United States
       Environmental Protection
       Agency
Office of Site Remediation
Enforcement (OSRE)
EPA330-R-98-001
PB 98-963218
http://www.epa.gov/superfund
January 1998
       Superfund
EF*A  Superfund Reforms
       Annual  Report FY 1997

-------

-------
                Annual   Report  F Y   1997
                         Foreword
  I he Superfund program has achieved substantial progress in cleaning up
 hazardous waste sites and protecting human health and the environment with
 cleanup underway at 89 percent of the sites on the National Priorities List
 (NPL) (excluding Federal Facilities). To make the program faster, fairer, and
 more efficient, EPA launched three rounds of Superfund reforms beginning in
 1993 that cover a wide range of Superfund concerns, including enforcement,
 public involvement, State and Tribal empowerment, cleanup effectiveness,
 economic redevelopment, environmental justice, and program consistency.

 Implementation of Superfund reforms has strengthened  the program and
 allowed concepts to be tested prior to reauthorization. For example, EPA
 estimates that reviewing and updating selected remedies  at specific sites in the
 last two years will yield future cost reductions  of over $900 million. Similarly,
 EPA has effectively reduced the pursuit of small volume (i. e., de minimis and
 de micromis) contributors by private parties, increased public involvement in
 the cleanup process by creating Regional Ombudsmen to address public con-
 cerns, and promoted economic  development and environmental justice with
 Brownfields and job-training initiatives.

As a result, today's Superfund is dramatically different than it was just five years
 ago. EPA has streamlined cleanups, reduced litigation and bureaucracy, and
 made common sense improvements to Superfund. This report looks at the
 accomplishments of the second and third rounds of EPA's Superfund reforms.

-------
                                        Superfund   Reforms
H

-------
                         Annual  Report  FY  1997
                      Table   of    Contents
 Foreword	j

 Introduction	„	1

 Reforms at a Glance	7

 Round Three Reforms	21

 I.       Cleanups
 3-1 .a.    Establish National Remedy Review Board (NRRB)	21
 3-1 .b.    Establish New Remedy Selection Management Flags ("Rules-of-Thumb")	22
 3-2.      Update Remedy Decisions at Select Sites	23
 3-3.a.    Clarify the Role of Cost in the Remedy Selection Process	.27
 3-3.b.    Directive on National Consistency in Remedy Selection	28
 3-4.      Clarify Information Regarding Remedy Selection Decisions	28
 3-5.a.    Community Participation in Designing Risk Assessments	29
 3-5.b.    PRP Performance of Risk Assessments	30
 3-6.a.    Establish National Criteria on Superfund Risk Assessments	31
 3-6.b.    Standardizing Risk Assessments	32
 3-6.C.    Utilize Expert Workgroup on Lead	33
 3-7.      Establish Lead Regulator at Federal Facilities	35
 3-8.      Consider Response Actions Prior to NPL Listing	36
 3-9.      Delete Clean Parcels from the NPL	37
 3-10.a.   Promote Risk-Based Priority Setting at Federal Facility Sites	39
 3-10.b.   Promote Risk-Based Priority for NPL Sites	39

 II.      Enforcement
 3-11.     Orphan Share Compensation	41
 3-12.     Site Specific Special Accounts	43
 3-13.     Unilateral Administrative Orders (UAO) Reform	44
 3-14.     Revised De Micromis Guidance	45
 3-16.     Improving the Administration of PRP Oversight	47

 III.      Public Involvement
3-17.     Pilot Remedy Selection by Selected States and Tribes	49
3-18.     Pilot Community Based Remedy Selection	50
3-19.     Establish Superfund Ombudsman in Every Region	51
3-20.     Improve Communication with Superfund  Stakeholders	53

-------
                            Superfund  Reforms
Round Two Reforms	55

i.      Enforcement
2-1.     PRP Search Pilots	55
2-2.     Expedited Settlement Pilots	57
2-3.     The Allocation Pilots	58

II.     Economic Redevelopment
2-4.a.   Brownfields Pilot Projects	61
2-4.b.   Brownfields Community Outreach	-63
2-4.C.   Refining CERCLIS	64
2-4.d.   Clarifying NPL Sites	65
2-4.e.   Removing Liability Barriers: Prospective Purchaser Agreements (PPAs)	66

III.     Community Involvement and Outreach
2-5.a.   Community Advisory Groups (CAGs)	69
2-5.b.   Technical Assistance Grants (TAGs)	71
2-6.     Community Involvement in the Enforcement Process Pilots	73

IV.     Environmental Justice
2-7.a.   Training and Health Service Assistance to Communities	75
2-7.b.   Superfund Jobs Training Initiative (Super JTI)	76
                                                                       1
V.     Consistent Program Implementation
2-8.     Guidance for Remedy Selection	79
2-9.a.   Risk Sharing: Implementing Innovative Technology	81
2-9.b.   Risk Sharing: Identifying Obstacles to Using Innovative Technology	...82

VI.    State and Tribal Empowerment
2-10.   Voluntary Cleanup Program	83
2-11.   Integrated Federal/State/Tribal Site Management Program	84
2-12.   State/Tribal Superfund Block Funding	-85
 iv

-------
             Annual  Report  F Y   1997
                  Introduction
  I  he Superfund program is fundamentally different. Since 1993, when
EPA announced the first round of reforms, the program has changed in
response to stakeholders concerns. Through the commitment of EPA, State
and Tribal site managers, other Federal agencies, private sector
representatives, and involved communities, we have achieved real results
protecting public health and the environment, while experimenting with
and instituting changes to the cleanup process through Superfund Reforms.
EPA's cleanups address real threats to public health and the environment,
and where possible, return sites to productive uses (see Figure 1). The
reforms are taking hold, and we have put in place a faster, fairer and more
efficient Superfund program.
Figure 1: The Fort Devens NPL site in Worcester, MA, during and after Superfund
 Cleanup. The top photograph was taken in February 1995 during cleanup opera-
 tions. The bottom photos depict the U.S. Bureau of Prisons new hospital (left) and
        the Gillette Corporation warehouse and distribution center (right)
                   which are part of the site redevelopment.

-------
                              Superfund  Reforms
            Some indicators of thexeforms success through September 30, 1997 include
            the following:

            •    Increased the pace of cleanup and completed cleanup construction at
                 498 sites on the National Priorities List (NPL);
            •    Authorized responsible parties to perform or fund approximately 70%
                 of Superfund long-term cleanups, saving taxpayers, more than
                 $12 billion;
            •    Removed over 15,000 small contributors from the liability system
            •    Achieved estimated public and private future cost reductions (savings)
                 of over $900 million; and,
            •    Evaluated and archived almost 30,500 sites from CERCLIS, the
                 national inventory of hazardous waste sites.
                  Measuring the Progress of Site Remediation
 January 1993
                         367
                                                              380
          Asustnunt
           Not Btgun
           (Includes 25
           lite* With
           Removal
           Actions)
Tor Jenueiy 1H3. ttw Reroediel Aftteecment Not Begun Category figure Includes shoe with Removal Actions.
tor FYI7. tout NTt thH Include eight slte» thit were referred to Another Authority.
                                            Figure 2

-------
                   Annual  Report  FY   1997
                         Pace of Cleanup is Accelerated
         More Than Twice the Construction Completions in Five Years
    500
    400
|   300
|   200
I   100
1     o
                                                           498
                                               410
                                   346
            217
                        278
149
          FY 80-92
                                                          FY97
                                         Fiscal Year
                                    Figure 3

       The reforms to Superfund, EPA's hazardous waste cleanup program, are
       intended to improve the efficiency, pace, cost, and fairness of the program,
       Figures 2 and 3 show that EPA, through program reforms, achieved far more
       cleanups in the last five years than in the first 12 years of the program. This
       achievement is not isolated. Over 89 percent of the sites on the NPL have
       cleanup underway or completed (see Figure 4). Many of these cleaned up
       sites have been developed for commercial and other beneficial purposes
       (see Figure 5).

       The Superfund Reforms consist of various initiatives and pilots that are
       being implemented within CERCLA's existing statutory framework. As EPA
       continues to implement the Superfund reforms, we continue to appreciate
       the flexibility this approach affords to improve the program.

       The first round of Superfund Administrative Improvements, introduced in
       June 1993, were described in a closeout report issued in February 1995
       ("Superfund Administrative Improvements Closeout Report," June 23,
       1993 - September 30,  1994, OSWER, February 1995). These reforms
       focused heavily on speeding up site investigation and construction
       completion activities.

       In February 1995, EPA introduced a second round of reforms, many of
       which were structured around  the principles embodied in the Clinton
       Administration's Superfund reauthorization proposal in the 103rd Congress
       (i.e., the Superfund Reform Act of 1994).  The second round of reforms was

-------
                               Superfund  Reforms
           Cleanup Underway or Finished at Most Superfund Sites
                       89% of NPL Sites Have Cleanup Underway or Finished
                                                                                     NH (88%)

                                                                                     MA (96%)
                                                                                       Rl (100%)
                                                                                   CT(93%)
                                                                                   NJ (90%)
                                                                                   DE (89%)
    Pr*4!mln«y Fiscal Yaar FY97 Accomplishments
    Doei not Include Federal Facility or Proposed NPL Sites
    Novwntxr 1997
                                             Figure 4

              an effort to administratively test or implement many of the innovations
              contained in the proposal through pilot projects as well as new or revised
              Agency guidance. The 12 reforms contained in Round 2 encompass six
              areas: enforcement, economic redevelopment, community involvement and
              outreach, environmental justice, consistent program implementation, and
              State empowerment.

              In October 1995, EPA introduced the third and final round of Superfund
              reforms. This round consisted of 20 reforms designed to make cost-effective
              cleanup choices that protect public health and the environment, reduce
              litigation and transaction costs, and insure that states and communities are
              more informed and involved in cleanup decisions.
4

-------
                      Annual   Report  FY   1997
Figure 5: Jack Nicklaus demonstrates his technique for chipping out of a black sand bunker, which uses
 detoxified slag from a former copper smelter. This was at the 1997 opening of Anaconda's Old Works
   Golf Course, which Nicklaus designed on a portion of a National Priorities List site in Montana.
         This report describes the continuing implementation and evaluation of the
         second and third rounds of the Superfund  Reforms through Fiscal Year
         1997. The report is divided into three sections: 1) Reforms at a Glance,
         2) Round 3 Reforms, and 3) Round 2 Reform Initiatives. The Reforms at a
         Glance section provides a quick overview of the major accomplishments as
         well as the current status and projected completion dates for Rounds 3 and
         2 Reforms. The remaining sections provide details on the Rounds 3 and 2
         reforms including: the results, lessons learned, stakeholder comments and
         suggestions, and EPA's evaluation of the reform, where appropriate.

-------
Super/find  Reforms

-------
                          Annual  Report  FY  1997
                     Reforms   at   a   Glance
,ajor Program Accomplishments-Fundbmentally Different Superfund
    Construction Completions (498 by9/27/97)

    Archived Sites (30,454 as of 9/30/97}

    De Minimis Parties Settled Out (over 15,000}

    Brownfields Pilots (121  Pilots-awarded up to $200,000 per pilot)

    Prospective Purchaser Agreements (68 agreements have been reached; 51 have been entered since
    May 1995 Guidance)
              This "Reforms at a Glance" section provides a quick reference tool that
              summarizes the current status and future activities planned for each reform.
              The reforms are separated into broad categories within Rounds 2 and 3,
              including Cleanup, Enforcement, Public Involvement, Economic
              Redevelopment, Community Outreach, Environmental Justice, Consistent
              Implementation, and State and Tribal Empowerment. Implementation of
              27 of the reforms is complete, while several others are nearing completion.
              EPA has characterized 18 of the completed reforms as those designed to
              fundamentally change the Superfund program, as opposed to simply
              improving it. Completed reforms designed to fundamentally change the
              Superfund are identified in the Status column as "Completed/Fundamental
              Change."

              The tables separate columns present easily accessible information for each
              reform. The first column, "Reform," provides the tide of the reform and, in
              parenthesis, its number. The second column, "Status," describes each
              reforms accomplishments through FY97. The bar under each reform
              indicates its status - whether the reform is still ongoing or completed.
              "Completed" indicates that the major objectives of the reform have been
              fulfilled, and future activity will consist mainly of continuing to implement
              the reform (e.g., the reform called for a guidance document to be issued,
              that guidance was issued, and future activity will consist of implementing
              that guidance). The third column, "Next," lists future actions that will be
              taken to implement the reform.

-------
                                          Superfund   Reforms
8

-------
                       Annual Report  FY  1997
       Reforms   at  a   Glance   ROUND   3
  Reform
 CLEANUPS
 Establish National Remedy
 Review Board (NRRB) (1A)
 _
, E
  "x, W^"
 Update Remedy Decisions
 at Select Sites (2)
 Established Remedy Review
 Board (11/95)
 Issued memorandum and
 fact sheet on Remedy
 Review Board (9/96)
 Issued annual progress
 report (12/96)
 Reviewed a total of 20 site
 decisions saving an estimated
 $31.5 million (9/97)
                             ihumbJpr Supelftind
                             ^ reme-dy selection1s>97)"
                                                  of*"
                                       •\ S*-  5  -Jty
Issued final
implementation
memorandum (9/96)
Estimated future cost
savings of over $360
million from updating
remedies at over 50 sites
inFY96
Revised estimated future
cost savings of over $360
million from updating
remedies at over 60 sites
inFY97
Updates are currently
underway at 35 additional
sites
 Review cleanup decisions
 at approximately 10 sites in
 FY98
 Implement
 recommendations to refine
 the scope and nature of the
 Board's mission as well as
 its implementation
 procedures
 Review non-time-critical
 removal actions that meet
 certain criteria


"ImpferrJentatfan of this    *
                            EFWstaffwHJ	,	
                            use the coftsoirdatedxguide
                           'and guidance to improve
                            remedy selection process
Work with States and PRPs
to identify opportunities
for improving remedies
Develop Regional Plans
specifying how each
Region will implement this
reform in FY98
Tabulate specific remedy
update data on a quarterly
basis

-------
                            Superfund  Reforms
  Reform
 Clarify the Role of Cost in
 the Remedy Selection
 Process (3A)
 Directive on National
 Consistency in Remedy
 Selection (3B)
 Clarify Information
 Regarding Remedy
 Selection Decisions (4)
 Community Participation in
 Designing Risk
 Assessments (5A)
  PRP Performance of Risk
  Assessments (5B)
  Establish National Criteria
  to Plan, Report and Review
  Superfund Risk
  Assessments <6A)
S   t   a   t   u
Issued memorandum and
fact sheet on the role of
cost (9/96)
 Issued national
 consistency memorandum
 (9/96)
                ........... t. ......... '-""I
 Developed interim remedy
 selection summary sheet
 (12/96)
 Develop draft reference
 document on good practice
                               I     	IliliiiPili Bill 1i.. i"!"!'11 «Ht
 Issued guidance clarifying
 PRP role in risk
 assessments (1/96)
                                              ^
 Drafted standard risk
 assessment data reporting
 tables (7/97)
 Issued Technical Approach
 to Risk Assessment for
 planning reporting, and
 reviewing risk
 assessments (9/97)
Implementation of this
reform is complete
Implementation of this
reform is cornplete"
Prepare more
comprehensive guidance
for end of FY98
Issue draft reference  <"
documenfon good practice
tn January 1998
Issue final document in
September 1998
Survey Regions in FY98 to
determine if there are sites
where PRPs perform the
RI/FS but not the baseline
risk assessment


Issue Risk Assessment,
.Guidance for Superfund in
the second quarter of FV98J
10

-------
                         Annual  Report  F Y   1997
  Reform
 Standardize Risk
 Assessments (6B)
Establish Lead Regulator
for Federal Facilities (7)
Delete Clean Parcels from
the NPL (9)
    Formed EPA Workgroups
    (3/97)
    Issued draft workplan
    (3/97)
    Initiated guidance
    development (5/97)
    Initiated planning for next
    stakeholders meeting in
    early 1998 (7/97)
 »&£Dra1
                                         nee
                                                      rs   *
   Developed draft policy
.J ..f VJMH-eiEO/FUNPAMEtfrALCHftNBE :.|
 '^r>  *      v v ^T*-  „  5   'V
             ^  t >   <>

   Issued notice on policy
   change to allow partial
   deletions (11/95)
   Issued partial deletion
   guidance (4/96)
   Issued three notices of
   intent and six final notices
   to delete clean parcels
   from the NPL (9/97)
   Convene stakeholders
   meeting in March 1998
   Issue final guidance in
   December 1998
   Completed guidance
   document(s) (12/97)
                                                                     renrroval^actionls in
•  EPA will complete imple-
  mentation of reform with
  signed policy on the single
  regulator concept in FY98


• 'Continuejto collect^ \  ^ 4
"Imformatiqn and monitor
„  Implementation of reform*
   Issue additional notices of
   intent to delete clean
   parcels
   Pilot deletion of
   remediated parcels at
   closing military bases
                                                                                         11

-------
                             Superfund  Reforms
  Reform
 Promote Risk-Based Priority
 Setting at Federal Facility
 Sites (10 A)


 Promote Risk-Based Priority
 for NPL Sites (10B)
S   t   at   u   s
Developed draft guidance
Established National Risk-
Based Priority Panel to rank
sites based on risk (8/95)
Evaluated over 50 projects
during FY97 (8/97)
Issue final guidance in
second quarter of FY98
Continue review of cleanup
projects started in FW7
Reconvene panel-fearly, >.
spring 1998)    >         -•*
  ENFORCEMENT
  Orphan Share
  Compensation (11)
  Site Specific Special
  Accounts (12)
Offered over $100 million
in orphan share
compensation over the last
2 fiscal years
Existence of orphan share
may be considered in
settlement of cost recovery
cases, as stated in the
Addendum to the "Interim
CERCLA Settlement
Policy", issued
September 30,1997
 Reached agreement that
 interest can accrue directly
 to special accounts (6/96)
 Through FY97, $52 million
 in interest accrued from
 $405 million principal in
 93 special accounts
 Continue to offer orphan
 share compensation at
 every eligible site under
 the June 1996 Interim
 Guidance on orphan share
 compensation
 As ^n outgrowth of this
 reform, EPA is exploring
 options for disbursing
 these funds to PRPsto   ,
 perform future response
 work
12

-------
                         Annual  Report  F Y  1997
  Reform
 Unilateral Administrative
 Orders (UAO) Reform (13)
Adopting Private Party
Allocations (15)
  • Issued memorandum to
    Regions directing changes
    in procedures for UAO
    issuance (8/96)
  • HQ personnel
    independently review the
    documentation prepared
    by Regional staff and
    determine consistency with
    existing Agency policy,
    including 8/96
    memorandum
  •  In multi-Agency MOU
    (currently circulating for
    signature) Federal
    Resource Managers
    receiving newly delegated
    UAO authority commit to
    comply with existing
    Agency policies, including
    this reform.

