TechnonscB, STI registration files.
                                                                        (8o091-1
                                     59

-------
   More significantly, most tank systems sold in the United States are protected. !u
1980, bare steel tank systems comprised 84 percent of the market.  In 1984 bare
had slipped to a 74 percent share, and in 1987 bare steel tanks had less than half (43
percent) of the market. While this figure includes tanks which are not covered by UST
legislation or regulation,  there is little question that Federal Saw (and anticipated
regulations), State and local regulations, and the fear of liability judgments have
radically changed the purchasing patterns of UST owners. Tank owners are investing
in tanks that are less likely to leak.  As more data become available, OUST will analyze
other measures (e.g., numbers of leaks reported, number of corrective actions taken)
to evaluate program accomplishments.
                                     60

-------
APPENDICES

-------
                Appendix A
Record of Decision (RODs) Signed in FY 1988

-------
      Appendix A
RODs Signed in FY 1988
Site
Cannon Engineering, MA
Charles George Landfill, MA
(two RODa)
Qroveland Wells, MA
Iron Horse Park, MA
Keefe Environmental
Services, NH
Landfill and Resource
Recovery, Rl
Laurel Park, CT
Old Springfield Landfill, VT
Rose Disposal Pit, MA
Yaworskl, CT
American Thermostat, NY
Asbestos Dump, NJ
Beach wood/
Berkeley Well. NJ
Brews ter Well Field, NY
Burnt Fly Bog, NJ
Ewan Property, NJ
QE Wiring Devices, PR
Kln-Buc Landfill, NJ
Lipart Landfill, NJ
Love Canal, NY (two RODs)
Ludiow Sand and Gravel, NY
Marathon Battery, NY
Montgomery Township, NJ
Nascollte, NJ
Old Bethpage, NY
Reich Farms, NJ
Ringwood Mines, NY
Rocky Hill, NJ
Tabernacle, NJ
Upjohn Facility, PR
York Oil, NY (two RODs)
Aladdin Plating, PA
Ambler Asbestos, PA
Avtex Fibers, VA
Region
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
i
1
i
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
Site
Bendlx Flight Systems, PA
Berks Sand Pits, PA
Chlsman Creek, VA
Delaware Sand and Gravel, DE
Dorney Road, PA
Douglass vllle Disposal, PA
Drake Chemical, PA
Rke Chemical, WV
Henderson Road, PA
Klmberton, PA
L.A. Clarke, VA
Mlddletown Airfield, PA
New Castle, DE
Ordnance Work*
Disposal, WV
Palmerton Zinc, PA
Rhlnehart Tire Fire Dump, VA
Southern Md Wood, MD
Tyson's Dump, PA
Voortman, PA
West Virginia Ordnance, WV
West line, PA
Wildcat Landfill, DE
Alrco, KY
Alpha Chemical, FL
Brown Wood Preserving, FL
Celanese, NC
Flowood, MS
Chemtronlcs, NC
Qoodrfch, B.F., KY
Independent Nail, SC
National Starch, NC
Perdldo Groundwater, AL
Wamchem, SC
Zellwood, FL
Region
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
6
         A-1