  * f*A  *y*>' 1     ,•-    *\;V»JI

   j   \ \*$>& ^H   ^  &   *&   "" -* >
'<*j  ,   ^ 4,^ %         Ac.     •>•*.
                                 fluiaarice and mrodils*ih  ?z
                                ^^."h*...   <|tofr~
                               \"'*"  COMPtETEPffUNPAMEHTAt. CHANGE  14$
 • Used allocations as basis
   for settlement at several
   sites (9/96)
                                -•• tievelop^ a directive
                                  ^encouraging the inclusion ^
                                A  of De Mic/omis waivers in\
This reform was merged
with the orphan share
reform
                                                                                        13

-------
                           Superfund  Reforms
  Reform
 Improving the
 Administration of PRP
 Oversight (16)
S  t  a   t   u   s

Issued directive on reducing
oversight (7/96)
Targeted reduced PRP
oversight at approximately
100 sites (9/96)
Initiated national
workgroup to implement
directive (1/97)
Met with external
stakeholders to get
feedback on
implementation of reform (5/97)
  Organize meetings between
  Regions and PRPs to discuss
  oversight issues
  Conduct site-specific
  evaluations to assess reform
  impacts
  PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
  Pilot Remedy Selection by
  Selected States and Tribes
  (17J
  Pilot Community-Based
  Remedy Selection (18)
  Establish Superfund
  Ombudsman In Every
  Region {19}
  Improve Communication
  with Superfund
  Stakeholders (20)
 Issued formal solicitation^
 for pilot sites (6/97)
 Discussions on Regional
 approaches ongoing
 Appointed an ombudsman
 in each Region
 Convened annual
 meetings ($/96 anrf2/97p
 Conducted ongoing public
 outreach and mediation
 training  (2/97)
 Created Headquarters
 Superfund homepage
 (4/96)
  procedures for mm
, * Messbnsjear    ^_
  document'    l™t~ ^
     f. *      *SJ,»   ^
  Continue to discuss
  regional approaches to
  community based remedy
  selection throughout FY98
   Continue to post and revise
   Superfund information on
   EPA Superfund homepage
14

-------
                    Annual Report  FY   1997
     Reforms  at  a   Glance   ROUND  2
 Reform
ENFORCEMENT
PRP Search Pilots (1)
           „  /„
Expedited Settlement
Pilots (2)  ~> ^ j>
The Allocation Pilots (3)
 Initiated Pilots at 15
 Superfund sites
                                               J
Offered allocation process
at 12 sites; process being
piloted at 9 Superfund sites
Three allocation reports
issued
One settlement lodged
Two other sites settled
pre-allocation report
                                               J
  Pilots Done
  Incorporate lessons
  learned into the program
  Issue comprehensive PRP
  Search Guidance in FY 98
                         ^Complete pilpts*
                                                   "k  learned into tha
    ,. j      &    \
'^KWv  /&>  X    >*>• .<*


• Complete pilots
ECONOMIC
REDEVELOPMENT
community outreach (4A-B)
                         ^Awarded 12^ pilots-
                           , COMPLETED/FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE
                       ;t  Identify up4a 100i', - ^
                       ^ - assessment pilpts irt PY98 „
                       «  Initiate expansion of site
                          assessments
                       •  Select 10 Brownfields   - *
                          'Showcase Communities
                       •  WorkwitrfjfEHSto  v
                          coordinate minority
                          workers with pilot
                          activities
                       •  Continue outreach to
                          stakeholders and offer
                          technical assistance
                                                                         15

-------
                            Superfund  Reforms
  Reform
  Refining CERCUS (4C)
  Clarifying NPL Sites (4D)
  Removing Liability Barriers:
  PPAs (4E)
S   t  a   t  us
 Archived sites (30,454 as of
 9/30/97)
 Convened workgroup (5/95)
 Workgroup recommended a
 policy change to allow
 partial deletions
 Published Federal Register
 notice (11/95)
 Issued 4 guidance
 documents providing
 assurance to prospective
 purchasers, lenders, and
 property owners on
 CERCLA liability (10/96)
  Continue to archive sites
  from CERCLIS
  EPA announced
  Superfund Reform: Delete
  Cle^h Parcels from N1|L
  Sites (Reform 3-9}'
  This completes
  implementation of-the
  workgroup's  , „;-,    /
  recommendation     ,A
  Implementation of this  <-
  "reformjs^complete.     *<

 »  Continue using PPAs to
   encourage redevelopment
   of Superfund sites
  COMMUNITY
  INVOLVEMENT
  AND OUTREACH
  Community Advisory
  Groups (5A)
 Issued guidance summary
 on use of CAQs (8/96)
 Issued case Studies of five
 sites, "Community
 Assistance Groups: Partners
 in Decisions at Hazardous
 Waste Sites" (11/96)
 Established CAGs at 33 sites
 (5/97)
 Issued the CAG Toolkit one
 of the most effective
 mechanisms for implement-1
 ing the CAG program at
 Superfund sites (8/97)
« ConjiriuertoiesfreAGo
  Toolkits at varfous^ites
°» Evaluate CAGs and   -
  develop riew^ethojj^o^ -
  promote and assist CAGs
16

-------
                        Annual  Report  F Y  1997
  Reform
 Technical Assistance Grants
 (5B)
**i
                   t
munity Involvement in
    ™    ^   *•   **•
    mmu
            v  &.^.
       orcement Pr
          "
                     i.\   j(y$t
                    e» - «s
            V  *
                           Drafted proposed TAG
                           regulation
                                               <.*
                                               ^•s.^- j_   .  x
                                                         >%v
                                                         *•
 Publish proposed TAG
 regulation
 Promote citizen
 involvement by improving
 TAGs and facilitating the
 process
 Publish provisions to the
 TAG regulation in FY98

 „ **.»   ~'   <*'%^   7
» Contjnu&to|mplement   <
                                                         .x involvement activities a%,
                                                         tthe renjainde^of the  <  ~
                                                         .selected sitesjAfso^   ^
                                                          ifnplement nrosflffective,
                                                          activities outside the  '   fe
                                                          scope of the pjlot       x
                                                        •? Complete pjHot  ~       "
                                                        •% Ihcdrporate^Ieislans ^ -K"
                                                            >S%,    "*    "^N    *£  >.
                                                      >   *j learned into the, program '
                                                              x>       -        *"
 ENVIRONMENTAL
 JUSTICE
 Training and Health Service
 Assistance to Communities
 (7A)
  ^     v \  % i^  -   ^"
 Superfund Jobs Training ^
 Initiative (7B)        "\,
                           Targeted 4 sites for
                           assistance (9/97)
                           Bunded NlErtS "minority
                           workertraining programs
                           forFT97           "
                           'EPA'Superfund Jobs
                           Trainings Initiative started
                           five pilots at Superfund
                           sites^  »
 Secure funding to finance
 FY98 pilot projects
^Continueto fund
 Continue to establish
 SuperJTI pilots
                                                                                      17

-------
                            Superfund  Reforms
  Reform
  CONSISTENT
  PROGRAM
  IMPLEMENTATION
S   t   a  t  us
  Guidance for Remedy
  Selection (8)
  Risk Sharing: Implementing
  innovative Technology (9A)
  Risk Sharing: Identifying
  Obstacles to Using
  Innovative Technology (SB)
Issued new land use directive
(5/95)
Issued final soil screening
guidance (5/96)
Issued a presumptive remedy
users guide for volatile organic
compounds in soils (7/96)
Issued additional
presumptive remedy
guidance for: wood treater
sites (12/95), MSW landfills at
military bases (4/96), and
ground water sites (10/96)
Issued supplemental bulletin
for multi-phase extraction
technology for the VOCs in
soils presumptive
remedy (4/97)
 Prepare final guidance on
 implementing the risk
 sharing initiative (10/97)
 Issued innovative
 technologies in waste
 management directive (4/96)
Issue a supplemental
bulletin for multi-phase
extraction to assist site
managers using VOCs
presumptive remedy
Develop additional
bulletins to document time
and future cost reductions
Issue guidance for risk-
sharing initiative (2/98)
Engage State agencies in
this initiative thrbugh;JTrtC
Implementation of this
reform is complete
18

-------
                       Annual  Report  FY  1997
 Reform
STATE AND TRIBAL
EMPOWERMENT
Voluntary Cleanup Program
(10)
State/Tribal Superfund
Block Funding (12)
• Decided preferred
  approach is for EPA
  Regions and States to
  negotiate MOAs on a case-
  by-case basis that can be
  customized to better fit the
  State's VCP and legislation
• As ofJanuary 1998, EPA
  has signed MOAs with
  eleven states
                               ',' .5 A * CBHHCTjl>.>.«<  * c. **. „
                                               «**    v\
  Issued fiRal guidance on


  Nine State and three Tribal
  pilots are underway
Agency anticipates
awarding up to $15 million
in cooperative agreements
to States in FY98
                                                          ># Evaluate review of^Sjate
                                                                                    f
                                                                                    *t
                                                             appropriate foflowup
                                                             actions  "      -  *t
         ""    v ?    -v
   \      ^ -     \     »

Issue final report
documenting obstacles in
awarding and utilization of
Superfund resources (12/97)
Evaluate ongoing pilots in
FY98
                                                                                   19

-------
                           Superfund  Reforms
20

-------
                           Annual  Report  FY  1997
   CLEANUPS
   3-1.a.   Establish  National   Remedy  Review  Board
   The National Remedy Review Board's (the Board) goal is to promote cost effectiveness and
   national consistency in remedy selection at Superfund sites. To accomplish this, the Board
   analyzes proposed site-specific cleanup strategies to insure they are consistent with current law
   regulations, and guidance.
 The Board has undergone
 scrutiny by both private parties
 and Congress, and reaction to
 the Board s accomplishments to
 date is generally positive. In
 FY97, the Board reviewed eight
 cleanup decisions. While the
 effects of these reviews on
 estimated cleanup costs are not
 yet fully determined, EPA
 estimates that die first FY97
 reviews have saved
 approximately $6 million in
 estimated future cost reductions,
 for a total Board savings of
 over $31 million since 1996.
 Regions have observed a wide
 range of additional benefits
 from die review process,
 including improved national
 consistency, clarity of decisions,
 and cross-Regional
 communication on key remedy
 selection issues. Furrner, while
 die Board is contributing to cost
 effectiveness and consistency,
 die reviews have generally
 confirmed diat Superfund
 cleanup decisions are technically
 sound and comply widi
 applicable regulations and
 guidance.

Also in FY97, die Board
conducted an in-depdi analysis
of its operating procedures, and
revised several key protocols
 based on analysis of feedback
 from concerned stakeholders.
 Of particular note, the Board
 raised die limit on technical
 submissions from stakeholders
 from five to ten pages, and
 instituted procedures to review
 high cost non-time-critical
 removal actions. II
BENEFITS
      Improved national
      consistency in
      Superfund remedy
      selection.
      improved remedy cost
      effectiveness.
      Confirmation of
      technically sound
      decision-making at high
      cost sites.
      Assurances that
      decisions are in
      accordance with
      regulations and
      guidance.
         Results
        The Board has reviewed
        total of 20 cleanup
        decisions, eight of tiiese
        were reviewed in FY9 7. So
        far, it is estimated diat FY97
        reviews have saved
        approximately $6 million
        in estimated future cost
        reductions, for a total Board
        savings of over
        $31 million.
           Contacts
           Bruce Means, OERR,
           (703) 603-8815

           Rich Norris, OERR,
           (703) 603-9053
  SUCCESS
New Bedford Harbor Site
     Massachusetts
   Since last year's Annual Report several Regions have completed analyses of
   the Board's comments. These have shown the significant benefit from the
   Board's review. For example, the Board reviewed a cleanup decision for the
   New Bedford Harbor site in Massachusetts. One of the Board's
   recommendations was for the Region to assess whether their air monitoring
   program was overly extensive, given the nature of the contaminants and
   actions planned at the site. The Region subsequently reassessed the need for
   continued monitoring of this nature. In so doing, the Region made
   adjustments in the monitoring program, reducing the costs by approximately
   $8.4 million.
                                                                                         21

-------
                            Superfund  Reforms
Next Steps
  Review cleanup decisions at
  approximately 10 sites in
  FY98
  Implement refinements to
  the Board's mission as well
  as its implementation
  procedures
  Review non-time-critical
  removal actions that meet
  certain criteria
                                             Stakeholder Comments

                                 "The new National Remedy Review Board ("the
                                Board") is widely regarded as the flagship among
                                 the 20 reforms announced on October 2,1995."

                                - "EPA's Superfund Reforms: A Report on the First
                                 Year of implementation" Superfund Settlements
                                          Project, December 1996 (pg.2)
  3-1.b.  Establish  New   Remedy   Selection
             Management  Flags  ("Ru I e s - of-Thumbr)

 The goal of the rules-of-thumb initiative was to develop remedy selection rules that will promote
 cost-effectiveness and flag potentially "controversial" cleanup decisions for senior management
 review.
               BE N E FITS
EPA developed
two products to
implement this
reform. The first
is a brief
guidance
document that
presents key-
principles and
expectations that
should be
consulted during
the Superfund
remedy selection
process. These
rules-of-thumb
correspond to
three major
policy areas in
the Superfund remedy selection process: risk assessment and risk
management; developing remedial alternatives; and ground water
response actions. This document is a comprehensive and easy-to-
                    Rules of Thumb for Remedy Selection
                    guidance was created to clearly
                    present key principles and
                    expectations that should be consulted
                    during the Superfund remedy
                    selection process.
                    A fact sheet was created to describe
                    management review procedures
                    employed by EPA to insure that
                    national remedy selection policies
                    and procedures are being
                    implemented.

                    The appropriate, consistent
                    application of national policy and
                    guidance helps to insure the
                    reasonableness, predictability, and
                    cost-effectiveness of decisions.
  Results

  Since EPA posted Rules of
  Thumb for Remedy Selection
  guidance on its homepage
  in October 1997, more
  than 1,500 users have
  accessed the document.
understand guide to Superfund
remedy selection policies and
guidance. The document gives
full citations for all referenced
material and explains how the
reader can obtain the more
detailed source documents
(NTIS Report Number PB97-
963301INZ). Gathering these
remedy selection rules-of-
          (continued see Remedy}
22

-------
                         Annual  Report  F Y   1997
Remedy continued...
thumb in one document will
aid in supporting our efforts to
promote these important
objectives.

The second product is a fact
sheet that describes
management review procedures
employed by EPA to insure that
national remedy selection
policies and procedures (as
outlined in the rules-of-thumb)
are being implemented in a
reasonable and appropriately
consistent manner.
                 Both documents are completed
                 and in use. They are available
                 from the National Technical
                 Information Service (NTIS) at
                 (703) 605-6000 or federal
                 employees may obtain them
                 from the Superfund Docket at
                 (703) 603-9232. TheRules-of-
                 Thumb document is available
                 without charge on the
                 Superfund homepage. Both
                 documents are used as resource
                 tools by EPA staff when remedy
                 selection documents are
                 reviewed for appropriate
                 national consistency. •
Next Steps
  EPA staff will continue to use
  these documents to improve
  the remedy selection process
  and to review remedy
  selection documents for
  national consistency.
  Implementing of this reform
  is complete.
Contact
Mike Goldstein, OERR,
(703) 603-9045
  3-2
Update  Remedy  Decisions  at  Select  Sites
  EPA encourages the Regions to revisit remedy decisions at certain sites where significant new
  scientific information, technological advancements, or other considerations will achieve the
  current level of protectiveness of human health and the environment while enhancing overall
  remedy effectiveness and cost effectiveness.
The Agency has always been
able to "update" or change the
details of a cleanup strategy to
reflect new information diat
may not have been available at
the time of the original
decision, but this reform
institutionalized remedy updates
to encourage diese cost-saving
measures. Typically, these
changes were made to reflect
new information about the
characteristics or volumes of
contamination present and/or
new expectations regarding the
performance of selected
technologies under site-specific
           (continued see Decisions)
                   Results
                   During FY97, remedy updates of all types diat achieved future
                   cost reductions resulted in a total estimated future cost
                   reduction of over $360 million at over 60 Sites.  (Note:
                   This figure does not include the DOE Hanford site which
                   updated a portion of die overall remedy based on value
                   engineering for an estimated cost savings of $297 million.)
                   Of the $360 million in cost reductions, over $270 million
                   resulted from updates of die kind identified in the Reform
                   guidance. Cumulative numbers for FY96 and FY97 (excluding
                   the Hanford site) show estimated cost savings of over
                   $725 million at approximately 120 sites nationwide.
                   Of the $725 million in cost reductions, approximatelyN$5 97
                   million resulted from updates of the kind identified in the
                   Reform guidance. The Agency is gathering information
                   regarding changes in technology that improve remedy
                   performance at costs higher than those previously reported for
                   the original remedy in order to present the full picture of net
                   cost changes.
                                                                                     23

-------
                              Superfund  Reforms
Dtclslons continued.,.
conditions. Further, these
updates considered the
implications of these factors on
original decision criteria such as
implementability, short-term
effectiveness, and cost or
community acceptance.
Updates also were made to
reflect changes in State
requirements (i.e., ARARs), or
other information that could
not have been considered in the
original decision. Once a
Regional manager decides to
undertake such changes, there
are specific requirements for
public or other stakeholder
involvement depending on the
nature and significance of the
anticipated change.

The Update Remedy Reform
was included in the third round
of Superfund reforms and was
undertaken specifically to
encourage appropriate changes
  Next Steps

  •  Headquarters will
     continue to work with the
     Regions on
     Implementation of this
     reform. Headquarters has
     requested each Region to
     explain their strategy for
     implementing the reform
     during FY98. Also,
     specific remedy update
     data will be tabulated on
     a quarterly basis.
in response to advances in
remediation science and
technology. Reform guidance
(OSWER Directive: 9200.2-22)
targeted the following three
types of changes, but
recognized that other types of
changes may be appropriate as
well: 1) changes in the
remediation technology
employed, where a different
technology would result in a
more cost-effective cleanup;
2) modification of the
remediation objectives due to
physical limitations posed by
site conditions or the nature of
the contamination; and,
3) modification of the monitoring
program to reduce sampling,
analysis, and reporting
requirements, where
appropriate. This reform
recognized that recent advances
in the area of ground water
science and remediation made
these types of decisions good
      Contact
      Matt Charsky, OERR,
      (703) 603-8777
candidates for updates.

It is important to emphasize that
this initiative does not signal
any changes in Agency policies
regarding site cleanup,
including policies regarding
remedy selection, treatment of
principal threats, preference for
permanence, establishment of
cleanup levels, waivers of
cleanup levels, or the degree to
which remedies must protect
human health and the
environment. •
 BENEFITS
      This reform has been
      very successful in
      bringing past decisions
      in line with current
      science and technology.
      By doing so, these
      updates improve the
      cost-effectiveness of site
      remediation while
      ensuring reliable short-
      and long-term
      protection of human
      health and the
      environment. The
      quantifiable results of
      this reform  have been
      announced  in EPA's
      testimony before
      Congress, private
      industry evaluations of
      Superfund reforms, and
      a report of the U.S.
      General Accounting
      Office. Of additional
      note is EPA's
      overwhelmingly positive
      record of responding to
      remedy update requests
      made by outside parties.
24

-------
          Annual  Report   FY    1997
SUCCESS!
Westerrt  Point  Processing  Site,
        Men.t, Washington
 At the Western Processing site in Washington, the ground water portion of the
 original remedy (valued at approximately $200 million) was modified to reflect
 new information gained from remedy implementation. As a result of
 information collected during operation of the pump and treat remedy, the
 Region determined that the remedy could be significantly enhanced by
 extending the existing containment barrier and by automating the pumping
 system. These changes also will greatly reduce the volume of ground water
 pumped and also will reduce the monitoring and sampling costs.  These
 changes also are fully consistent with EPA's recent guidance for remediating
 ground water. Accordingly, an Explanation of Significant Differences (ESD) was
 signed to implement the changes. Estimated costs of the modified remedy will
 be approximately $118 million, resulting in overall reductions in remedy costs
 of $82 million.
                                 A)  0. Polymer  Site
                           Spa rta jTo wnshi p,  New Jersey
 At the A. O. Polymer site in New Jersey, the original ground water remedy
 included pumping and treating with powdered activated carbon followed by
 filtration and carbon polishing to achieve State maximum contaminant levels,
 at a cost of approximately $19 million. Through a request to revise the
 treatment system by a potentially responsible party (PRP), EPA and New Jersey
 reviewed the data and granted the request to update the ground water
 treatment system to air stripping at a cost of approximately $10 million.
 Additional future cost reductions will be realized through refining the capture
 zone of the pumping system and by reducing pumping volumes. An ESD was
 signed to implement these changes, which EPA estimates will result in a
 reduction in  remedy costs of over $9 million.
                               Norwood  PCB Site,
                           Norwood, Massachusetts
At the Norwood PCB site in Massachusetts, the original soil remedy called for
on-site solvent extraction (an innovative technology) at costs estimated at
slightly over $13 million in 1989, but which had increased to over $54 million by
1995. Difficulties in locating solvent extraction facilities due to space
constraints and safety issues were encountered in the pre-design phase.  From
1989 to 1995, EPA reexamined the risk-based site cleanup goals based on
revisions to human health and ecological risk calculations and clarified the
reasonably anticipated future land use for the site.  Based on the new site
information obtained from this reexamination (together with data showing that
all treatment technologies evaluated in the original remedy could not be
implemented due to limited space), an alternate approach of consolidation was
developed. The Record of Decision (ROD) amendment was signed updating
the soil remedy to consolidation under an impermeable asphalt cap which
could facilitate future site development at a cost of just over $7 million. EPA
estimates this amendment will result in overall reductions in cost of
approximately $47 million.
                                 Metamora Site,
                              Metamora, Michigan
At the Metamora site in Michigan, the original soil remedy called for excavation
and incineration of co-mingled soils at a cost of approximately $70 million.
Additional soil characterization during remedy implementation showed that
materials previously categorized as "principal threats," for which treatment is
strongly preferred, were in actuality "low level threats," for which containment
is generally acceptable. EPA reviewed and approved a request made by a PRP
to reconsider the threat posed by soil. A ROD amendment was signed which
updated the remedy to consolidation of soils into an on-site landfill at a cost of
approximately $42 million. The future cost reduction of over $28 million
resulted from improved understanding of the nature of the soil contamination
and is consistent with policy expectations regarding treatment of principal
threats or containment of low-level threats.
                                                                                      25

-------
                         Superfund  Reforms
                            Stakeholder Comments
           In tne Chemical Manufacturers Association's Report, "A Chemical
         Industry Perspective on EPA's Superfund Administrative Reforms,"
                   April 1997, the following quotes were made:

            "Of the five reforms covered in this report, the updating of previ-
        ous RODs reform generated the most positive comments, both from
                          PRPs and from EPA (pg.  15);"

           "In sum, this  reform has produced the greatest tangible benefits of
              any of EPA's Superfund  administrative reforms (pg. 18);"

             "PRPs confirm that some remedies are being updated and that
         additional petitions to update remedies are pending (pg. 1
confirm that some remedies are being updated and that
petitions to update remedies are pending (pg. 15);" and,

      PA reforms announced in October, 1995, this is th<
      produced the most tangible results (pg.17)."
                      Reform   E v a I u a t ion
                            Hi       J }f*\         •. /• f  s  - -v   ,    ; I   j *'/,'-, .
    Although EPA has conducted some reviews of the reform, EPA has not conducted a formal
    evaluation of remedy updates. EPA does gather Regional remedy update information on a
    quarterly basis, incorporates this information into a database for tracking, and shares this
    information among all ten Regions, Congress, and outside parties.
26

-------
                         Annual  Report  F Y  1997
   3-3.a.  Clarify  the   Role  of   Cost  in   the  Remedy
             Selection  Process
  The objective of this reform is to clarify the current role of cost as established in existing law,
  regulation, and policy.
To implement this reform, EPA developed a fact sheet explaining
EPA policy in this area. This fact sheet does not elevate or establish
a new role for cost in the Superfund program, but rather
summarizes the current role of cost in the Superfund program as
established by CERCLA, the National Contingency Plan (NCP), and
current guidance.

EPA issued the fact sheet on September 10, 1996. It is entitled,
"The Role of Cost in the Superfund Remedy Selection Process"
(OSWER Directive 9200.3-23FS) and is available through the
National Technical Information Service (NTIS) at (703) 605-6000
and the Superfund Document Center. The document currently is
used as a resource tool by EPA staff
when remedy selection documents are reviewed for appropriate
national consistency. •
 Results
The current role of cost in
the Superfund program has
been summarized in a fact
sheet.
Since this fact sheet was
posted on the Superfund
homepage in December,
1996, over 1,000 users
have accessed the
document.
                BENEFITS
                    Through the distribution of this fact sheet, EPA hopes to
                    insure that all stakeholders involved in the Superfund
                    process fully understand the important role of cost in remedy
                    selection under existing law and policy and recent initiatives
                    aimed at enhancing the cost-effectiveness of remedial
                    actions.
       Next Steps
         EPA staff will continue to use this fact
         sheet to improve the remedy selection
         process and to review remedy selection
         documents for national consistency;
         however, implementation of this reform is
         complete.
  Contact
  Mike Goldstein, OERR,
  (703) 603-9045
                                                                                  27

-------
                            Superfund  Reforms
  3-3.b. Directive   on   National   Consistency  in
            Remedy   Selection
  This directive emphasizes the critical importance of maintaining appropriate national consistency
  in the Superfund remedy selection process, and requests that program managers make full use
  of existing tools and consultation opportunities to promote such consistency.
The implementation of this
reform has been completed.
EPA issued the Directive entitled,
"National Consistency in
Superfund Remedy Selection"
on September 25, 1996. This
directive emphasizes the critical
importance of maintaining
appropriate national consistency
in the Superfund remedy
selection process and requests
that program managers make
full use of existing tools and
consultation opportunities to
promote such consistency. In
particular, this memorandum
identifies a range of efforts that
support national consistency in
remedy selection and
encourages informed discussion
of cross-cutting issues.
EPA Headquarters staff continue
to review all proposed plans and
RODs to promote appropriate
national consistency in
Superfund remedy selection
decision-making.  In addition,
cross-regional management and
technical review workgroups
have been established to
promote communication and
national consistency.  The review
procedures and consultation
requirements are oudined in a
fact sheet entitled "Consolidated
Guide to Consultation
Procedures for Superfund
Response Decisions" (OSWER
Directive 9200.1-18FS). •

Contact
Bruce Means, OERR,
(703) 603-8815
      Results
   Cross-regional management
   and technical review
   workgroups have been
   established to promote
   communication and national
   consistency.
BENE FITS
     This directive sends a
     clear and distinct
     message that nationally
     consistent remedy
     selection decision-making
     is very important to EPA.
    Next Steps

    •  Implementation of this
      reform is complete.
   3-4.     Clarify   Information   Regarding  Remedy
             Selection  Decisions
   The goal of this initiative was to design a tool for clearly presenting, in a standardized format,
   the context, basis, and rationale for she-specific Superfund remedy selection decisions.
 EPA developed a draft remedy
 selection summary sheet in
 December 1996. Due to
 comments received on this draft
 document, the summary sheet
 will remain an interim draft
 document and will not be
 finalized. Instead, EPA has
 decided to incorporate this
 product into a broader
  document that provides
  guidance on preparing
  Superfund decision documents
  (including die Proposed Plan,

              (continued see Clarify)
 28

-------
                         Annual  Report  FY  1997
 Clarify continued...
 ROD, Explanation of Significant
 Differences, and the ROD
 Amendment). Anticipated
 completion of this more
 comprehensive guidance
 document is the end of FY98.
 In addition, the December 1996
 version of the summary sheet
 continues to be used by the
 National Remedy Review Board
 as a standard format for
 presenting key remedy selection
 information for discussion. •

 Contact
 Mike Goldstein, OERR,
 (703) 603-9045
                               Next Steps
Completion of guidance on preparing Superfund decision
documents is anticipated by the end of FY98.
The December 1996 version of the summary sheet continues to
be used by the National Remedy Review Board as a standard
format for presenting key remedy selection information
discussion.
  BENEFITS
        A standard format for documenting remedy
        selection decisions will allow EPA to evaluate
        Superfund remedy selection decision-making and
        communicate this information to the public in a
        consistent manner.
  3-5.a.  Community  Participation   in  Designing
             Risk   Assessments
  This initiative will create a concise, helpful, user-friendly reference that will provide risk assessors
  and community members with suggestions for working together in designing and carrying out
  good risk assessments. The objective of this initiative is to promote public participation in the
  risk assessment process.
A key element of die design of a risk assessment should be a
meaningful consideration of the issues and concerns that the
community has about die risks posed by the site. People who live
and work near a Superfund site not only deserve to be informed and
involved, but are likely to have knowledge and insights that would be
helpful in planning and conducting a site-specific risk assessment.

The result of diis reform will be a concise, helpful, user-friendly
reference dial will provide risk assessors and community members
widi suggestions for working together in designing and carrying out
good risk assessments. The first draft reference document was
completed in September 1997. •
        BENEFITS
             Increases public participation in risk
             assessments, which should result in better
             risk management decisions.
                               Results
                               In February 1997 EPA
                               formed a work group to
                               develop the reference
                               document. A draft of the
                               reference document is
                               now being circulated
                               within EPA for
                               comments. In January
                               1998 a revised draft will
                               be provided for review
                               to over 200
                               representatives of
                               community groups, state
                               and local governments,
                               and industry.
                                                                                    29

-------
                            Superfund  Reforms
 SUCCES:
                        Risk Assessment Training
  Region 7, In cooperation with Missouri's Department of Health and Department
  of Natural Resources, presented risk assessment training to the local
  community at Big River NPL site and other historic lead mining sites in
  Missouri's St Francois County. The training will enable the community to
  participate In the risk decision-making and lay the ground work for later
  participation In tho response action decision-making stage.
                             Next Steps

                             •  The final risk assessment
                               reference document is
                               scheduled for September 1998.

                             Contact
                             Bruce Engelbert, OERR,
                             (703) 603-8711
  3-5,b.  PRP  Performance  of  Risk  Assessments

  This initiative reaffirms EPA's commitment to authorize potentially responsible parties (PRPs) to
  perform risk assessments under the proper circumstances.
BENEFITS
     Makes the cleanup
     process more efficient

     Decreases the time
     needed for conducting an
     RI/FS
     Improves communication
     between EPA and PRPs

     Gives PRPs a greater role
     in characterizing site risks

     Reduces EPA's oversight
     requirements
On January 26, 1996, OSWER
Directive 9340.1-02 announced
EPA's revised policy of allowing
PRPs to conduct risk
assessments at most sites where
they are also performing an RI/
FS. The Directive listed six
criteria that the Regions are to
consider when deciding
whether or not to authorize
PRPs to perform a risk
assessment. The new policy also
removed the previous
                 Stakeholder Comments

      "This [PRPs performing risk assessments] is a
      welcome development: EPA has over the years
   changed its mind about whether PRPs may perform
                    risk assessments."

    - CMA Report "A Chemical Industry Perspective on
      EPA's Superfund Administrative Reforms (p.23).
requirement for the Regions to
consult with Headquarters
before authorizing a PRP to
conduct the risk assessment. •


Next Steps

• Survey Regions in FY98 to
  determine if there are sites
  where PRPs perform the
  RI/FS but not the baseline risk
  assessment.
                                                                Contact
                                                                Stephen Ells, OERR,
                                                                (703) 603-8822
Reid
E v a 1 u a
i r m -"
t.t I on
                               Reform to be evaluated to
                               determine PRP involvement
                               in risk assessment.

-------
                          Annual  Report  F Y  1997
   3-6.a.  Establish  National  Criteria   on
              Superfund  Risk   Assessments
  The Agency has prepared draft documents to help insure that risk assessments are consistent
  and reasonable.
The Agency has prepared draft
documents outlining technical
approaches to planning and
reviewing risk assessments, and
standardizing risk assessment
data reporting tables. EPA also
has established a workgroup  of
Headquarters and Regional
representatives to review and
revise these drafts and produce
final guidance. The workgroup
has completed revisions to these
documents.

This reform will establish
national criteria for the Regions
to plan, report, and review
Superfund risk assessments. EPA


Next Steps
     is issuing guidance to insure
     that risk assessments: 1) are
     well-scoped and well designed;
     2) use a standardized
     presentation format; and 3) are
     easier to review by Superfund
     risk assessors. These
     improvements will help to
     promote clarity and consistency
     in the development of risk
     assessments and facilitate
     decision-making for response
     actions at Superfund sites. The
     workgroup has completed a
     preliminary review of the
     outlined technical approach and
     the standardized risk assessment
     data reporting tables. •
  The workgroup is presenting its work as "Risk Assessment
  Guidance for Superfund:  Human Health Evaluation Manual
  (Part D, Standardized Planning, Reporting, and Review of
  Superfund Risk Assessments)."  It expects to have the
  publication available on the Internet and through the National
  Technical Information Service (NTIS) in the second quarter of
  FY98.
 Results
EPA issued draft
standard risk assessment
data reporting tables in
July 1996. Comments
have been received and
are being addressed
by EPA.

EPA established a
workgroup of
Headquarters and
Regional representatives
to review and revise the
drafts of the outlined
technical approach and
the standardized risk
assessment data
reporting tables and to
produce final guidance.
To date, the workgroup
has completed revisions
to these documents.
 SUCCESS!
Diata Reporting Tab lies
  EPA's draft standard risk assessment data reporting tables have been developed
  as electronic spreadsheet templates that provide clear, consistent, and
  transparent risk data presentations. The tables provide the summary-level risk
  data that must be entered into CERCLIS 3 — now the table data can be
  electronically transferred to CERLCIS 3, omitting the need for data reentry.
 Contact
 Jim Konz, OERR,
 (703) 603-8841
                                                                                      31

-------
                             Superfund  Reforms
BENEFITS
    •  Established national criteria for the Regions to plan, report, and review Superfund risk
      assessments;
    •  Insures that risk assessments: are well-scoped and well designed; use a standardized
      presentation format; and are easier to review by Superfund risk assessors; and
    •  Promotes clarity and consistency in the development of risk assessments and facilitating
      decision-making for response actions at Superfund sites.
  3-6,b. Standardizing  Risk  Assessments
  This Initiative will Improve current national Superfund risk assessment guidance by selectively
  updating the 1989 Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund (RAGS).
Throughout 1996, EPA met
with various stakeholders
groups to solicit ideas for
improvements to RAGS. This
outreach effort eliminated in
two large stakeholders forums
convened by the International
City/County Managers
Association (ICMA) on October
 29-31, 1996, in San Francisco,
CA and on November 6-8,
 I996,mVVashington, D.C At
the forums, stakeholders
identified key areas where
 improvement is needed and
 offered suggestions to improve
 RAGS. The forums also gave
 stakeholders an opportunity for
 dialogue with EPA and other
 interested groups on a variety of
 Superfund issues. ICMA
 prepared meeting proceedings,
 which were mailed out to the
forum participants.
EPA identified four key issues to
address:

  •    Community Involve-
       ment in the Risk Assess-
       ment Process
  •    Land Use Considerations

  •    Establishing Background
       for Risk Assessment
       Purposes, and

  •    Uncertainty / Probabi-
       listic Analysis.


EPA selected these topics based
on input received by the
Agency's own risk assessors and
managers as well as from
stakeholders in the Superfund
process. •
 Results
EPA has created
workgroups, with
representatives from both
Headquarters and the
Regions, to address the four
issues. These workgroups
are exploring ideas and
options to be included in
future guidance documents.
   Contact
   Sherri Clark, OERR,
   (703) 603-9043
 32

-------
                        Annual  Report  F Y  1997
Next Steps
  ICMA is planning to
  convene a follow up
  meeting (scheduled for
  March 2-4,1998, in
  Atlanta, Georgia) to
  discuss drafts of the
  guidance documents.
  (Drafts of the workgroup
  products will be
  available prior to the
  next stakeholders
  forum.) This will be an
  opportunity for EPA to
  discuss with the
  stakeholders the science
  and the policies involved
  in the four issue areas as
  the Agency develops the
  guidance documents.

  Final guidance will be
  issued in December 1998
              Stakeholder Comments
   Generally, the stakeholders thought the forums
 were a useful first step in initiating dialogue about
   the Reform. They especially liked the breakout
   sessions where they could talk in small groups
      about Superfund risk assessment issues.

   "I was impressed that people from very diverse
  perspectives / affiliations could come together in
 small groups and leave behind their preconcieved
   notions and positions to constructively discuss
          problems and reach solutions."

(Attendee at DC forum from a non-profit organization.)
   BE N E FITS
        Improves current Risk Assessment
        Guidance for Superfund to insure quality,
        consistency and reliability.

        Insures greater community involvement in
        designing risk assessments by providing for
        stakeholder input.
       o r m
  3-6.c.  Utilize  Expert  Workgroup   on  Lead

 This initiative utilizes an expert workgroup to standardize risk assessment approaches for lead-
 contaminated Superfund sites. The workgroup is comprised of technical staff from EPA Regions,
 OERR Headquarters, the Office of Research and Development (ORD), and other EPA programs.
EPA has established an expert workgroup to promote
consistent application of the best science for risk
assessment approaches for lead-contaminated Superfund
sites. Lead contamination poses significant problems
because it is common at Superfund sites, can affect
neurological development in children, and is prevalent
in economically disadvantaged and minority-populated
areas.

                                (continued see Lead)
                   Results
                    In FY97, the TRW developed short
                    sheets, fact sheets, and issue papers on
                    key parameters for lead risk
                    assessment; posted a homepage;
                    reviewed lead risk assessments at six
                    sites throughout the country; and
                    developed lead tools.
                                                                                 33

-------
                               Superfund  Reforms
Lttd continued...
The Technical Review
Workgroup (TRW an Agency
workgroup of experts in lead
toxidty and exposure
assessment) provides
information and advice to
Regional risk assessors and site
managers on a wide range of
issues pertaining to lead
contamination, but generally
focuses on sites with complex
or national precedent setting
lead issues.

This initiative links and expands
existing efforts that support lead
risk assessment and policy. The
workgroup is responsible for
information collection and
distribution, analysis of key
issues, providing feedback to the
Regions, and networking on
lead issues. The goals of this
initiative are to provide
scientifically sound information
pertaining to the similarities
and difFerences in Regional
approaches to lead risk
assessment (and the uses of
these assessments); and to create
a forum for site managers and
senior managers to discuss
alternative risk assessment
approaches.
  SUCCESS
                                                                 BEIME FITS
TheTRW participated in more
than 20 conference calls and
two face-to-face meetings in
FY97; developed short sheets,
fact sheets, and issue papers on
key parameters for lead risk
assessment; created and posted a
TRW homepage on the Internet;
and reviewed lead risk
assessments at six sites
throughout the country. The
TRW conducted an independent
validation and verification
(IV&V) of the Integrated
Exposure Uptake Biokinetic
(IEUBK) Lead model.  In
addition, the Adult Lead
Subcommittee of the TRW has
developed a lead exposure risk
assessment tool (spreadsheet
model) for assessing risks in
adult females for the protection
of the fetus. EPA has issued two
guidance documents that
provide recommendations for
conducting lead risk
assessments: "Recommendations
of the Technical Review
Workgroup for Lead for an
Interim Approach to Assessing
Risks Associated with Adult
Exposures to Lead in Soil"
(December 1996), and "Revised
Interim Soil Lead (Pb) Guidance
   The Technical Review Workgroup (TRW) reviewed data on bioavailability, lead
   speciatton In the environment, and lead ingestion inputs at several sites. TRW
   analysis of risk assessments Influenced cleanup decisions at the following
   «HoK the Palmerton Zinc site in Carbon County, Pennsylvania; the California
   Gulch site, in Leadville, Colorado; the Remington Arms site in Bridgeport,
   Connecticut; the Sandy Smelter site in Sandy, Utah; the Greenbay Paint
   Sludge site in Michigan; and the Jack's Creek site in Maitland, Pennsylvania.
     Helps to insure that lead
     risk assessments are
     conducted consistently at
     sites across the U.S.
     Provides a national forum
     for sharing the best
     available scientific
     information and exploring
     the state of the science for
     evaluating the risks due to
     lead contamination.
     Addresses site-specific
     concerns pertaining to the
     application of the IEUBK
     model and helps to
     evaluate risks to citizens
     (especially children) living
     in proximity to lead
     contaminated sites.
     Develops, reviews, and
     provides analytical tools
     for lead risk assessments.
 TRW Homepage
 http://wv^v.epa.gov/superfund/oerr/ini_pro/lead/tblwelc.htm
for CERCLA Sites and RCRA
Corrective Action Facilities"
(August 1994). Copies of these
documents may be viewed and
downloaded at:

http://www.epa.gov/superfund/
oerr/ini_pro/lead/

Next Steps

•  EPA plans to issue a Directive on
   Lead Removal Actions early in
   FY98.

Contacts
PatVanLeeuwen, Region 5,
(312) 886-4904

Paul White, ORD,
(202) 260-2589

Larry Zaragoza, OERR,
(703) 603-8867
 34

-------
                            Annual  Report  FY   1997
  SUCCESS!
              Facility  Reviews
    The TRW conducted a review of the Internal Revenue Service Day Care Facility in Washington, DC.
                                              State Assistance
   The TRW assisted the State of Ohio in creating the "Voluntary Action Program Support Document for the Development
   of General Numerical Standards and Risk Assessment Procedures;" advised the State of Georgia Voluntary Action
   Program on the correct methodology for applying the Adult Lead Model; and provided general recommendations for
   soil-to-dust ratios to the State of Washington.
                                            Information  Hotline
   The TRW staffs a hotline and also responds to requests via email. In FY97, the TRW responded to 12 questions
   concerning the IEUBK model or other related issues and supplied TRW documents to 19 requestors. Additionally the
   TRW homepage was visited over 700 times within a month of being posted.
   3-7.      Establish   Lead  Regulator   at   Federal
               Facilities
   EPA developed guidance to establish a lead regulator at sites undergoing cleanup activities under
   competing Federal and State authorities to eliminate overlap and duplication of oversight efforts.
A Federal facility cleanup may
be governed by multiple
authorities, e.g., Superfund, the
Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA), and/or
State laws. Although Federal and
State agencies involved in a
cleanup share the same goals of
protecting human health and
the environment, their
processes, and even cleanup
standards, may be different.  In
addition, the overlapping
authorities may be duplicative
and use resources inefficiently.
Establishing clearly defined roles
for regulators at Federal facilities
will help simplify the cleanup
process as well as provide for
more efficient staffing.

To meet this goal, EPA
developed a policy that
promotes the single regulator
concept, defines roles, and
outlines the general principles
and guidelines that Federal and
State partners should assume in
overseeing cleanup responses.
The policy was developed by
EPA with the advice of an
interagency workgroup, that
included States' input. •
 Results
Some Regions have been
able to implement this
concept in advance of
issuance of the policy.
Regions 4, 8, and 10 have
made considerable
progress negotiating
agreements with Federal
agencies and States that
designate a single
regulator with lead
oversight responsibilities.
                                                                                          35

-------
                              Superfund  Reforms
SUCCESS!
                                Milestones
 Region 4 plans to continue to work with the States to establish lead regulator
 responsibility for all Department of Energy (DOE) and Department of Defense
 (DOD) sites.
 In July 1996, Region 8 finalized their Rocky Flats Cleanup Agreement with DOE
 and Colorado, which adopted the lead regulator concept.