-------
 Appendix A (continued)
RODs Signed in FY 1988
Site
Allied/lronton Coke, OH
Belvidere Landfill, IL
Coshocton, OH
Eau Claira, Wi
Forest Waste Disposal, Ml
Fort Wayne Reduction, IN
IMC Terre Haute, IN
Kummer Sanitary
Landfill, MN
LaSalle Electrical, IL
Long Prairie, MN
Mason County Landfill, Ml
Mid-State Disposal, WI
NL Ind Taracorp Golden
Auto, MN
Ninth Ave. Dump, IN
Oak Grove Landfill, MN
Petersen Sand and
Gravel, IN
Poer Farm, IN
Pristine, OH
Republic Steel
Quarry, OH
South Andover, MN
Summit National, OH
U.S. Avlex, Ml
United Scrap Lead, OH
Velsicol Chemical, IL
Waste Disposal, MN
Atchlson/Santa Fe
Clovls. NM
Bailey Waste Disposal, TX
Brio Refining, TX
Dixie Oil, TX
French Limited, TX
Gurley Pit, AR
industrial Waste Control, AR
Koppers/Texarkana, TX
North Cavalcade, TX
Region
s
5
5
S
S
S
5
S
S
S
S
5
5
5
S
S
5
5
S
5
S
S
5
S
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
S
Site
Odessa Chromium I, TX
Odessa Chromium II, TX
Old Midland Products, AR
Sand Springs, OK
Sol Lynn, TX (two RODs)
South Cavalcade, TX
South Valley, NM
(three RODs}
Stewco, TX
United Nuclear, NM
Arkansas City Dump, KS
Big River Sand, KS
Cherokee County, KS
Deere, John, iA
Fulbright Landfill, MO
Hastings Groundwater,
NE (two RODs)
Midwest Manufacturing, IA
Minker Stout/Romaine
Creek, MO
Shenandoah Stables, MO
Syntox Verona, MO
Times Beach, MO
Anaconda Smelter, MT
Broderick Wood, CO
California Gulch, CO
Central City/Clear Creek, CO
Indiana Bend, AZ
Lorentz Barrel and Drum, CA
MGM Brakes, CA
Motorola (52nd Street), AZ
Operating Industries, CA
(two RODs)
Ordot Landfill, GU
San Gabriel (Area 1), CA
San Gabriel (Area 2), CA
San Gabriel (Area 4) , CA
Selma Treating, CA
Region
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
8
8
8
8
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
          A-2

-------
 Appendix A (continued)
RODs Signed in FY 1988
Site
South Bay Asbestos, CA
Tucson Airport, AZ
Commencement Bay/
Nearshore. WA
Commencement Bay/
Tacoma, WA
Region
9
8
10
10
Site
Frontier Hard Chrome,
WA (two RODs}
Gould, OR
Martin Marietta, OR
Pacific Hide, ID
Region
10
10
10
10
          A-3

-------
              Appendix B
FY 1988 Remedial Design/Remedial Action
         (RD/RA) Settlements

-------
                     Appendix B
            FY 1988 RD/RA Settlements*
Site
McKinn
Cannons (4 sites)
Picillo
GEMS
Goose Farm
Maryland Sand Gravel
& Stone
Tysons
Harvey and Knott
Limestone Road
Chisman Creek (OU1)
McAdoo
Saltville Waste
Palmerton Zinc
Middletown Airfield
N.W. 58th St.
Celanese
Brown Wood
Hipps Road
Tower
Pioneer Sand
Gold Coast
Powersville
Laskan Poplar
Industrial Excess
Seymour
Rose Township
Forest Waste
Johns Manville
Bayou Sorrell
Mid-South
Conservation Chemical
California Gulch
Anaconda Smelter
Litchfield Airport
Strlngfellow
Commencement Bay
Region
I
I
l
ll
11
in
ill
ill
ill
in
ill
ill
ill
ill
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
V
V
V
V
V
V
VI
VI
VII
VIII
VIII
IX
IX
X
Approximate Value (M)**
7.0
33,0
2.0
27.4
9.0
7,8
20.0
10.0
1.2
15.0
3.0
5.4
8.0
4.0
11.0
2.0
9.0
4.0
7.0
3.0
3.7
4.2
8.5
2.0
25.0
25.0
1.8
3.5
25.0
4.0
20.0
2.5
2.0
5.5
3.9
3.5
Does not include consent decrees in government concurrence
M = Millions of Dollars
                            B-1

-------
                   Appendix C
Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE)
              Program Participants