 Since October 1994, Region 10 has had an agreement in place with the State of
 Washington that divides the sizable Federal facility workload between EPA and
 the State.
 Rufllons 5 and 6 have been working with Ohio and Texas respectively to
 Implement similar agreements.
'!	I. IP 1:, 8 IB	ifcli'J
    Upon completion of me policy. Headquarters dos
    interagency workgroup (underway since fall 1995) which
    ^~-_ __„_„__ ^

    representatives.
Contact
Helena King, FFKRO,
(202) 260-5033
                              Next Steps

                              • The Agency will
                                distribute the signed
                                policy to EPA Regions
                                and States in FY98.
                              • EPA will continue using
                                the single regulator
                                concept at sites.
                                                               BENEFITS
                                    Establishes clearly
                                    defined roles for
                                    regulators at Federal
                                    facilities which aids in
                                    simplifying the cleanup
                                    process as well as
                                    providing for more
                                    efficient staffing.
                                    Reduces duplicative
                                    efforts and inefficient
                                    use of resources.
                                    Promotes cooperation
                                    between, Headquarters,
                                    Regions, and States.
  3-8.      Consider   Response  Actions  Prior   to   NPL
              Listing
  This reform will provide greater flexibility to the current National Priorities Listing (NPLJ policy
  for evaluating the impact of completed removals on the Hazard Ranking System (HRS) score by
  allowing post-Site Inspection ("post-Si") completed removals to be considered in HRS scoring.
Based on experiences from
applying the current NPL policy,
the Agency recognized that
some post-Si removal actions
can substantially address the
threat to human health and die
environment, and should be
considered up to the time of
NPL listing. Therefore, as a
means of encouraging early
response actions, especially by
private parties, when setting
priorities for the NPL, EPA can
now consider certain post-Si
removal completions (removals
completed before die site is

    (continued see Response Actions)
36

-------
                          Annual  Report  FY  1997
 Response Actions continued...	

 proposed to the NPL) in
 preparing HRS scoring packages.

 This reform only applies where
 the Region has documentation
 that dearly demonstrates there
 is no remaining release, or
 potential for a release, that could
 cause adverse environmental or
 human health impacts.
 Otherwise, the removed waste
 should be counted in the HRS
 waste quantity value calculation.
 If the site's HRS score drops
 below 28.5 as a result of these
 changes, and if all cost recovery
 activities have been addressed,
              the Region may proceed with
              archiving the site from the
              Comprehensive Environmental
              Response, Compensation and
              Liability Information System
              (CERCLIS).The extent to which
              EPA applies this policy will
              depend on the facts of each
              case.
              B E N E FITS
Next Steps
                    Reflects the Agency's
                    priorities for listing only
                    those sites adversely
                    impacting human health
                    and the environment.
                    Reduces the Agency and
                    private sector legal/
                    transaction costs
                    associated with the listing
                    and subsequent process.
  Continue to collect
  information and monitor
  implementation of reform.
  The extent to which EPA
  applies this policy will
  depend on the facts of each
  case.
  Contact
  Tim Gill, OERR,
  (703) 603-8856
   3-9.
Delete  Clean  Parcels  from  the  NPL
  EPA will delete portions of sites from the NPL that have been cleaned up and are available for
  productive use.
Listing a property on the NPL
may affect die value of diat
property and die surrounding
area—whedier or not all of the
property or adjacent property is
contaminated. As a component
of its Redevelopment Initiative,
EPA is developing a program diat
provides die Regions widi die
flexibility to clarify die areas of

            (continued see Parcels)
               Results
               The partial deletion guidance was signed and sent to the
               Regions on April 30, 1996 (OSWER Directive 9320.2-11). This
               guidance does not outline partial deletion procedures because
               they are the same as deletion procedures for total site deletion.

               At the end of FY97, Regions 3, 4,  6 and 10 reported six sites
               with partial deletions and three sites with published Notices of
               Intent to Partially Delete.
                                                                                       37

-------
                                  Superfund   Reforms
BENEFITS
                                   Parcels continued...
     Maps and tracks partial
     deletions at NPL sites to
     better portray the
     Agency's successes.
     Facilitates redevelopment
     of uncontaminated
     portions of sites.
   Next Steps
     Issue additional notes of
     intent to delete clean parcels
     Pilot deletion of remediated
     parcels at closing military
     bases
sites determined to be
contaminated or uncontaminated.
This program facilitates the
transfer, development, or
redevelopment of
uncontaminated portions of sites.

Another product of this
initiative is an EPA guidance
document outlining the
procedures for issuing
assurances, followup
consultation, and coordination
concerning areas of sites that are
not contaminated. As part of
this initiative, EPA has developed
tools such as "Soil Screening
Guidance" to identify portions
of sites that do not warrant
Federal attention. In addition,
EPA is considering, on a pilot
basis, deletion of remediated
parcels of a closing military base
that is listed on the NPL so that
the parcels may be returned to
productive use. •
      Contact
      Terry Keidan, OERR,
      (703) 603-8852
                     SUCCESS
        Commencement Bay  Nearshore
        Tideflats Tacoma, Washington
                      Cleanup progress in several areas of the site eliminated the threat to public
                      health or the environment and allowed EPA Region 10 to publish a Notice of
                      Intent to Delete in the August 28,1996, Federal Register. The first partial site
                      deletion was completed on October 29,1996. Several of the deleted parcels
                      have potential for commercial uses, (see diagram)
   38

-------
                        Annual  Report  FY   1997
   3-10.a.    Promote  Risk-Based   Priority  Setting
                 at  Federal  Facility  Sites
  Headquarters is developing draft guidance for the Regions which will address the role of risk and
  other factors (e.g., cost, community concerns, environmental justice, and cultural considerations)
  in setting priorities at Federal facility sites.
Risk-based priority setting
guidance will address DOD and
DOE approaches in evaluating
risks at sites, and the appropriate
role of stakeholders in the
process of setting priorities.
Headquarters has received
extensive comments from EPA
staff, other Federal agenciest and
States on the draft priority
setting guidance. The guidance
has been rewritten based on

Next Steps

• EPA will issue final guidance
  in the second quarter of FY98.
these comments and will be
redistributed to the Regions for
a final review and comment. A
final guidance is expected to be
issued by the second quarter of
FY98. Regions are
implementing the concept of
risk-based priority setting at
Federal facility sites. •

    Contacts
    JimWoolford, FFRRO,
    (202) 260-1606

    Remi Langum, FFRRO
    (202) 260-2457
BENEFITS
     This guidance will
     incorporate several
     issues of interest to
     various stakeholders. It
     will address the role of
     risk and other factors
     (e.g., cost, community
     concerns, environmental
     justice, and cultural
     considerations) in setting
     priorities at Federal
     facility sites.
  3-10.b.    Promote   Risk-Based  Priority  for   NPL
                 Sites
  EPA has established a National Risk-Based Priority Panel to evaluate the risk at NPL sites with
  respect to human health and the environment. These evaluations are used to establish funding
  priorities.
In August 1995, EPA established
a National Risk-Based Priority
Panel of program experts
representing all 10 Regions and
Headquarters, to evaluate the
relative risk associated with
projects eligible for funding.

              (continued see Risk)
      Results
     During FY97, the Panel evaluated over 50 projects, and of
     these, 35 projects totaling over $185 million were
     funded in accordance with their recommendations.
     Unfunded projects will carry over to FY98.
     The panel has ranked Over $1 billion in cleanup projects
     since its inception.
                                                                                   39

-------
                               Superfund  Reforms
flltk continued...
The panel uses the following
criteria to evaluate projects:

  •    Risks to humans;

  •    Ecological risks;

  •    Stability of
       contaminants;

  *    Contaminant
       characteristics; and
       economic, social, and
       program management
       considerations. •
Next Steps
                                                              BENEFITS
  Due to changing conditions at
  certain sites, some projects
  will carry over to FY98. In
  such instances, critical
  removal actions, or the
  completion of enforcement
  agreements also might
  initiate new project actions.
  The panel will reconvene in
  early spring 1998.

   Contact
   JohnJ. Smith, OERR,
   (703) 603-8802
Process employs risk as
a primary criteria to
establish funding
priority.

Projects are funded (with
the exception of
emergencies and the
most critical removal
actions) in priority order
based on Panel
evaluations.
 ::,!,;	:.	:;:;,i	n	UJ^JM	=-;	;;	i   s:	(»
  ;;;^^^^^^^       	      •
                                            projicts
                                            fe*W|^.;^^o^sfi^^^
                                                              i ->^-'^J^3r^
<	fiL^Va^ViiJ'JlaWKV	 i 	SSP'J	:*
	'' ' ',„ ii:.lli L	?' !„; "  '':',, '",, :: o;!	>;;i:,;
40

-------
                          Annual  Report  F Y  1997
    ENFORCEMENT
   3-11.    Orphan   Share   Compensation
   The Orphan Share Compensation Administrative Reform, announced in October 1995, is
   intended to provide greater fairness, reduce litigation, (and promote faster cleanup of Superfund
   sites). The reform accomplishes these goals by compensating parties who perform cleanups for
   a portion of cleanup costs (the Agency allocates) to orphan shares. EPA continues to offer
   orphan share compensation at every eligible site under the 1996 interim guidance.
      Results
      During FY97, the Agency offered more than $53 million in orphan share compensation at
      20 sites across the United States. These figures reflect some new applications of the policy
      consistent with the principles articulated in the orphan share policy. Offers of compensation
      range from $38,524 to $15 million, with an average of over $2.5 million per site. Twelve of
      the offers were equal to 25 percent of estimated RD/RA or removal costs, three were equal to
      past and future oversight costs, and five constituted the entire orphan share.
 An orphan share is the financial
 responsibility assigned to a
 potentially liable party who is
 insolvent or defunct, and
 unaffiliated with other viable
 liable PRPs. Providing
 compensation for orphan shares
 creates a major incentive for
 responsible parties to agree to
 perform cleanups and settle
 claims without litigation, and
 reduces transaction costs by
 wholly or partly resolving the
 question of who should bear
 the burden of orphan shares.
 The "Interim Guidance on
 Orphan Share Compensation for
 Setdors of Remedial Design/
 Remedial Action and Non-Time
 Critical Removals," issued in
June 1996, accomplishes these
 goals in a manner that preserves
 the limited resources of the
 Trust Fund.
 Under the June 1996 policy, the
 Agency compensates parties
 who agree to perform a
 remedial action or non-time-
 critical removal at a NPL site, for
 some or all of the costs
 specifically attributable to
 insolvent or defunct PRPs.
 Compensation can be up to 25
 percent of the response costs or
 total past and future oversight
 costs, whichever is less, but
 cannot exceed the estimated
 orphan share.

 In September 1997, EPA and the
Department of Justice expanded
the orphan share reform. The
September 30, 1997, policy
statement entitled "Addendum
to the 'Interim CERCLA
Settlement Policy' Issued on
December 5, 1994" describes
factors for the government to
consider when deciding
whether and how much to
compromise a cost recovery
claim based on the existence of
a significant orphan share. In
addition, the addendum
provides that where there is a
significant orphan share in a
cost recovery case, the orphan
share may be considered as an
"inequity" or "aggravating
factor" within the meaning of
the "Interim CERCLA Setdement
Policy," and justifies EPA's
recovery of less than 100
percent of response costs. The
Agency will consider, on a case-
by-case basis,  cost recovery
setdement offers which provide
a compromise based on an
orphan share.

        (continued see Orphan)
                                                                                      41

-------
                                 Super/unc/  Reforms
Ofpbin continued,..
Because of this increased flexibility,
parties who wish to submit private
party allocations may do so in the
context of either work or cost
recovery settlement negotiations,
thereby obviating the need for the
Agency to maintain, as a separate
reform, the Adopting Private Party
Allocations Reform announced in
October 1995. •
       By providing more than $100 million in orphan
       share compensation in the last two fiscal years,
       EPA greatly reduced the burden of requiring
       financially viable and cooperative settlors to bear
       the entire cost of orphan shares. In addition, this
       compensation creates incentives for viable parties
       to perform cleanups and reduces the time required
       to complete settlement negotiations.

                   SUCCESS
Operating  Industries,  Inc.  Landfill (0111
        Monterey Park, California
                     In FY97, EPA offered orphan share compensation in the amount of $J5,rrtilfion
                     to 270 major potentially responsible parties associated with tbe^Qperatihg
                     Industries, Inc. Landfill site. The offer is conditioned uporrthe parties'
                     commitment to conduct the remaining cleanup activities at the site. The total
                     cost of cleanup activities atthe site is estimated at $217 million. The
                     settlement offer would compensate settling parties for the entire amount of
                     the orphan share if a settlementto perform worlds reached.,.   -  V      ^
                                     Interstate Lead  Company Superfund Site
                                                        (ILCO),
                                                   L e e d s,  A I a b a m a
                     In FY97, EPA entered into a settlement with 20 financially viable generators for  <
                     Site cleanup valued at $59.4 million, and reimbursement of $1.8 million of $16.6
                     million in outstanding response costs. As part of the settlement, EPA
                     compromised $14.8 million in outstanding response costs, or 25 percent of the
                     estimated remedy cost. This compromise was based on EPA'a offer in FY96 to
                     compensate settling work parties in recognition of the orphan share.

-------
                          Annual   Report  FY   1997
                                                                               «.,<%
                                                                                   •-A. *   ***
                                                                                 «SJ* i
    e orphan, share refopa'is^a fundara
     »"*£ *  "  .  w  >'W>«4.-'«  fcl*^V s
                                    jge ferlPAs e|afoircem^it p>oeesf.
                                    *"^$X j^  ^; j^ s* >JK^\    ^2 >^4>A* -X" "^va
                                                         bsdrbc
                                                         O^6ean
   3-12.    Site   Specific  Special  Accounts
  In October 1995, EPA announced its intention to encourage greater use of Special Accounts for
  settlement funds to be used for future response actions at Superfund sites and to insure that
  interest earned by Special Accounts can be credited to these accounts and be available for future
  response actions at the site for which the Special Account was established.
In October 1996, OMB
approved EPA's methodology for
calculating Special Account
interest. In late October 1996,
EPA sent a memorandum to the
Regions outlining the
agreement with OMB, providing
principal and interest balances
in Special Accounts, and
providing  directions on how to
request these funds.  In February
1997, EPA updated and
supplemented its 1996
guidance to the Regions.
          Throughout 1997, EPA worked
          to insure that its Regions
          (program, counsel and finance
          offices) understood how to
          create and use Special Accounts.
          EPA is working on financial
          guidance to supplement the
          general program guidance
          issued in FY96 and FY97. EPA
          is also developing guidance on
          the disbursement of Special
          Account funds to parties
          conducting site response
          actions. •
 SUCCESS!
Cherokee County Superiund Sh
    C;herokee  County, Kansas
  Special Account funds in the amount of $2.25 million will be used to conduct
  future work at the site, including groundwater and surface water remediation,
  soil cleanup, and public water supplies.
                       Jasper County  Superfund  Site
                          Jasper County, Missouri
  Special Account funds in the amount of $5.9 million will be used to conduct
  future work at the site, which may include public water supplies and/or
  individual water treatment units; surface water remediation; and engineering
  controls.
                     V
Results
In FY97, the Regions
established 34 Special
Accounts, with a total
cumulative balance of $75
million. At die conclusion of
the FY97, a total of 93 Special
Accounts had been established
by EPA. The total balance of
funds available in Special
Accounts is $405 million,
representing $353 million in
principal and $52 million in
interest (interest through
September 30, 1997).
                                               Contact
                                               Filomena Chau, OSRE,
                                               (202) 564-4224
                                                                                        43

-------
                              Superfund  Reforms
  3-13.     Unilateral  Administrative Orders  (UAO)  Reform
  In FY97, EPA expanded and continued to implement its reform relating to equitable issuance of
  CERCLA section 106 unilateral administrative orders (UAOs). This reform is designed to insure
  that UAOs are issued to all appropriate parties following consideration of the adequacy of
  evidence of the party's liability, their financial viability, and their contribution to the site.  To
  achieve this goal, the reform established several different documentation requirements,
  including documentation of staff's reasons for proposing to exclude a party from an order and
  documentation of the rationale for not issuing an order to a late-identified PRP. The
  documentation requirement relating to excluded parties was phased in, applying initially
  |in FY96) only to orders for RD/RA and, in FY97, extended to all UAOs, including UAOs for
  removals and RI/FSs.
Approximately two-thirds of the
60 UAOs issued in FY97
excluded certain parties from
the order. A Headquarters team
reviewed the documentation
prepared by Regional staff to
justify the exclusion of these
parties. Although as of
January 1998 the HQ team's
review was not yet entirely
complete, the team's
preliminary conclusion is that
orders have been issued to all
appropriate parties, and that the
reasons cited for excluding
certain PRPs from UAOs were
generally consistent with
existing Agency policy. In most
cases, Ate excluded parties were
not financially viable or had
only contributed relatively
minor amounts of waste to  the
site. For example, EPA Region 3
issued a UAO to two parties for
cleanup of the Spelter Smelter
Site in Spelter, West Virginia, and
excluded three other PRPs
because they were not
financially viable. Similarly, at
the Operating Industries, Lie.
Site in Monterey Park,
California, EPA Region 9
justified the exclusion of
numerous parties on the basis
that they had only
contributed de minimis
amounts of waste to the site.
In some cases, parties were
excluded because the
government did not yet have
sufficient evidence to
establish a particular party's
liability.
One of the reform's
documentation requirements
involves situations where
Regional staff propose not to
issue UAOs to late-identified
PRPs.  While the Agency
continues to face difficulty in
readily tracking these
situations via CERCLIS, the
EPA Regions demonstrated
the spirit of this requirement
by issuing participate-and-
cooperate orders in at least
five cases during FY97. •
         Results

        During FY97, 60 UAOs
        were issued pursuant to
        CERCLA section 106. For
        roughly a third of these
        orders, the UAO was issued
        to all parties connected to
        the site. For the rest, an
        EPA HQ team has
        independently reviewed the
        relevant documents and
        preliminarily concluded
        that the reasons cited for
        exclusion were generally
        consistent with Agency
        policy.
       Contact
       Mike Northridge, OSRE,
       (202) 564-4263
 SUCCESS
      CarolawnSite
Fort Lawn, South Carolina
   In FY97, EPA Region IV issued a UAO to all 24 PRPs identified at the site.
                       American Allied Additives Site
                              Cleveland- Ohio
   In FY97, EPA Region V issued a UAO to 14 parties and, one month later,
   amended the order to include the only other two parties connected to the site.
 44

-------
                           Annual  Report  FY  1997
    a>S  * '   >        •   -*  v.r
   -lif Agency expects tMt^isu||
            '-
    (igiriScan^effo:^

   3-14.    Revised   De  Micromis  Guidance
   For very small volume waste contributors at Superfund sites, i.e., de micromis contributors, the
   cost of legal and other representation services may actually exceed a party's settlement share of
   response costs.  If private parties threaten suit against these very small contributors, EPA enters
   into settlements providing contribution protection. This reform is intended to further
   discourage third party contribution litigation against de micromis parties, and where necessary
   EPA will resolve de micromis parties' liability concerns quickly and fairly.
 In June 1996, EPA revised its de
 micromis guidance by doubling
 the level previously identified
 for de micromis protection. The
 revised guidance recommends
 cutoffs for eligibility at:

   1) 0.002 percent (of total
     volume) or 110 gallons/
     200 pounds of materials
     containing hazardous
     substances, whichever is
     greater;  or
   2) 0.2 percent of total
     volume, where a
     contributor sent only
     municipal solid waste
     (MSW).
If a de micromis party is
threatened with litigation by
private parties, EPA will settle
SUCCESJ
 EPA entered into de minimis settlements with over 200
 small parties, and another round of de minimis settlements
 is planned for the site. In an agreement reached with the
 major and de minimis contributors, they waived their rights
 to pursue over 1,000 de micromis parties.
 with that
 party for $0
 in a
 settlement
 agreement
 that protects
 such parties
 from
 further litigation.

 Another vehicle for protecting
 de micromis parties is through
 the use of waivers in our
 settlement agreements. This
 method can be less resource
 intensive than actually
 developing de micromis
 settlements for those parties that
 are threatened, with lawsuits.  De
micromis waiver language was
developed in the 1995 RD/RA
model consent decree, which
Cherokee Oil  Resources  Site
 Charlotte, North Carolina
                  states that settling parties waive
                  their contribution rights against
                 ,de micromis parties. The Office
                  of Site Remediation
                  Enforcement plans to develop a
                  directive to promote the use of
                  de micromis waivers in
                  settlement agreements  to insure
                  that major parties do not pursue
                  these small parties. •
                                                                                          45

-------
                              Superfund  Reforms
 SUCCESi
  Ray mark  Industries
'Stratford,  Connecticut
  The U.S. Government and the State of Connecticut
  protected homeowners living near the Raymark facility, from
  a "third party* lawsuit brought against them by the
  company. Under the settlement B8 homeowners whose
  property was contaminated with hazardous waste from the
  Raymark plant will each pay one dollar and will be shielded
  from third party claims Raymark brought against them in an
  attempt to recover the costs of cleaning up the
  contamination from its plant.
                                      Contact
                                      Victoria van Roden, OSRE,
                                      (202) 564-4268
  3-16.    Improving   the   Administration   of   PRP
              Oversight
  This reform seeks to maximize the effectiveness and efficiency of EPA oversight of potentially
  responsible parties (PRPs) through the enhancement of EPA's working relationships with these
  parties. EPA is focusing its effort toward PRPs whom the Agency considers to be capable and
  cooperative pursuant to earlier guidance issued under this reform.
As the Superfund program has matured, parties have developed
considerable experience in conducting response activities at sites.
Some not only have used this experience to perform high quality
work, but also have cooperated with EPA throughout the cleanup
and enforcement processes. In recognition of this development,
and to promote further cooperation, EPA issued a directive on
July 31, 1996 (OSWER Directive 9200.4-15), on "Reducing
Federal Oversight at Superfund Sites with Cooperative and Capable
Parties." This Directive encourages Regions to seek opportunities to
reduce oversight at sites having cooperative and capable PRPs,
while ensuring that the protectiveness of the remedies is
maintained and the concerns of communities are addressed. The
guidance also provides criteria for the Regions to consider when
determining whether a PRP is cooperative and capable (and thus
eligible for reduced oversight)  and provides examples of reduced
oversight.  During FY97, a national EPA work group was initiated to
put the guidance into practice. The reform has been reoriented to
consider broader concerns with respect to administering PRP
oversight, namely improving working relationships with PRPs
through better communication of oversight expectations,
identifying opportunities to improve oversight efficiencies, and
improving billing practices. For FY97, EPA Regional Offices were
requested to identify NPL sites with capable and cooperative PRPs
and inform these PRPs of EPA s efforts to control or reduce the level
and associated costs of oversight at their sites. •
                                              Results
                                              In FY96,100 sites were
                                              tentatively identified as being
                                              eligible for the reform. As the
                                              reform has progressed sites
                                              originally identified were
                                              deleted and others added. EPA
                                              Regions sent letters to PRPs at
                                              sites to inform them of Agency
                                              efforts to control or reduce
                                              oversight costs during FY97.
                                           BE N E FITS
                                                 Reduces project
                                                 completion time as well
                                                 as EPA and PRP costs
                                                 Fosters cooperation
                                                 among parties, facilitating
                                                 successful project
                                                 completion and
                                                 encouraging similar
                                                 interactions among
                                                 parties at other sites
 46

-------
                         Annual  Report  FY   1997
Next Steps
  For FY98, the focus of the
  PRP oversight administrative
  reform will be to implement
  practices that achieve or
  enhance effective and
  efficient working
  relationships with capable
  and cooperative PRPs.
  During FY98, Regions will
  meet with participating PRPs
  to provide information on
  planned oversight activities,
  discuss potential future
  oversight costs, review
  oversight activities of the
  previous billing period, and
  discuss timely payment for
  oversight costs incurred, as
  appropriate.
SUCCESS
 CleveReber Site,
Sorren.to, Louisiana
 EPA Region 6 achieved a cost savings of $500,000 in 1996 by switching to the
 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for oversight instead of using a private
 contractor.
                      Button/North TacomaSite,
                              Wash in q,t o rr. -  ."
 By reducing the number of split samples taken, frequency of site visits, and
 comparative data analyses, EPA Region 10 saved nearly $700,000 in oversight
 costs between 1994 and 1996.
                  Schuyikill Metals Corporation  Site,
                          Plant .City, Florida
 By limiting field 'oversight, EPA Region 4 has incurred less than half of the
 oversight costs originally anticipated in 1993, for a savings of over $80,000.
                          Pristine Inc. Site,
                            Reading, Ohio
 Since 1996, EPA Region 5 has saved roughly $250,000 a year through the
 reduction of contractor support for oversight.
                Stakeholder Comments

   In May 1997, the national EPA workgroup hosted a
    meeting with industry representatives to discuss
   opportunities to control costs. EPA Regions 1,2,3,
          and 5 have hosted similar meetings.

          - Comments following the May 1997
                    National Meeting

         "We [industry] like the idea of meeting
    and discussing oversight expectations with EPA.
  Receiving cost information and getting bills on time
      also helps us plan and budget our oversight
   expenses. We'd like to get a sense of the baseline
   value of oversight costs against which to compare
           oversight costs at our own sites."

        - Rachel Deming, Remediation Counsel,
         Ciba Specialty Chemicals Corporation
                                              t io ft
                                   ,
                               - EEArintends to Conduct   /
                                site-specific evaluatious to
                              , assess the impacts of the
                               "reform atsit^sfthat
                              ^participate m die reform
                              ^during FT98'.  *  , % /'
                                Contacts
                                AlanYoukeles, OERR,
                                (703) 603-8784

                                Chad Littleton, OSRE,
                                (202) 564-6064
                                                                                     47

-------
                          Superfund  Reforms
48

-------
                       Annual  Report FY   1997
 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
 3-17.   Pilot   Remedy  Selection  by  Selected  States
           and  Tribes
 The goal of this reform is to provide States and Tribes with an increased role in remedy selection
 at NPL sites when possible.
Under diis Pilot, EPA and selected States or Tribes (hereafter, States)
enter into agreements through which participating States would
agree to conduct the remedy selection process, consistent widi
applicable law and regulations, at certain NPL sites. Using remedy
selection pilots, participating States will supervise the remedy
selection process with minimal EPA oversight or involvement. This
would give the States or Tribes significandy more control than usual
over other NPL site cleanups. •
                                                           Results
                                                          Pilots were solicited in June
                                                          1997. Regions 1,2,6, 7,
                                                          and 10 now have pilots
                                                          underway.
    BENEFITS
         This initiative will
         provide experience
         with empowering
         States and Tribes to
         select remedies and
         will reduce the need
         for EPA oversight in
         remedy selection.
                                    Concepts & Lessons Learned
                                       The national workgroup has developed criteria
                                       and a process to select new pilots, monitor and
                                       assess the results.
                              I
                                              Next Steps

                                              •  Encourage additional
                                                Regions to start pilot
                                                programs.
*?;„
                                       lefon
                   VN"   , ^*2"!K , •^jK*f^-     " <*$*.
  „„	jjoiag pilots with the ultimate, .„ 4
*< <&•&''  •JJ- *** * *>&"(Q&* N.  »* > ft  9     •'*Vxj«^  ^4
 ^^  ^  goa| oitpublishiiig lessons learned *foe tiSest^u *<
         pilots. Pxogress and issue afoniiorlng.will     *
                  -      .
        O|:CUJE on a quarterly-basis.
                                            •*» <
                                          ' ?^^
                 >   <   f
                                      *     ^      ?*
                                      f*V    \S-'  ;  *
                                       -vy    ^ ">'"*,>,
                                        JT^.  n^    -.r, ***•
                                                             Contact
                                                             Sharon Frey, OERR,
                                                             (703) 603-8817
                                                                                49

-------
                               Superfund  Reforms
  3-18.    Pilot  Community  Based   Remedy  Selection

  This initiative is based on the theory that consensus-based approaches to remedy selection, and
  collaborative partnerships involving community stakeholders, can lead to remedies that better
  satisfy the community, while still meeting statutory and regulatory requirements. The output
  from this initiative will be a compendium of useful experiences, approaches, and techniques for
  fostering community participation.
This initiative is intended to
promote greater public
involvement in the Superfund
program, especially during
remedy selection. The effort
involves exploring the use of
more consensus-based
approaches that involve
community stakeholders. The
theory is that collaborative
partnerships can lead to
remedies that better satisfy the
community, while still meeting
statutory and regulatory
requirements. The output from
this initiative will be a
compendium of useful
experiences, approaches and
techniques for fostering
community participation.

One of the best ways to increase
dtizen participation is through
establishing and nurturing
community advisory groups
(CAGs). A CAG is made up of
representatives of diverse
community interests. Its
purpose is to provide a public
forum to consider cleanup-
related issues and to work with
EPA to address community
needs and concerns with respect
to the response. Ideally, the CAG
and EPA will develop an
effective partnership that will
result in the community having
meaningful influence on site
cleanup decisions. •


Next Steps

• Continue to discuss regional
  approaches to community
  based remedy selection
  throughout FY98.
Contact
Bruce Engelbert, OERR,
703-603-8711
BENEFITS
     Helps increase
     awareness among
     Superfund response
     personnel of their
     responsibilities for
     working with citizens
     affected by the cleanup
     and the importance of
     including community
     values and concerns in
     response decision-
     making.
 SUCCESS
  Last year's report highlighted the success of public participation at the Lower
  East Fork Poplar Creek site in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Community support for
  changes to the remedy resulted in estimated future cost reductions
  (cleanup savings) of $160 million. Efforts to increase the community's
  involvement in the cleanup process also have payed positive dividends at
  sites in Jasper County, Missouri, and Leadville, Colorado. Although in each
  case the circumstances were different, as were the methods used, the
  outcomes were enhanced because the public felt included.
                           Oronogo-Du'enweg Site,
                           Jasper Counlty,  Missouri
  At the Oronogo-Duenweg site in Jasper County, the remedial project manager
  developed a close rapport with the site's CAG. This led to the award of a
  $200,000 grant to the community to develop an environmental master plan
  which served as the basis for the institutional controls adopted as part of the
  site remedy.
                            California Gulch Site,
                             Leadville,; Colorado
   At the California Gulch site in Leadville, Colorado, the community's outright
   hostility to EPA and the cleanup was completely turned around after EPA
   invested a considerable amount of time listening to the concerns being
   expressed by citizens and then worked with them to come up with mutually
   acceptable solutions.
SO

-------
                          Annual  Report  FY   1997
  3.19.     Establish  Superfund  Ombudsman in  Every  Region
  The goal of this initiative was to place an Ombudsman in each Region to serve as a point of
  contact for the public and help resolve stakeholder concerns.  It was undertaken by a joint
  Headquarters/Regional workgroup.
Headquarters and the Regions
were equal partners in the
development of the mission
statement, position description,
process description, and
implementation and evaluation
plans for this reform. The
Regions have adapted the
generic products to meet their
needs,  thus allowing for
Regional variation but retaining
national consistency.  On June 4,
1996, EPA Administrator Carol
Browner announced that all 10
Regions had nominated
Ombudsmen by the prescribed
date of March 31, 1996.

The responsibilities of the
Superfund Regional
Ombudsman include resolving
concerns and providing
information and guidance. The
Superfund Regional
Ombudsman (RO) can also
assist staff members to settle or
prevent problems with
stakeholders. While helping the
public, the RO can also identify
sites requiring cleanups, assist in
the Brownfields area, address
environmental justice (EJ)
issues, identify criminal cases
and find methods to improve
processes.

In FY97 the Region 2 RO
received 175 requests for
assistance with 83 of them
being received over the last four
months. This compares with
nine calls for the same period in
FY96. This was due to both the
increase in publicity of the
available services and to
customer satisfaction.
Ninety-five of the calls were
requests for general, program
and technical information.
Approximately 66 requests from
professional environmental and
media personnel were referred
to others for response. Where
possible, responses to the other
109  stakeholders requiring
individual attention were made
by the RO directly. There were
80 requests for general and site
specific assistance. Of these, 44
requests involved 26 NPL and
non-NPL sites.

Since most stakeholders cannot
distinguish between Superfund
and  other programs, the RO
responded to all stakeholders'
public health and environmental
concerns.  This resulted in an
increase in EPA s rating with our
stakeholders. To be more
responsive to stakeholders, the
RO responds directly where
possible. This not only provides
quick answers, but also assists
the Region's technical staff by
saving them time and not
   Results

  Regions have developed
  new outreach tools,
  toll-free numbers for use
  by stakeholders and new
  processes to facilitate
  resolution of issues.
  In Region 2, the volume of
  calls increased dramatically
  as a result of an aggressive
  stakeholder advertising
  campaign. The
  Ombudsman has resolved
  96 percent of the cases,
  with 55 percent resolved
  within 24 hours.
interrupting them. In FY97, the
RO responded directly to 109
(62 percent) of the cases.  Many
calls from concerned citizens
involved health related problems
dealing with their homes for
•which they could not obtain
answers. Besides providing
answers to their problems, the
RO was usually able to alleviate
their concerns and fears.

Region 3 placed a priority on
developing the infrastructure
needed to support a Superfund
Ombudsman program.  The

         (continued see Ombudsman)
                                                                                         51

-------
                                Superfund   Reforms
  Ombudsmtn continued,-	

  Region developed a mission
  statement, principles of
  operation, a position
  description, performance
  standards, and placed Ombudsman
  information on the Hazardous
  Waste Management Division's
  homepage on the Internet.
  The Region 3 Ombudsman
  has averaged about two calls
  per week; the calls can be
  handled very quickly,
  generally within 24 hours.

  The Region 7 Ombudsman
  handles approximately three
  issues per month. Most issues
  (more than 80 percent) are
  minor, i.e., are resolved with
  two or three simple actions.
  Approximately SO percent are
  non-Superfund matters. The
  Ombudsman contacts the
  appropriate staff from across
  the Region to respond with
  the correct information in a
  timely manner. While Region
  7 has had few complaints
  overall, the Ombudsman has
  also counseled Superfund
  branch chiefs and staff on
  how to handle some of the
  more difficult complaints.

  During FY97, the Region 9
  Ombudsman received 15
  requests for assistance, three
  of which are still pending at
  the end of the fiscal year.  Five
  of these requests were for
  general information, five
  reported an environmental
  problem (one of which
  turned out to be a major
BE J\IE FITS
      Makes the Superfund
      program more
      responsive to the
      community and
      increases EPA's overall
      rating with
      stakeholders.
 pesticide site requiring
 emergency response), one was a
 criminal case outside the
 authority of the Ombudsman,
 two were from individuals
 dissatisfied with EPA actions,
 and two were from individuals
 not getting response from
 anyone about their
 environmental problem. In the
 two cases where people were
      dissatisfied with In Region 9s
      response, the situations related
      to the amount of money the
      individuals were receiving as
      compensation for a cleanup.
      One case has been resolved
      satisfactorily; die other is still
      pending. •

      Next Steps

      •  Conduct ongoing public
         outreach and convene the
         annual meeting.

      Contacts
      Kim Fletcher, OERR,
      (703) 603-8922

      Jack Winder, OSRE,
      (202) 564-4292
  SUCCESS!
  Drake  Chemiica I  Site,
Lockhaven, Pennsylvania
   The Ombudsman's support on this case has included gathering information on
   alleged hazardous waste sites in the Lock Haven area, and meeting with the
   Lock Haven Environmental Advisory Committee to offer assistance.
                               Rayioner P |u I p  Mill,
                           Port An g e I es, jWa sh i n g t o n
   Stakeholders requested the assistance of the Regional Ombudsman to help
   them address concerns associated with the closing of this pulp mill and
   associated landfill sites which were used to dispose of mill wastes. Region 10
   now has a site team in place, consisting of an OSC (who is providing limited
   oversight of the mill demolition), two site assessment managers who are
   responsible for the Preliminary Assessments (PA), and a community
   involvement coordinator who is working closely with the state, local
   authorities, citizens, environmental groups, and interested Congressional staff.
                    Commencement Bay/Nearshore Tideflats
                                 Superfund Site
                    Tacoma,  Washington:  Hylebos Waterway
   The Region 10 Ombudsman received a request from a PRP to look into the
   decision-making process to insure adequate involvement of interested parties
   outside of EPA. The Ombudsman worked with the site team (remedial project
   manager and community involvement coordinator) to respond to the request,
   which resulted in the addition of a significant public involvement component to
   the decision-making process. When citizens expressed concerns about site
   cleanup levels and inquired about "appealing" the decision, the Ombudsman
   worked with the group to identify future opportunities for their involvement in
   the cleanup, and provided information about CERCLA and their rights to
   dispute such decisions.
52

-------
                         Annual  Report  FY   1997
   3-20.   Improve  Communication  with  Superfund
              Stakeholders
   EPA is using electronic tools, such as the Internet, multimedia computers, and other electronic
   means, to increase communication among all Super-fund stakeholders and improve access to
   Superfund information.
 The EPA National Superfund
 website has been
 comprehensively redesigned to
 make it easier for the public to
 access and find Superfund
 program information -13 top-
 level buttons emphasize the
 public outreach focus of this
 website, with categories such as
 "What is Superfund," "Site
 Information," "Community
 Tools," "Superfund for Kids,"
 "Technical Resources," and
 "Regional Programs". A key
 new feature to be added in early
 1998 is the on-line querying of
 Superfund data.

 All EPA Regional offices have
 developed homepages which
 include information on
 Regional Superfund programs,
 such as Superfund site lists, site-
 specific information, and links
 to state Superfund activities. Of
 note during 1997, the Regional
 Superfund Internet workgroup
 coordinated the dissemination
 of information on the National
 and Regional Superfund
 websites. For example, the
 Regions have prime
 responsibility for the Superfund
 site fact sheets on the Internet —
 such as a comprehensive list of
National Priorities List (NPL)
site summary fact sheets in
 Regions 2 and 4. Region 3 also
 has included Superfund site-
 specific information on its
 website and is in the process of
 posting site-remediation
 photographs. The Region 5
 Superfund website includes
 comprehensive links to
 Superfund success stories, NPL
 sites, and Record of Decision
 (ROD) information. It also
 features an emergency hotline
 and a "Kids and Superfund"
 button. Regions 6,7, and 8 all
 profile Superfund site status
 summaries/fact sheets with
 Region 6 also  featuring
 information on the Brownfields
 program. Region 9 is piloting a
 format to present a full range of
 information and documentation
 on its Superfund sites. Finally,
 Region 10's site information
 includes geographic
 information system (GIS) maps
 for some of its key sites and
 an emphasis on providing
 information in different formats
 to meet varying customer
needs. •

 Next Steps

• Continue to post and revise
  Superfund information on
  EPA Superfund homepage.
  Results
 Since October 1996, more
 than 100,000 users
 have accessed the
 Superfund homepage.
 Superfund information that
 once cost $785 under FOIA
 is now available
 immediately for little or no
 cost on the Internet.
 Stakeholder Comments

    "The revamped site
  provides an impressive
 quantity of data and links
 that ought to satisfy most
environmental law junkies'
  craving for Superfund
 knowledge. Although the
  information available is
comprehensive  enough to
  make the site useful to
environmental profession-
als, it is presented in a way
 that is understandable to
       the layman."

    - "EPA Refreshes
   Superfund Website,"
  Envirobiz, April 3,1997.
                                                                                    53

-------
                            Superfund  Reforms
BENEFITS
      Makes Superfund
      information available to
      the public on an
      immediate low-cost
      continuing basis.
     Contacts
     Carolyn Offiitt, OBRR,
     (703) 603-8797
                                              Stakeholder Comments
                                     "The most comprehensive website concerning
                                Superfund is the USEPA Superfund Homepage. The EPA
                                Superfund Homepage provides extensive information on
                                 all aspects of Superfund in a format designed for envi-
                                 ronmental professionals, local officials, and the general
                                   public. Almost any Internet research for Superfund
                                   information should begin with the EPA Superfund
                                                     Homepage."

                                 - Paper titled, "Superfund Resources on the Internet,"
                                   published for the HazWaste World/Superfund XVIII
                                            conference in December 1997.
 	"I'm"	!'»i!	UPSF	

 yMJM« !
                             pia;ip»/superfuna)-w^^
                          rs"to"Supirruhd infbnnajioBufnM^
         	     ^        _ errund" prog^
         >'wspond^&iq^
 '"itogpete,	25oUgg'"g^	gjpg.f^ website i$; 'ayvfcn^b^ii^^
f tjpl'aisa;	"^^^a^^aaaiaS I"8 wiU'be to "l*4f "m,,;.	",:«»::,	sr,; „;;:?, ? i*!1".. ,«1«:"i«Wiv '.'"X; '.i!.!.irf!i3.'i,"!^Vj:i"X !^^*'i|1i:x^\^lif|V:i:f|1^^JV!1^i;\,^i^%^^g^
i'.gupcirfurid site data).                  •       '-  • ;  . ••.':'-:'!' '••"-.;.••;--•;V:-':.^-^^^ .;';-;^S:OS^-v^|f:v::-
trr.l ^TjTI'^S^.'.ir	'y;;;;;;:,;;:;;^^

-------
                           Annual  Report   FY  1997
   ENFORCEMENT
   2-1
PRP   Search   Pilots
   The primary goal of the PRP search pilots was to determine whether the time line proposed in
   the Superfund Reform Act (SRA) of 1994 (H.R. 4916,103rd Congress) can be accomplished
   through completion of early PRP Searches. In addition, EPA piloted several techniques
   developed to streamline and improve the PRP Search process.

   In the Spring of 1995,15 candidate sites were identified where PRP searches had just begun or
   were about to be initiated. To test the relevant provisions contained in SRA, each pilot site was
   set up to conform as nearly as possible to a time frame that would lead to notification of
   potential de minimi's parties within 12 months after the search start and notification of all
   other parties within 18 months after the search start. Additionally, each pilot tested one or
   more streamlining techniques identified during a national PRP search conference.

   Piloted streamlining techniques included: exploring the use of radio announcements,
   newspaper advertising, and toll free telephone numbers to solicit information about PRPs from
   the public; conducting early interviews of parties to obtain information and minimize the need
   for multiple rounds of information requests; and establishing a publicly available repository for
   PRP Search information, to assist PRPs in identifying other PRPs earlier in the enforcement
   process.
PRP searches at the 15 piloted sites varied widely in their duration
and scope, resulting from variation in site size, the number of PRPs,
nature and extent of contamination, available documentation, and
level of state involvement.