-------
                             Appendix C

       Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE)
                       Program Participants
Developer
First Solicitation. RFP $iT:r GO!
1 - American Combustion, Inc.
Norcross, GA
2, DETOX Industries, IRC.
Sugarland, TX
3- Hazeon, Inc.
Katy, TX
4. Haztech/EPA Region 4
Atlanta, GA
5. International Waste
Technologies
Wichita, KS
6 Ogden Environmenta!
Services
San Diego, CA
?• Resources Conservation
Company
Bellevue, WA
8, Shirco Infrared
Systems, !nc,
Dallas, TX
9. Terra Vac, inc.
Dorado, PR
10. Westinghouse Electric
Corporation
Madison, PA
Second Solicitation, RFP Sti'E 002
1 1 • Geosafe Corp
Kirkland, WA
12. CF Systems Corporation
Cambridge, MA
13, chemfix Technologies, Inc.
Metairle, LA
14, MoTec, Inc.
Mt. Juliet, TN
15. Retech, Inc.
Ukiah, CA
16. Sanltech, Inc.
Twinsburg, OH
17. Separation & Recovery
Systems, Inc. (SRS)
Irvine, CA
18. Soliditech, Inc.
Houston, TX
19. Zimpro Environmenta!
Control Systems
Rothschild, Wl
Technology
Pyretron™ Oxygen
Burner
Biological
Degradation
Solidification/
Stabilization
Shirco Infrared
Thermal Destruction
In-Situ
Stabilization
Circulating
Fluidized Bed
Combustor
Solvent
Extraction
Infrared Thermal
Destruction
In-SItu Vacuum
Extraction
Pyroplasma
System
In-SItu
Vitrification
Solvent
Extraction
Chemical Fixation/
Stabilization
Liquid/Solid
Contact Digestion
Plasma Heat
Ion Exchange
Solidification/
Stabilization
Solidification
Powdered Activated
Carbon /Biological
Demonstration Completed3
January 1988
(Early 1989)
October 1987
August 1987
April 1988
(Spring 1989)

November 1987
April 1988
(Spring 1989)
(Spring 1989)
September 1988
(February 1989)
(Spring 1989)
(Summer 1989)


December 1988
(April 1989)
3Dates in parentheses iiuHct-tf ?.<:p>'>.,ied dates of completion.
                                    C-1

-------
              Appendix C (continued)

Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE)
              Program Participants
Developer
Third Solicitation. RFP SITE 003"
20. Biotrol, Inc.
Chaska, MN
21- Biotrol, fnc,
Chaska, MN
22. CBI Freeze
Technologies. Inc.
Plainfield, IL
23. Chemical Waste
Management, Inc.
Riverdale, IL
24. Detox, Inc.
Dayton, OH
25. E.I. Du Pont de
Nemours, Inc.
Newark, DE
26. Freeze Technologies Corp,
Raleigh, NC
27. Silicate Technology Corp.
Scottsdale, AZ
28, Toxic Treatments Inc.
San Mateo, CA
29. Ultrox International Inc.
Santa Anna, CA
Technology
Soil Washing
Biological
Degradation
Separation By
Freezing
Low-Temperature
Desorption
Fixed-Fi!m
Biological
Microfiltration
Separation By
Freezing
Pozzolonic/
Silicate Based
In-situ Steam/
Air Stripping
Ultra-violet
Radiation and
Ozone
Demonstration Completed
(Spring 1989)
(Spring 1989)





(Spring 1989)
(February 1989)
(March 1989)
                          C-?

-------
                  Appendix D
Emerging Technology Program (ETP) Participants

-------
                 Appendix D
Emerging Technology Program Participants
Developer
1,
2.
3,
4.
5,
6.
7,
Atomic Energy of Canada
Limited Research, Inc.
Chalk River, Ontario
Battelle Memorial Institute,
Columbus Division
Columbus, OH
Bio-Recovery
Systems, Inc.
Las Cruces, NM
Colorado School of Mines
Golden, CO
Energy and Environmental
Engineering, Inc.
Somerville, MA
Envirite Field
Services, Inc.
Atlanta, GA
Western Research Institute
Laramie, WY
Technology
Ultrafiltration
In-Situ Electro-
acoustic
Decontamination
Biological Sorbtion
Wet lands -Based
Treatment
Laser Stimulated
Photochemical
Oxidation
Solvent Washing
Contained Oil
Recovery of Wastes
 0, S- GQVSPSHENT FB1NTING OFFICE 1989/617-QC3/Q4B5S
                        D-1

-------