None of the 13 sites that had potential de minimis parties notified
those parties within 12 months of the search start date. Five sites
made the  18 month deadline for notifying all other parties within
18 months of the search start date. Today's Superfund enforcement
program must be supported by a PRP search program that
incorporates today's enforcement goals - thorough investigation,
identification of all parties, and greater involvement of PRPs in the
PRP search. The results of the PRP search pilots, as well as previous
PRP search improvement efforts and evaluations, serve as a building
block for EPA's efforts currently underway to enhance PRP searches.


The national PRP Search Enhancement Team  (Team) was formed
by Office of Site Remediation Enforcement (OSRE) in early 1997.
The Team  has worked closely with regional PRP search staff to
identify, develop and prioritize a number of tasks designed to
support and promote an enhanced PRP search process.
                                               BENEFITS
                                                       Several streamlining
                                                       techniques were found to
                                                       be beneficial and improved
                                                       PRP searches. At one site,
                                                       use of the new model
                                                       information request letter
                                                       was instrumental in
                                                       identifying 150 additional
                                                       parties early in the search
                                                       process. At another site, an
                                                       early interview led to
                                                       valuable information about
                                                       other parties, and assisted
                                                       in a better understanding of
                                                       business practices
                                                       contributing to
                                                       contamination of that site.
                                                       Also, the use of a publicly
                                                       available repository for PRP
                                                       search information was very
                                                       helpful in providing
                                                       valuable information to
                                                       PRPs and a local community
                                                       group, and led to
                                                       nomination of additional
                                                       parties earlier in the search
                                                       process.
                                                                                        55

-------
                              Super fund  Reforms
Through mid-1998, the Team and regions will perform a number of tasks, including the following:
  *  Sponsor a national PRP Search Enhancement Conference
  •  Develop a national enforcement network to facilitate information sharing efforts
  •  Develop fact sheets and checklists to assist regional search staff on subjects such as:
     •  Parameters for PRP Involvement in PRP Searches
     •  Corporate Successor/Parent-Subsidiary Issues
     •  On-Line Resources for PRP Searches
     •  Information Request Letter Tracking and Followup
     •  Removal Search Activities
  •  Best practices
In addition to these tasks, OSRE will continue to incorporate PRP search enhancement concepts in all
relevant Superfund enforcement training programs and materials as well as continued development of
PRP search guidance materials. •

Concepts  &. Lessons Learned

  The SRA goals of notifying de minimis parties within  12 months and other PRPs within 18 months of
the search start are currently unrealistic for most Superfund sites. SRA time frames were too ambitious
for the piloted sites, and would most likely be too ambitious for a majority of Superfund sites. There is
a balance between speed and comprehensiveness in the PRP search process.

Although the causes of difficulty in adhering to the SRA time line were numerous and often site
specific, three factors were common to a number of sites:
                                                                                ii
   (1) Many PRPs/Complex Sites
   (2) Troublesome Hazardous Substances (i.e., mixed radioactive waste)
   (3) Uncooperative PRPs.

The five pilot sites where the  18 month goal was met generally had fewer PRPs and no significant
complications.  Given ideal circumstances, it appears diat some PRP searches can meet the SRA time
frames.  However, it seems unlikely that PRP searches at larger, more complex sites can regularly be
 completed this quickly.
                                                                                i
 Early interviews of people witii knowledge of a site was the technique most commonly cited as being
 effective in increasing the speed and efficiency of PRP searches.  Consideration should be given to
 devoting more resources to interviews at an early date, particularly by making civil investigators
 available early in die PRP search process.
                                Contact
                                Lisa Blum, OSRE,
                                (202) 564-4283
 56

-------
                          Annual  Report  FY   1997
   2-2.      Expedited  Settlement  Pilots
   EPA announced the expedited settlement reform in 1995 to reduce transaction costs for all
   potentially responsible parties {PRPs) at Superfund sites through early settlements. The reform
   was designed to encourage early (i.e., pre-ROD) de minimis settlements; encourage ability to pay
   settlements with de minimis PRPs who demonstrate they cannot pay their full share of response
   costs at the site; and give PRPs the opportunity to  nominate other PRPs who they believe are
   also responsible for site cleanup.
 From the pilot s inception
 through the end of FY97, EPA
 achieved early de minimis
 settlements at eight pilot sites,
 ability to pay settlements at
 three pilot sites, and solicited
 nominations of additional PRPs
 at five of the eight pilot sites
 which had achieved an early
 de minimis settlement.
 The early de minimis settlements
 were achieved at the following
 Superfund sites: Solvents
 Recovery; Tri-Cities Barrel Co.,
Inc.; Elizabethtown Landfill;
Taylor Road; Arcanum Iron &
Metal; Hansen Container;
Bennington Landfill; and
Tulalip Landfill. These
settlements were reached with
approximately 488 de minimis
parties, resulting in recovery of
approximately $ 14.8 million.
Three of these settlements were
achieved in FY97 with 22 de
minimis parties for
approximately $3.4 million.
From the pilot s inception, ATP
settlements were achieved
with a total of 22 parties: 20
at the Solvents Recovery Site;
one at the Tulalip Landfill site;
and one at the Arcanum Iron
& Metal Site. •
    Contact
    Filomena Chau, OSRE,
    (202) 564-4224
Concepts & Lessons Learned

• The key elements of efficiently reaching early de minimis setdements were complete information, the
  type and quantity of waste, a good PRP search, and die existence of reliable cost estimates early in
  the process.

• The ability to pay setdement goals have been difficult to meet for die following reasons:

  1)  at some sites, no PRPs are found who meet the ability to pay criteria;
  2)  small parties sometimes ignore EPA s requests for financial information to prove the party's
      limited ability to pay the full setdement amount; and
  3)  PRPs sometimes submit incorrect  information diat requires additional research.
                                                                                      57

-------
                              Superfund  Reforms
                                              0 t S
  The Agency commenced the Allocation Pilots in May 1995, offering a fundamentally different
  approach to allocating Superfund costs between parties. Under the pilot, a neutral is selected
  by the parties (an "allocator") who conducts a non-binding out of court process resulting in an
  allocation report (i.e., where each allocation party is assigned a share of responsibility).  Parties
  may then offer to settle with EPA based on their allocated share. Under the pilot, EPA is
  responsible for 100 percent of the orphan share, which consists of the shares of allocation
  parties which are insolvent or defunct.
  Status
  EPA offered the pilot at twelve sites.  At three sites, parties declined to enter the pilot because
  they believed they could reach settlement outside of the allocation process or already had
  performed a private allocation. At the nine remaining sites, the allocation pilots  are at various
  stages. For example, at two sites the allocator issued a report reflecting an agreement regarding
  the shares of responsibility between the parties. At another site, the parties reached an
  agreement on shares and the allocator was dismissed.  At a fourth site, the majority of parties
  settled (i.e., for the performance and funding of the response action), but the allocator recently
  issued a report identifying shares for the parties which did not join the settlement.  For most
  of the remaining sites, the parties have selected an allocator and are in the midst of the
  allocation process.
Implementing the
Process	

  After two years of
implementing the pilots we
have gathered useful
information concerning the
allocator selection process and
need for a protocol document
between the parties
participating in the pilot.
Sibctlng th* Altocttor	
  In selecting an allocator,
parties have uniformly agreed to
use a convening process.
Through the use of a neutral (a
convener), the parties selected
an allocator by interviewing
several candidates and then
reaching a consensus agreement
on the best person for that site.
At all pilot sites the parties
agreed to choose solely from the
37 candidates qualified through
the Agency's procurement
process. Parties believed the
level of experience presented by
the candidates and the
information provided was
sufficient to choose an allocator.

Need for Protocol Document

  In designing the pilots the
Agency believed that a basic
confidentiality agreement and
litigation tolling agreement (i.e.,
so no party would sue each
other during the allocation) was
sufficient to implement the
pilots.  However, parties wanted
to negotiate procedures for the
number of interviews with
witnesses, timeframes for
submission of documents to the
allocator, and identify equitable
factors for the allocation. The
allocators wanted these issues to
be resolved amicably between
the parties. Negotiating a
protocol agreement has taken
between one to four months,
depending on the number of
issues to be addressed and the
number of parties at the site.
To save time the parties
negotiated the allocation
protocol during the time the
Agency is formally entering into
the contract with the selected
            (continued see Protocol)
58

-------
                          Annual  Report  FY   1997
 Protocol continued...
 allocator.  The neutral who
 convened the selection process
 has also assisted in developing
 the protocol agreement. •
                                               Contact
                                               Gary Worthman, OSRE,
                                               (202) 564-4296

                                               David Batson, OSRE,
                                               (202)564-5103
 the pilots m 1995,
  A  .*- .  f     .   ,    "*;   Participatai in the pilot^     -  parties views dn'the%ilot were
gathermginformat^omthe  ^tttnatedthexexpended* ^   ^d.XSeveralpaffiljliougS
pam^ts mdudmgPRPs^   . WpXper^tym^^
allp^ators^andRegionals|aff;   !,  'cb^Ar.nmvimafl}^?';  *^>t   ±At__: J:^^^, *Wvf,^
concerning time speritaSE    '  ^^,
resources expendearg^al'" ^ tt^uu,, ^^$ «w^,   -avaikfafebutot

ITJ!!5!^?^^^ ?^ ^3^,traditionalcontfibution ^^h^^Sfc^
                                               : average
                                                  *    •**»"*'   "^   ""-  *^   t,' V
                                                                         snthK.|reat
                          ,^ v^ueDartmentof itistt«*i,trtt^^ *  • ~	'	^	>.
               affaHocation %
              -i-^1**- <*\ ^ <« ^^s^
process; and the overall
—><~*r~ ^y~^—process "^—- — »•    •  BH.C. ims^iiiciuiesflDoj
moAjiC'&li-ifiEludes.the  "V.^'intrannirai-imaesMa
«s,eifa,ti^,u%8,', \-^..ijy^jiM^^^^sa^aiSSSS.*i
                               f^lifv c**rvi/-#*e rtf*ihTio AllXrU«vw >   v^ . "^      *^« , . , ^  ^~      '^
J- -v ^tx^^s- ^ x^>^   '  Y^ A& -^"" V~ •"'A—J'J^*^--'****,****'^

P*?4?^1 documelBt, and      «*^" per siteT 'At,oWsi
__. _ .^(V^ . -"*    i y?    , *  *. ,.      ^ ,. l  <*₯?..   ^ ^"**.
                                                          -<'
                      **  -^ - r," "'^TST* ^TS^0'3^-  ^v>> '^"      ^ -
                       L   >% shar^setd^i^u^ >     v      L   ;' ^  ,^>, -
                      I   *.^.*ts     -^ \f   >  ^.,s ^ - „„/j^JU, „- >   X   ^^ «J^fe'

-------
                                  Superfund  Reforms
Concepts & Lessons  Learned

This past year EPA has learned several important lessons on the relationship of allocation to
settlement.  La sum, EPA has learned that it is difficult to translate a shares agreement or allocation
report into a judicial setdement, and difficult to setde with less dian all of die parties and continue
the allocation process.  For example, some parties may be willing to perform die response action,
while odier parties would like to pay a sum certain  (i.e., a cashout agreement). Several parties
believed that providing  an ofFer to setde for dieir "share" did not necessitate entering into a joint
agreement to perform work widi the other parties at die site.   At one site, the Agency negotiated
three Consent Decrees to address die various concerns.  Such negotiations are resource intensive.
                                                                                           I
Another setdement issue involves problems widi entering into an agreement regarding shares of
responsibility widi less than all of die parties. A partial setdement raises concerns that die allocator
may assign die parties which remain in die allocation a smaller share dian die share negotiated by die
setders. In effect, die non-setders could possibly benefit by staying in die allocation process.  The
government position is  difficult because parties who  seek to setde early may offer to pay a significant
premium or to fully perform die work.  In addition, parties negotiating a setdement may also be
forced to  file briefs before die allocator in die event diat setdement negotiations are not completed in

a timely manner.
                     SUCCESS
 Tulalip  Landfill Site,
Marysville, Washington
                       The U.S. recently lodged three Consent Decrees with the majority of the
                       allocation parties at this site.  In this settlement, one group of parties will
                       perform the response action, and two separate groups of parties will provide
                       funding for the cleanup. A number of federal entities are also part of the
                       settlement Allocation parties who are not part of the settlement remain in the
                       allocation process. While the allocator must consider the shares of all the
                       parties in the allocation, only those shares of the parties which did not settle
                       were delineated in the allocation report. This limits the need for the settling
                       parties to continue to participate in the allocation process, thereby saving
                       transaction costs.
                       The settlement is also significant because the proceeds from a pre-allocation
                       de minlmis settlement are being provided to the performing parties. Under the
                       pilot, de minlmis settlers are excluded from the allocation process. Several
                       parties were originally concerned that excluding de minimis parties from the
                       allocation process might appear unfair. In effect, however, while the
                       de minlmis parties were excluded from the allocation process, the settlement
                       proceeds from the de minimis settlement reduced the actual amounts the
                       settling parties had to pay.
                                                   Hunterstown Road Site
                                                  Gettysburg, Pennsylvania
                          The generators and transporters requested the Agency adopt a private
                          allocation that these parties reached amongst each other, rather than the
                          allocator assigning shares to all parties.

                          The Agency agreed to adopt the private allocation so the allocator only
                          had to assign a group generator/transporter share, thereby saving
                          transaction costs.
                          All parties then agreed on the group share, submitted it to the allocator
                          who promptly adopted it as part of the allocation report.
  60

-------
                           Annual  Report  F Y   1997
    ECONOMIC REDEVELOPMENT
    2-4.a,  Brownfields   Pilot   Projects
    Brownfields Assessment Demonstration Pilots are awarded by EPA under cooperative
    agreements to States, cities, towns, counties, and Tribes.  These pilots are funded up to $200 000
    EISilS2S?ll0d Thd ST deSi9"ed t0,SUPP°rt CreatiVe exP'orati°"* a"" demonstration; of
    brownfieIds solutions. The Pilots are intended to provide EPA, States, Tribes, municipalities and
    commumties with useful information and strategies as they continue to seek new methods to
    promote a unified approach to site assessment, environmental cleanup, and redevelopment.
    The "Brownfields Economic
 Redevelopment Initiative" is a
 comprehensive approach to
 empowering States, local
 governments, communities and
 other stakeholders interested in
 economic redevelopment to
 work together in a timely
 manner to prevent, assess, safely
 cleanup and sustainably reuse
 brownfields. EPA originally
 addressed implementation of
 the Brownfield's initiative
 through die Brownfields Action
 Agenda. This first Action
 Agenda was a collection of bold
 strategies  focused on four main
 categories - 1) implementing
 Brownfields Pilot programs in
 cities, counties, towns and
 Tribes across die country;
 2) clarifying liability and other
 issues of concern for lending
 institutions, municipalities,
 prospective purchasers,
 developers, property owners
 and others; 3) establishing
 partnerships widi odier EPA
 programs, Federal agencies,
 States, and cities and
 stakeholders; and 4) promoting
 community involvement by
 supporting job development
and training activities linked to
 Brownfield assessment, cleanup
 and redevelopment.

 As the Brownfields Initiative has
 matured, the need for
 continuation and expansion of
 the national brownfields
 response has led to introduction
 of die new Brownfields National
 Partnership Action Agenda,
 furdier linking environmental
 protection with economic
 redevelopment and community
 revitalization. The Brownfields .
 National Partnership Action
 Agenda is a two-year plan
 featuring commitments from
 more dian 25 organizations,
 including more than 15 Federal
 Agencies. The Agenda also
 features a 10 Showcase
 communities model for
 demonstrating successful
 collaboration on brownfields-
 related activities.

 By the end of FY97, EPA had
 announced die selection of 121
 Brownfields Pilots. These pilots
 will be funded dirough
 cooperative agreements are
 subject to negotiation. Of die
 121 Pilots, 64 are National
Pilots selected and funded
dirough Headquarters, and 57
    Results
    By die end of FY97, EPA
    had announced the
    selection of 121
    Brownfields pilots.
 are Regional Pilots selected and
 funded dirough die 10 Regional
 offices. EPA intends die pilots to
 perform die following: provide
 redevelopment models, direct
 efforts toward die removal of
 regulatory barriers; and facilitate
 coordinated public and private
 efforts at die Federal, State, and
 local levels.

 EPA awarded 24 grants to
 eligible assessment pilot
 recipients for die capitalization
 of revolving loan funds for die
 cleanup of brownfields sites.
 Grants of this type will not be
 awarded in FY98 unless
 mandated by specific statutory
 audiority.

EPA has signed Memoranda of
Understanding (MOU) witii
odier Federal partners to
coordinate issues related to

         (continued see Brownfields)
                                                                                       61

-------
                                 Superfund   Reforms
Brownflalds continued...
brownfidds redevelopment and
to leverage additional
opportunities. In addition to
previously signed MOUs with
the Economic Development
Administration, and the
Departments of Housing and
Urban Development, Labor, and
Interior, EPA also has signed a
MOU with the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric
Administration.

EPA conducted a Brownfields
National Conference in Kansas
City, Missouri, in September
 1997. A variety of guidance
documents and other initiatives
have been announced by the
 Agency affecting the liability
 aspects of the Brownfields
 Action Agenda. In addition, EPA
 archived almost 30,500 sites
 from the Federal Superfund
 Inventory — CERCLIS.

 Passage of the brownfields tax
 incentive proposal in 1997 was
 achieved as  part of the budget
 agreement,  and permits
 expensing of environmental
 remediation costs. •


  Next Steps

  •  Continue coordinating  support
     for the efforts of the Federal
     Interagency Working Group on
     Brownfields
  •  Identify up to 100 assessment
     pilots in  FY98
                                    SUCCESSI
                           Baltimore,  Maryland
Baltimore has sought to use the city's $200,000 grant to encourage economic
growth and redevelopment in urban areas while continuing to provide
appropriate and sufficient protection of the environment, especially the
Chesapeake Bay watershed area.
                           Birmingham', Alabama
The North Birmingham Industrial Redevelopment Project centers on a 900-acre
industrial area in which nearly forty percent of a formerly active property now
lies vacant. In September 1995, the EPA awarded Birmingham a $200,000 grant
under its Brownfields initiative to stimulate development of a 150-acre
industrial park within the target area. Planners believe the area will see the
creation of over 2,000 jobs
                            Burlington, Vermont
 Burlington plans to develop a comprehensive brownfields plan, redevelop the
 city's brownfields with a high degree of citizen participation and support, and
 provide a redevelopment model that could be duplicated in small cities across
 the country.
                                Dallas ," Texas
 The City of Dallas, with help from the EPA is returning Brownfield properties
 into productive use for the community. With six sites in the cleanup and
 redevelopment process, $44.5 million in private investment has been
 leveraged, along with an $8.4 million public investment.
                            Emeryville, California
 Since EPA's $200,000 grant, EPA and Emeryville have been working together to
 rejuvenate the City and the surrounding area, targeting ten sites and more
 than 180 acres for cleanup and redevelopment. The Brownfields Pilot
 established strong working relationships among the City's regulatory agencies,
 which facilitated a plan between the City and Catellus Development
 Corporation to redevelop abandoned former railyard site. Catellus constructed
 200 units of mixed-income housing. Approximately 100 construction workers
 have been hired to build these housing units.
                             Oregon Mills, Oregon
 The City of Astoria, Oregon has worked in partnership with the Oregon
 Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), ECOTRUST, and the community
 to clean up the City's abandoned mill sites and transform them into thriving
 waterfront properties. In September 1995, Rural Development Initiatives, Inc.,
 received a $200,000 EPA Brownfields Pilot grant to help jump-start the City s
 redevelopment efforts.
     Initiate expansion of site assessments
     Select 10 Brownfields Showcase Communities
                                  Contact
                                  Barbara Bassuener, OSWER,
                                  (202) 260-9347
  62

-------
                           Annual  Report  FY   1997
        Helps States, Tribes, and municipalities create redevelopment models, direct efforts toward
        the removal of regulatory barriers, and facilitate coordinated public and private efforts at the
        Federal, State, and local levels.
        Facilitates the reuse of underutilized or abandoned properties.
        Creates jobs and encourages community development in urban areas.
        Fosters economic prosperity and an increased tax base.
   2-4.b.  Brownfields   Community  Outreach
   A Brownfields coordinator position has been established in each region to oversee Brownfields
   pilots and to initiate other Brownfields activities.  EPA also has assigned seven staff members to
   cities through inter-governmental personnel assignments (IPA) to assist in addressing the
   Brownfields redevelopment challenges presented at the State and local levels.
 The brownfields program is
 centered on partnerships - with
 other Federal, State, and local
 agencies, and diverse
 stakeholders. The Brownfields
 National Partnership Action
 Agenda is based on protecting
 human health and the
 environment, enhancing public
 participation in local decision-
 making, building safe and
 sustainable communities
 through public/private
 partnerships, and recognizing
 that environmental protection
 can be the engine that drives
 economic redevelopment.

 EPA continues to be advised and
 informed on environmental
 justice issues relating to
 Brownfields through the
 National Environmental Justice
Advisory Council (NEJAC).The
NEJAC issued a final report,
 "Environmental Justice, Urban
 Revitalization, and Brownfields:
 The Search for Authentic Signs
 of Hope." The report analyzed
BE N E FITS
      Improves community
      involvement in the
      Brownfields Initiative.
      Fosters job
      development and
      training.
 the findings from the public
 dialogues held in June and July
 of 1995 on revitalization and
 Brownfields, and made
 recommendations.
 Community-based
 recommendations from the
 report are helping to shape the
 future course of die Brownfields
 Initiative from pilot application
 to determinations of future site
 redevelopment.

 In conjunction with the
 Common Sense Initiative (CSI),
 EPA has identified Brownfields
 pilots in several cities that
 provide opportunities to
 concentrate on Brownfields
 associated with particular
 industrial sectors. For example,
 several Brownfields pilots have
 been identified for linkage with
 the CSI  "Iron and Steel Sector."
 EPA is now working with the
 sector to conduct an 18-month
 evaluation of two Brownfields
 pilots that will help to assess the
 efficacy of the "Brownfields
 Guiding Principles" developed
 by die sector.

EPA is working witfi die
American Society for Testing
        (continued see Community)
                                                                                        63

-------
                              Superfund  Reforms
Community continued...
Materials (ASTM) to develop a
standard guide tided, "The
Process of Sustainable
Brownfields Redevelopment."
The purpose of diese efforts is
to identify the interrelationships
between the financial,
regulatory, and community
involvement aspects of
Brownftelds revitalization. EPA
and ASTM are working togedier
to Involve environmental justice
and community representatives
in workshops to develop the
standard.

EPA is promoting and fostering
job development and training
through partnerships with
Brownfields pilot communities
and community colleges. EPA
also is working with the
Hazardous Materials Training
and Research Institute (HMTRI)
to expand environmental
training and curriculum
development.  HMTRI has
hosted a continuing series of
workshops to assist community
colleges from Brownfields pilot
communities in developing
environmental job training
programs. The latest workshop
was held in San Francisco,
California, in June 1997. To
date, HMTRI has worked with
more dian 60 community
colleges.  Through a cooperative
agreement with EPA, Rio Hondo
College (Whittier, California),
has established an
environmental education and
training center to provide
comprehensive technical-level
training.  In addition, EPA and
the National Institute of
Environmental Health Services
 (NIEHS) are working to
coordinate minority worker
training grant recipients with
Brownfields pilot city activities.
EPA will continue outreach to
stakeholders on Brownfields
involvement. Technical
assistance to other Federal
agencies and non-governmental
organizations will be provided
through existing partnerships
and pilots. •

Next Steps

•  Work with NIEHS to
   coordinate minority workers
   with pilot activities
•  Continue outreach to
   stakeholders and offer
   technical assistance
 Contact
 Barbara Bassuener, OSWER,
 (202) 260-9347
                        Brief
   2-4.c.  Refining  CERCLIS
   The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System
   (CERCUS) is an automated inventory of site information for potential or confirmed hazardous
   waste sites addressed under the Federal Superfund program. To refine CERCLIS and encourage
   cleanup and redevelopment of contaminated or formerly contaminated sites, EPA has begun a
   process of "archiving" sites that no longer need to be tracked.
 Over 41,000 sites have been entered into CERCLIS; however, less
 dian five percent have made it onto the NPL. Until recently, sites
 that had been fully remediated or that had never made die final
 NPL were still listed in CERCLIS, and the perceived threat of
 Superfund liability remained. To rectify this problem, EPA refined
 the process for registering and maintaining site information in
 CERCLIS by archiving such sites.

 In response to growing concerns about the unintended stigma
 associated with CERCLIS, EPA introduced the CERCLIS archiving
 effort in early 1995 as part of die Agency's Brownfields Economic
                                            (continued see CERCLIS)
 64
                                  Results
                                  Of the 41,000 sites entered
                                  into CERCLIS: 24,000
                                  CERCLIS sites were archived
                                  by February 1995; and
                                  almost 30,500 sites were
                                  archived from CERCLIS
                                  through FY9 7.

-------
                           Annual  Report  F Y   1997
  CERCLIS continued...
 Redevelopment Initiative. The
 Brownfields Initiative
 encourages cities, states, and
 private investors to dean up and
 redevelop contaminated or
 formerly contaminated sites.
 Archive candidates include sites
 where, following initial
 investigation, no contamination
 was found, or any
 contamination was removed
 quickly without requiring
 placement on the NPL; sites that
 have been completely cleaned
 up and deleted from the NPL;
 and sites where the
 contamination was not serious
 enough to warrant Federal
 Superfund attention.

 The archiving effort is a
 continuous process and as more
 sites are entered into CERCIIS
 and/or screened out, the
 CERCUS and archive lists will
 change.
                                  SUCCESS!
                              Republic  Steel,
                             Buffalo,  New  York
                                '"^^^^^^^^^^^•^^^•^^^••^^^•^^•I^H
   EPA is beginning to see results from its efforts at the Brownfields Pilot in
   Buffalo, New York. After removing the Republic Steel site from CERCLIS
   ATOM Corporation, partnering with Village Farms of Buffalo, agreed to clean
   up a portion of the site in 1997 for use as a 25-acre hydroponic tomato farm.
   This new business will employ approximately 300 workers.
In June 1996, EPA provided guidance identifying types of sites
eligible for archiving. Sites remaining in the CERCLIS inventory
were evaluated, archiving decisions were made, when appropriate.

EPA has conducted outreach efforts to promote its site archiving
efforts.  In July 1995, EPA sent 200 mayors lists of archived sites in
their cities. In April 1997, EPA developed a quick reference fact
sheet, "Archival of CERCLIS Sites," and posted it on EPA's
Brownfields Internet homepage. An inventory of CERCLIS and
archived sites by State also is available on the Internet. •


                               Next Steps
    Removes the stigma
    associated with CERCLIS
    sites and facilitates their
    redevelopment.
Continue to archive sites
from CERCLIS

   Contact
   Randy Hippen, OERR,
   (703) 603-8829
   2-4.d.           Clarifying  NPL   Sites
   EPA provides Regions with the flexibility to clarify uncontaminated areas within Superfund sites
   To accomplish this, EPA has developed guidance and tools to identify, map, and track
   uncontaminated portions of sites.
Listing a property on the NPL may affect the
value of that property and the surrounding
area—whether or not all of the property or
adjacent property is contaminated. In order to
facilitate the transfer, development or
redevelopment of property or portions of
property determined to be uncontaminated,
EPA, as a part of its economic redevelopment
initiative, developed a program to provide
Regions with the flexibility to clarify the areas
of sites determined to be contaminated or
uncontaminated.
                       (continued see NPL Sites)
               Results
               Workgroup recommended a policy change to
               allow partial deletions.
               EPA announced a policy change to allow partial
               deletions based on geography or medium
               (published in the Federal Register on
               November 1, 1995 (60 FR 55466)).
               EPA announced a Round 3 Superfund Reform
               to encourage Regions to utilize partial
               deletions.
                                                                                        65

-------
                             Superfund  Reforms
NPL SHir continued...
A workgroup was convened in May 1995 to evaluate several
alternatives including: no partial deletion, partial deletion limited
to closing and realigning bases (BRACs), and partial deletion
available for all sites. The workgroup also considered geographic
and medium limitations on partial deletions.

Based upon the workgroup's recommendation, EPA determined
that the Regions should have flexibility to delete portions of any
site (i.e., military base or other Federal Facility, or a private site),
base?! on either geography or medium (e.g., groundwater). •

Next Steps

»  This reform Is complete. The Round 3, partial deletions
   reform (I.e., Delete Clean Parcels from the NPL -
   Reform 9) is being implemented as a part of the
   Superfund program.
                                                           BE N |E FITS
• Facilitates the transfer,
  development or
  redevelopment of
  property or portions of
  property determined to
  be uncontaminated

• Provides Regions with
  the flexibility to clarify
  the areas of sites
  determined to be
  contaminated or
  uncontaminated
Contact
Terry Keidan, OERR,
(703) 603-8852
   2-4.e.  Removing  Liability  Barriers:
              Prospective  Purchaser Agreements  (PPAs)

   EPA Identified options to encourage the cleanup and redevelopment of contaminated properties,
   giving prospective purchasers, lenders, and property owners more assurances that acquisition of
   such property will not also mean acquisition of liability. In May 1995, EPA revised its PPA
   guidance (see "Guidance on Agreements with Prospective Purchasers of Contaminated
   Property") to allow the Agency greater flexibility in entering into agreements with prospective
   purchasers. These agreements provide a promise by the United States not to sue the
   prospective purchaser for contamination existing at the time of purchase and provide
   contribution protection. The revised guidance expands the universe of eligible sites, allowing
   the use of such agreements when the agreement results in a substantial indirect benefit to the
   community in terms of cleanup, creation of jobs, and redevelopment of blighted property. A
   model PPA also was issued to streamline the process.
  SUCCESS
   EPA will receive $10,000 from the purchaser, as well as $309,912 of the
   purcbasa prlca of the property from the site owners pursuant to a consent
   decree. The purchaser. City of Vineland, represents that it has received two
   federal redevelopment grants to assist it in redeveloping the property as an
   Industrial park, creating jobs in an economically depressed area.
                                                                Results
 At the end of FY9 7,
 68 prospective purchaser
 agreements had been
 reached.
 66

-------
                             Annual  Report  FY   1997
SUCCESS!
General  Gap  Mantle Superfund Site,
    Gloucester  City, New  Jersey
 Purchaser plans to rehabilitate an abandoned 1.7 acre property which was previously contaminated with radioactive
 substances from gas mantle manufacture. The purchase is partially financed by the federally funded Cooperative Business
 Assistance Corporation. The purchaser is planning to expand its business and provide jobs in a depressed area   US'"eSS
                                                -  El  is  -  WhismanSuperfund Site
                                                Palo Alto,  California
 A commercial development of high-tech research and office facilities in a campus-like setting is planned for this currently
 vacant site. The prospective purchaser will pay $200,000 to EPA, enabling the Agency to continue sampling at a nearby
 monitoring well for an additional two years.                                                   a    nearoy
                                        San  Gabriel Valley Superfund  Site,
                                              Baldwin  Park,  California
 Monsanto plans to purchase assets of a contact lens manufacturing company which has been a source of the
 contaminated groundwater plume. The purchaser will continue operations, and pay $150,000 to fund response for a
 portion of the Superfund site.
                                                MRM  Industries Site,
                                                 Sikeston,  Missouri
 The purchaser - North Ridge Homes, a manufacturer of prefabricated homes -agreed to reimburse EPA $20 000 for costs
 incurred in a removal action. Sikeston, a city of 5,000 people, is very supportive of the agreement because of the 125 new
 jobs that the project will bring to the community.
                                                   Pijier Brass Site,
                                                Kansjas City,  Missouri
The purchaser - CST Limited Liability Partnership - will provide deed restrictions on the property to maintain a protective
SSrUJJT""?"1 th.!1foundation of a buildi"3 on site so as to not disturb the lead-contaminated materTa?benea?hTpay EPA
$50 000, and provide operation and maintenance activities. The company will use the property to house the headquarters
of their demolition and construction business, a use which local authorities believe will help maintain property values in an
area that is prone to attract salvage yards and unauthorized industrial dumping.
                                       Contact
                                       Helen Keplinger, OSRE,
                                       (301) 229-5526
                                                                                                    67

-------
                            Superfund  Reforms
68

-------
                          Annual  Report  F Y   1997
    COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT AND OUTREACH
    2-5.a.   Community  Advisory   Groups   (CAGs)
    This initiative encourages Regions to establish Community Advisory Groups (CAGs) which
    provide a public forum for community members to present and discuss their needs and concerns
    about the decision-making process at sites affecting them.
 A CAG is a committee, task
 force, or board comprised of
 citizens affected by a hazardous
 waste site. CAGs are made up of
 representatives with diverse
 community interests and
 provide a public forum for
 community members to present
 and discuss their needs and
 concerns about the decision-
 making process at sites affecting
 them.
 The CAG concept was
 introduced in the first round of
 reforms in the arena of
 Expanding Meaningful Public
 Involvement.  Initially the CAG
 program was part of the
 Environmental Justice strategy
 (Initiative 7) and was initiated
 to insure that all communities
 are part of the Superfund
 process.  Several pilot sites were
 chosen to field test the CAG
 concept.  The CAG program also
 appeared in the second round of
 reforms under Community
 Involvement and Outreach
 (Initiative 5), along with the
 Technical Assistance Grants
 program. This initiative
 articulated the progression of
 increased citizen involvement,
called for die creation of
guidance promoting and
supporting CAGs, and
    Results
   Initially, EPA slated the program to have 10 pilot CAG sites;
   however, the number of "pilot" sites grew to 16 between the
   time die program started and when it was officially taken out
   of die pilot stage. In July 1996 (at die National Community
   Involvement Conference hi Chicago), EPA took die program
   out of die pilot stage and started accepting names of
   additional CAGs.

   By die end of FY96, die number of CAGs had grown to 23.
   Ten additional CAGs were formed in FY97, bringing die
   total to 33 CAGs.
 encouraged die Regions to
 establish CAGs or convert
 existing community advisory
 organizations into CAGs. EPA
 issued "Guidance for
 Community Advisory Groups at
 Superfund Sites" (OSWER
 Directive: 9230.0-2) in
 December 1995, encouraging
 die use of CAGs at Superfund
 sites. The guidance has proven
 to be an effective mechanism
 for EPA s Regional offices to
 facilitate die participation of
 community members. Odier
products include a fact sheet
tided, "Superfund Today Focus
on die Community Advisory
Group," issued in May 1996
 (EPA 540-K-96-005), and
a 4-page summary of die CAG
 guidance issued in August 1996,
 tided "Community Advisory
 Groups (CAGs) at Superfund
 Sites" (OSWER Directive
 9230.0-28AFS).

 CAG Toolkits are die most recent
 product created to support die
 CAG program. The kits are
 designed to help communities
 establish CAGs, widi each kit
 containing a variety of
 information for use in setting
 up and maintaining a CAG. Two
 versions of die Toolkit were
 produced, one for EPA staff (in
 particular, die Community
 Involvement Coordinator) and
 one for die CAG. The Toolkits
presendy are being field tested

          (continued see CAGs)
                                                                                     69

-------
                                 Superfund  Reforms
CAG* continued.,.
at 1 8 sites, and the final product
should be available during the
summer of 1998.


EPA will continue to evaluate
existing CAGs and their impact
on community involvement,
and also will continue to
identify and develop new tools
to promote and assist CAGs. •
 i;*:ElvLA.iu  a   ..... ......... o  n
 ....... ::•: program" was evaluated using a '
 ^"^?^!^ ilJPJp^* ...... ^ case
 '• M" studies examined activities at
   'specific sites and were developed
                        , and
    atev-j:;
i!	i! personnel involved In site' '
iridefoup'efibrts. the five
iiEazardous waste sites chosen for
Illiji^                       	liij|«liii!,i'i *	':,:',:	bill
,	;;;;the case studies induded: the	
	•	;:;j|||o Reigning, mc.luperlund'	
~'|it^ fa.liarris Countji'fexasj the
                                   BE NE FITS
  .fe/llie'auBe studies highlighted me
            ; important lessons for
                                        Creates mutual trust and demonstrates that EPA is a
                                        partner in solving community environmental problems.

                                        Enhances and accelerates the Superfund cleanup
                                        decision-making process.
                                   SUCCES1
Southern  Shipbuilding,
   Slidell, .Louisiana
                                    After a CAG was formed, more than a dozen formal and informal meetings
                                    with concerned citizens and elected officials were held to shape site studies
                                    and remedy selection. A striking measure of this community involvement is
                                    that an incineration remedy in the middle of the City received majority
                                    support from residents (and unanimous endorsement by the City Council).
                                                                   Allied Pjaper, Inc.,
                                                      Portage Creek/Kaia rn azoo  River, Michigan
                                     The CAG at this site, consisting of State Officials and local citizens, facilitated
                                     community involvement. The CAG meets bimonthly and has sent site
                                     progress reports and fact sheets to more than 600 citizens in an effort to keep
                                     them informed of the progress at the site.
                                                                    Brio  Fjefining,
                                                                 Harris Colunty, Texas
                                     A CAG was formed in 1994 to allow citizens and local officials to participate in
                                     decisions affecting the cleanup of this site. The CAG meets regularly and
                                     maintains a mailing list of 827 citizens. In 1995, the CAG prepared and
                                     submitted an application for a new Technical Assistance Grant to increase
                                     their understanding of the cleanup solutions being proposed for the site.
                                                       Colorado School of  Mines Research Institute,
                                                                     Golden!, Colorado
                                      EPA helped establish a CAG which allowed for the enhancement of the
                                      Superfund cleanup decision-making process through direct community
                                      involvement. This site was used as a case study in a document recently
                                      completed by EPA.
                               ,
  , • I5hest«r~£otuity, SbutE Carolina;
  isific^5g Sup«fund Site in
  	formapn of CAGs:
                                   1. CAGs should be formed as^early as possible.
                                   2L. Tiig cpjmrminity must takelhe initiative in CAG formation and   *
                                   operation.
                                   3. CAGs must be inclusive and independent
                                   	din.	^»uij*H"m>!M>tKr£."	t!	j''1'        >5    f,     u*S
-------
                        Annual  Report  F Y   1997
                  Stakeholder Comments
        David Hall, Emergency Management Coordinator for
    the City of Texarkana, was very supportive of CAGs at the
    Local Government Relocation Forum held on April 18, 1997.
    He commented that CAGs were, "the best thing since home-
    made bread."

        According to Mr. Schrader, Brio Refining Inc., CAG Co-
    Chair, the CAG has been successful because, "dedicated
    people from the community have been willing to work hard,
    over a long period of time to get our positions taken into
    account."

        Catherine O'Brien, Brio Refining Inc., CAG Member
    from San Jacinto College stated that prior to the CAG, "the
    community could talk to EPA in  public meetings, but that
    wasn't very productive. The PRPs could meet with EPA
    anytime, because they worked on the site issues all day; the
    community couldn't, because we have other jobs to do.  The
    CAG has leveled the playing field." She also said she be-
    lieves the CAG concept is, "the best way to resolve issues at
    Superfund sites, because everyone talks and listens to each
    other."

       Mr. White, Carolawn Inc., Community Advisory Board
    Chairman stated, "Regardless of how the decision is made,
    residents now feel they have had some input."
     Next Steps

     •  Continue to test CAG
       Toolkits at various
       sites

     •  Evaluate CAGs and
       develop new methods
       to promote and assist
       CAGs
     Pilots
     Completed July 1996.
     Contact
     Leslie Leahy, OERR,
     (703) 603-9929
  2-5.b.  Technical   Assistance  Grants  (TAGs)
  TAGs provide resources to eligible communities affected by Superfund sites to acquire
  independent technical assistance to help them understand and comment on site-related
  information.
Basic Provisions of the TAG Program:


  Grants of up to $50,000 are available to community groups for
hiring technical advisors to help the community understand site-
related technical information. Additional funding may be available
for unusually large or complex sites.


The group must contribute 20 percent of the total project costs to
be supported by TAG funds. This requirement can be met with
cash, donated supplies, and volunteered services.
                                         (continued see TAGs)
 Results

More than 195 TAGs
have been awarded since
the program's inception in
1988.
                                                                               71

-------
                               Superfund  Reforms
TAB* continued...
The group must prepare a plan
for using the funds.

EPA is encouraging the Regions
to consider means to increase
citizen involvement, such as
advance funding ofTAGs, the
authorization of training for
TAG recipients, and the
simplification of the TAG
application and administrative
processes.

The TAG regulation, which was
revised during  FY95-96, and
which the Agency plans to
publish in FY98, contains
several simplifying provisions.
For example, elimination of the
three-year budget period will
allow groups to determine their
own budget period, according to
site-specific needs.  •
 Next Steps

 * Promote citizen involvement
   by improving TAGs and
   facilitating the process
 • Publish proposed and final
   revisions to the TAG
   regulation in FY98
                                  SUCCESJ
                       Southern Sh iipbui Idi n g Site
                            Slidell, iouisiana
A group named Slidell Working Against Major Pollution (SWAMP) was
awarded a TAG grant on December 15,1995. SWAMP hired two technical
advisors on June 17,1996, to review site documents prior to release of the
final proposed plan of action.
This approach created mutual trust and the concept that EPA was a partner in
solving community environmental problems. A striking measure of this
community involvement is that an incineration remedy in the middle of the
City received majority support from residents (and a unanimous endorsement
by the City Council).
BENE FITS
    As stated above, preparations are underway to publish
    the proposed revised rule by March 1998. This revised
    rule will contain the following:
    •  Provisions for limited cash advances
    •  Limited funds for training community members on site-
      related issues.
    •  Removal of a 20 percent administrative cap, providing
      EPA flexibility in negotiating grants with recipients
    •  An interpretation of congressional intent regarding the
      Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act's
      (SARA) "one TAG per site language" such that the rule
      allows multiple non-concurrent grant recipients.
                      Contact
                      Lois Gartner, OERR,
                      (703) 603-8889
 72

-------
                          Annual  Report  F Y  1997
   2-6.
Community  Involvement in  th
Enforcement  Process  Pilots
   In February 1995, EPA announced its commitment to pilot ways in which community
   involvement in the enforcement process could be enhanced as part of the Superfund Reforms
   effort.  EPA initiated pilot projects at 13 sites in 9 of its 10 Regions for cases in which PRPs
   committed to conduct cleanup actions or investigations. Several approaches were
   implemented, including inviting communities to review and comment on draft technical
   workplans and actively disseminating information. EPA piloted these approaches to observe
   what impact they have on Superfund cleanups and settlement negotiations. At some selected
   sites, piloted activities are completed; at other sites, EPA continues to test various approaches.
   Activities found to be effective are being utilized at a number of sites outside the pilot project.
 Many of the piloted activities
 involve providing opportunities
 for communities to discuss and
 review draft technical plans (i.e.,
 draft work plans for
 investigations of site
 contamination and design and
 conduct of cleanups) to be
 implemented by PRPs. For sites
 in the early stages of the cleanup
 pipeline (i.e., investigations),
 Regions intend to continue
 enhanced community
 involvement measures during
 the later stages of the cleanup
 pipeline (i.e., remediation).
 Other piloted activities in this
 initiative include citizen
 involvement in removal actions
 implemented by PRPs;
 developing consensus on future
 land use; and citizens review of
 treatability study documents
 prepared by PRPs.

These piloted activities are
related to, but distinct from, the
steps that the Agency already
takes at each site to involve the
community whenever it selects
a response action or finalizes a
settlement agreement (i.e., the
                 opportunity for public review
                 and comment on proposed
                 cleanup plans or settlements). It
                 is also distinct from a separate
                 Superfund reform involving the
                 establishment of Community
                 Assistance Groups (CAGs) at
                 Superfund sites. II
                  Stakeholder Comments
                    Community members
                    thought EPA had been
                    successful at making
                      site information
                     available to them,
                    providing them with
                     the opportunity to
                    comment on technical
                   documents, considering
                      their input, and
                   providing them with an
                       opportunity to
                     communicate  with
                           PRPs.

                     By the end of the
                    process, the PRPs had
                   a better appreciation of
                     the views of other
                       stakeholders.
                    (From participants at
                    the Pine Street Barge
                    Canal, Vermont Pilot)
 Lessons Learned
 •    Communities who
     regularly attend technical
     meetings are more
     informed and, therefore,
     better able to understand
     the progress of response
     activities at a Site;
•    Greater degree of
     community involvement
     may result in time and
     resource savings in the
     longrun;
•    Providing opportunities
     to comment on technical
     documents  is an effective
     way to enhance commu-
     nity involvement; and
•    It may be difficult to
     reach consensus on future
     land use, even when
     mediation efforts are
     implemented.
                                                                                     73

-------
                                 Superfund   Reforms
SUCCESS
Asarco Tacoma  Smelter,
  Tacoma, Washington
  At the Asarco Tacoma Smelter in Tacoma, Washington, the community was given the opportunity to review
  and comment on the Site Community Relations Plan and draft cleanup work plans as well as provide input on
  road closures and transportation impacts, future land use and institutional controls.  EPA's Region 10 office
  Intends to continue enhanced community measures during the ongoing design of the cleanup and get
  feedback from the community during the redevelopment of the site.
                                                    Eagle  Mine Site
                                                   Minturn, Colorado
  At the Eagla Mine site in Minturn, Colorado, the Eagle River Environmental and Business Alliance (the Alliance), a group
  of community residents, was given the opportunity to review and comment on draft cleanup work plans prepared by the
  parties performing the cleanup. Many of the comments received from the Alliance were used to guide and formulate
  cleanup activities.  In addition, the Alliance was very much involved in the review of the controversial series of risk
  assossments conducted around a middle school adjacent to the site. Because of the Alliance's review and agreement
  with EPA's risk conclusions, the controversy was resolved to the public's satisfaction. The Alliance continues to be
  Involved in the ongoing Eagle Mine project.


                                                                              Contact

                                                                              Deniz Ergener, OSRE,

                                                                              (202) 564-4233
74

-------
                          Annual  Report  FY  1997
   ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
   2-7.a.  Training  and  Health   Service   Assistance  to
              Communities
   EPA and the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) established the Medical Assistance Plan (MAP) to
   respond to the health concerns of under-served citizens living near hazardous waste sites.
In the summer of 1994, EPA
requested assistance from the
Public Health Service (PHS) to
respond to health concerns of
communities near hazardous
waste sites.  In response to this
request, the Superfund Medical
Assistance Work Group
(SMAWG) was established to
develop the Medical Assistance
Plan (MAP). The first phase of
MAP implementation will assess
the health care needs and
concerns of the community and
evaluate nearby primary care
capacities. The second phase,
according to the community's
need for assistance and the
availability of budget and
personnel services, will provide:
  •   Physician training and
      placement;
  •   Medical testing to assess
      health affects related to
      hazardous substance
      exposure;

  •   Technical assistance to
      local agencies and health
      care providers;

  •   Environmental health
      education to health care
      providers;
  •   Referral services to assist
      individuals in locating
       medical specialty clinics
       or specialists; and
   •   Medical followup for
       individuals who demon-
       strate documented
       exposure to hazardous
       substances or adverse
       health conditions related
       to possible exposures.

 A third phase will include an
 evaluation of the effectiveness of
 the results. The Agency will test
 the MAP program at various
 Superfund sites.

 Although EPA targeted four sites
 for program testing during
 FY95, project funding was
 available at only one site, the Del
 Amo/Montrose site inTorrence,
 California, for which EPA
 obligated $400,000. EPA
 Region 9 as well as ATSDR have
 been working closely with clinic
 physicians to determine the
 need for environmental
 sampling to respond to clinic
 results. Residents temporarily
 relocated by EPA have been
 permanently relocated by Del
Amo PRPs. EPA and PHS will
 continue to seek funds sufficient
to finance additional pilot
projects in FY98. •
   Results
  The Superfund Medical
  Assistance Work Group
  (SMAWG) has outlined
  three phases of the Medical
  Assistance Plan (MAP).
  Four sites have been
  targeted for program
  testing, and EPA
  designated $400,000
  for MAP implementation
  at the Del Amo/Montrose
  site inTorrence, California.
  Temporary relocation
  efforts have begun at the site.
Next Steps
  Continue to implement the
  MAP program at the Del
  Amo/Montrose Site
  Secure funding to finance
  FY98 pilot projects
                                                                                     75

-------
                            Superfund  Reforms
BENEFITS
      Improves delivery of
      existing medical services
      to communities with
      potential exposures to
      hazardous substances.

      Builds environmental
      health expertise in
      communities through
      physician training and
      placement.
                  Contact
                  Michael Montgomery,
                  EPA Region 9,
                  (415) 744-2362
  2-7 .  b .  Super! u n d  Jobs   Training  Initiative
             ( S u p e r J T I)

  EPA has developed interagency partnerships to train and employ community residents living
  near Superfund sites through classroom instruction and hands-on work experience.
While the purpose of the
Superfund Program is to clean
up the Nation's worst hazardous
waste sites, citizens face many
challenges from environmental
problems, and related social
stresses, in communities
affected by Superfund sites. The
Superfund Jobs Training
Initiative is a response to public
demand for more economic
                      ' 1!

Contacts
David Ouderkirk, OERR,
(703) 603-9039

Beverly Negri, EPA Region 6
Superfund Community Relations
Team Leader,
(214) 665-8157

Yolanda Singer, OERR,
(703) 603-8835
benefit, at die local level, from
Superfund site cleanups. The
Superfund Program is taking a
"partnership" approach to find
the right resources and
providers to enable
communities to solve tiieir own
problems; and enable the
Superfund Program to focus on
Superfund. •
Results

 Funded NIEHS's minority
 worker trainng program in
 FY97 and started pilots at
 five Superfund sites
 through EPA s Superfund
 Jobs Training Initiative.
                            BENEFITS
 Next Steps

 •  Continue to award grants
   for health and safety
   programs.
  This initiative will help
  increase opportunities for
  job training and
  employment in
  neighborhoods affected
  by Superfund sites,
  particularly in socio-
  economically
  disadvantaged
  communities.
 76

-------
           Annual   Report   FY   1997
 SUCCESS!
ML  TaMcorp  Superfund  Site,
    Granite  City,  Illinois
  EPA Region 5 Superfund staff and the National Institute of Environmental
  Health Sciences (NIEHS) are working with an Environmental Justice (EJ)
  community at this site. This SuperJTI effort has included sending flyers on
  SuperJTI along with DePaul University's Minority Worker Training Program
  application to approximately 1,600 homes.  DePaul will begin an intensive
  screening/interviewing process to select approximately 20 people by the end
  of December, and start training in January. Similar to other Regions, training
  will include life skills training followed by the 40-hour OSHA approved health
  and safety course as well as lead and asbestos abatement courses
                                  RSR Smelter Site,
                                 West  Dallas,  Texas
 In West Dallas, EPA is working with the City of Dallas, New Start, the West
 Dallas Neighborhood Development Corporation (WDNDC) and Laborers AGC
 to provide 40-hour Hazardous Materials Workers training to community
 residents. WDNDC and New Start are recruiting the students and working with
 the City of Dallas to provide transportation to the training site.
                             Albuquerque, New  Mexico
 In Albuquerque, New Mexico, EPA is working with the United Brotherhood of
 Carpenters (UBC), NIEHS, and Dolores Hererra, of the AT&SF site, to offer the
 SuperJTI classes there.
                             Agriculture  Street Site,
                             New Orleans, Louisiana
 Several SuperJTI training initiatives are ongoing. Xavier University provided
 EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers with names of past graduates of the
 Xavier Minority Workers Training Program.  These certified students may be
 considered for work in the first phase of construction work at the community
                           Partnership  in  Chattanooga
                             Chattanooga, Tennessee
The Southeast Tennessee Private Industry Council (PIC), the Tennessee Valley
Authority (TVA), the Global Environmental Technology Foundation (GETF) and
the National Association of Minority Contractors (NAMC) have agreed to
partner with EPA on jobs training in Chattanooga. EPA Region 4 and NAMC
will augment the PIC/TVA/GETF "Envirojobs" program with hazmat training
and collaboration on a jobs fair. This SuperJTI effort for the Tennessee
Products site will serve the Alton Park/Piney Woods communities, through the
Community Advisory Group, by providing opportunities for jobs training and
enhanced access to community services. This is the first SuperJTI project that
does not rely upon NIEHS funding.
                                                                                   77

-------
                             Superfund  Reforms
78

-------
                          Annual  Report FY   1997
   CONSISTENT PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION
   2-8.     Guidance  for   Remedy  Selection
   To improve consistency and take advantage of streamlining opportunities in site characterization
   and remedy selection, EPA prepared the following documents: "Soil Screening Guidance";
   "Land-Use Directive"; and several Presumptive Remedy Guidance documents.
 Son. SCREENING GUIDANCE — EPA
 issued final "Soil Screening
 Guidance" (OSWER Directive
 9355.4-17A) on May 17, 1996.
 The soil screening levels
 established in the guidance will
 complement the ongoing
 Superfund Accelerated Cleanup
 Model (SACM) initiative and
 also provide the framework for
 other cleanup efforts, such as
 RCRA corrective actions,
 voluntary cleanup programs,
 and State/Tribal cleanup
 programs. Additionally, the
 development of soil screening
 levels will be useful in
 streamlining baseline risk
 assessment. The "Soil Screening
 Guidance: User's Guide," "Fact
 Sheet," and "Technical
 Background Document" also
 have been posted on the EPA/
 Superfund Homepage on the
 Internet.
 LAND-USE DIRECTIVE — On May
 25, 1995, EPA issued a new
 directive entitled, "Land Use in
 the CERCLA Remedy Selection
Process" (OSWER Directive
 9355.7-04). This memorandum
clarifies that land use should be
considered in risk assessment
and remedy selection. In
addition, it describes how the
assumptions about land use
 should be made by involving
 the community, considering the
 context of the site, and
 determining the site's potential
 for reuse. One of the
 memorandum's important
 messages is that an assumption
 of land use  other than
 residential (e.g., industrial) may
 be appropriate in remedy
 selection. The impact of this
 memorandum will be to create
 more remedies tailored to the
 specific context of sites, improve
 community involvement, and
 more support for cleanup
 decisions.

 PRESUMPTIVE REMEDIES — EPA
 issued a general presumptive
 remedy document, "Policy and
Procedures," in September
 1993. The Agency published
the  first Wood Treater
presumptive remedy along with
presumptive remedies forVOCs
in soils and  municipal landfills
in December 1995. EPA
completed the "Ground Water
Presumptive Response Strategy"
in October 1996. TheAgency
completed a "User's Guide for
VOCs in Soil Presumptive
Remedy" (OSWER Directive
9355.0-48FS) in July 1996. A
final draft of a "User's Guide to
   Results
   TheAgency has completed
   a supplemental bulletin
   which discusses the time
   and estimated future cost
   reductions demonstrated
   by the municipal landfill
   pilot sites. EPA estimates
   time savings ranging
   from 36 percent to 56
   percent, and future cost
   reductions up to 60
   percent at the municipal
   landfill pilots. In addition,
   "Municipal Landfill on
   Military Bases Presumptive
   Remedy," (OSWER
   Directive 9355.0-62FS)
   developed by the Office of
   Federal Facilities
   Enforcement, appears to be
   widely utilized.
Accompany the Wood Treaters
Presumptive Remedy" (OSWER
Directive 9200.5-162) was
issued for review and comment
in August 1996.  Although EPA s
primary focus is on the
development of new
presumptive remedies, it also
has begun to evaluate existing
presumptive remedies.
          (continued see Remedies)
                                                                                     79

-------
                              Superfund   Reforms
Rtmtdks continued...
EPA published the
"Manufactured Gas Plant
Presumptive Response Strategy"
in February 1997, and the
presumptive remedy for PCB
sites in April 1997. EPAhas
been engaged in a dialogue with
the Department of Agriculture
to produce a Grain Storage
presumptive remedy that would
bridge to the existing VOC and
Ground'Water presumptive
remedies. The Agency
developed a Metals in Soils
presumptive remedy in
partnership with DOE in FY97.
Currently, EPA is developing a
presumptive remedies
supplemental bulletin for future
beneficial uses of municipal
landfills. The Agency also is
preparing a supplemental
bulletin for dual- or multi-phase
extraction (MPE) to assist site

Next  Steps
                                SUCCESJ
                       Presumptive  Remedy Process
                                 Reglion 9
  Region 9 reports they have nine sites that selected the remedy recommended
  by the presumptive remedy guidance, or which are in the presumptive remedy
  process.
  The EPA Office of Inspector General (OIG) conducted an independent review of
  the use of presumptive remedies entitled, "Review of Cleanup and Pilot
  Project at South Indian Bend Wash Superfund Site in Tempo, Arizona."  In the
  summary of OIG's major findings, the report concluded: "Use of a
  Presumptive Remedy increased consistency in decision-making by taking
  advantage of lessons learned at similar sites, and allowed speedup of the
  Feasibility Study process." The report acknowledged that the use of
  "presumptive remedies is expected to create greater consistency, certainty
  and quality of remedy decisions in the near term. Time and cost savings are
  expected to increase over time	"
managers using theVOCs
presumptive remedy.
Additionally, OERR is
developing a list to track the
universe of presumptive remedy
sites. This list will aid in
evaluating the time and future
cost reductions for presumptive
remedies.  Future supplemental
bulletins that will document
time and future cost reductions,
as well as other benefits
associated widi the use of
presumptive remedies are
planned. •
 BEiNEFITS
   Issue a supplemental bulletin for multi-phase extraction to assist
   site managers using VOCs presumptive remedy
   Develop additional bulletins to document time and future cost
   reductions
   Continue evaluating existing presumptive remedies
      EPA estimates that
      recommendations from
      these guidance
      documents have been
      implemented at an
      increasing number of
      sites, resulting in
      significant cost and time
      savings.
                                 Contacts
                                 Andrea Mclaughlin, OERR,
                                 (703) 603-8793
                        '" B  ef o r m   E  va  1 u at  i on
         I               I    | J     ( * \jf# ^  i     u iffr  u tjf  V   ft  N ^ n*<*-H,)t * i^^"^^        ^t I
    the presumptive remedies for municipal landfills andVOCs in soil were'issued in September
    1 ^S.the presumptive remedy for woodtreater sites was issued in December 1995. OERR is
    evaluating the degree to which they are being implemented, the effectiveness of the
    presumptive remedy approach for these site categories, and any benefits resulting from
    implementation of the presumptive remedies. In order to make this evaluation, "OERR is
    developing data sets on sites where the presumptive remedy has been implemented and
    candidate presumptive remedy sites in the pipeline. Also OERR is incorporating an RPM
    notification system for presumptive remedy sites into WASTELAN (CERCUS 3).
 80

-------
                          Annual  Report  FY   1997
   2-9.a.  Risk  Sharing:  implementing  Innovative
              Technology

   EPA will agree to share the risks associated with implementing innovative technologies for a
   limited number of approved projects by "underwriting" the use of certain promising innovative
   approaches.
 In order to encourage PRPs to
 try new approaches, EPA may
 agree to reimburse up to 50
 percent of the cost of selected
 innovative remedies if the
 remedy fails and subsequent
 remedial action is required.
 EPA has agreed to risk-sharing
 at one site.

 The Agency is in the process of
 preparing  guidance on
 implementing the risk-sharing
 initiative, which is expected by
February 1998.  Also, given the
increased State role in
remediation, EPA is interested
in engaging State agencies in
this initiative. •
B E N E FITfe
      Promotes use of
      innovative technologies
      that may achieve faster,
      less costly cleanups by
      mitigating the risks
      associated with
      implementing these
      projects.
    Results
   EPA has entered a risk-
   sharing agreement with a
   PRP at one site. The Agency
   has begun preparing
   guidance that will direct
   future risk-sharing
   initiatives.
Next Steps

• Issue guidance on
  implementing the risk-
  sharing initiative
• Explore ways to involve State
  agencies in risk-sharing
  agreements.
Contacts
Jim Cummings.TIO,
(703) 603-7197

John Kingscott,TIO,
(703) 603-7189
 SUCCESJ
                                        Somersworth, New Hampshire
                                                          	~~"^^™^^"^^^"^^^B^M
    Under.VJSck"sharing agreement with a PRP, EPA agreed to pay half the cost of the innovative technology not to
    exceed $3.5 rn.ll.on if the technology does not fulfill expectations and additional remedial action is Ssarv The
    technology mvplved, an innovative "funnel and gate," helps to restore ground water by channeling the flowTo a
    permeable wall conta.nmg ,ron filings. Contaminants are removed as they pass through the gate. If successful
    this in sift/technology may serve as an alternative to costly and protracted "pump and treat" approaches
                                                                                      81

-------
                            Superfund  Reforms
  2-9.b. Risk   Sharing:   Identifying   Obstacles   to
            Using  Innovative  Technology
  EPA developed programs to share implementation risks associated with the use of innovative
  technologies.
Following discussions with
some members of the Response
Action Contractor (RAC)
community, EPA learned that the
lack of indemnification for
prime contractors is hampering
the use of innovative
technology. Prime contractors
are unwilling to recommend
innovative technologies for fear
that they will be sued for
negligence in not recording
"tried and tested" technologies.
Without indemnincation, there
is little incentive for the prime
contractors to select an
innovative technology.
Furthermore, a prime contractor
may not choose to test an
innovative technology if, again,
there is a fear of lawsuits if the
technology does not perform as
expected.
BENEFITS
     Promotes the use of
     innovative cleanup
     technologies.
 To address these concerns, EPA
 is expanding indemnification
 coverage to include both the
 prime contractor and the
 innovative technology
 contractor when
 indemnification is offered.
 Thus, both the technology
 vendor and the prime will be
 provided protection from third
 party negligence claims that
 may result from a pollution
 release. A statement on EPA's
 offering of indemnification is
 presented in an "Innovative
 Technology Policy Directive"
  Results
 EPA has expanded
 indemnification coverage to
 include both the prime
 contractor and the
 innovative technology
 contractor. The Agency's
  1996 document,
  "Innovative Technology
 Policy Directive," provides a
  clear statement of EPA's
  indemnification policy.
(OSWER Directive 9380.0-25)
published by OSWER on
April 29, 1996. To date, this
protection has not been
requested by any vendors or
primes. Implementation of this
reform is considered complete. •
     Contact
     Barbara McDonough, OSWER,
     (202) 260-6674-
                               Next Steps
                                             '!
                               •  Implementation of this
                                 reform is complete.
  82

-------
                          Annual  Report  FY   1997
   STATE AND TRIBAL EMPOWERMENT
   2-10.  Voluntary   Cleanup  Program

   EPA seeks to support and promote effective State/Tribal voluntary cleanup programs, and, in
   conjunction with the Brownfields Initiative, provide limited financial assistance to such
   programs.
 Approximately 35 States have
 implemented voluntary cleanup
 programs (VCP). Eleven States
 (Missouri, Michigan, Minnesota,
 Wisconsin, Indiana, Illinois,
 Texas, Colorado, Delaware,
 Rhode Island and Maryland)
 signed Memoranda of
 Agreement (MOAs) with their
 respective Regions concerning
 how EPA and the States will
 work together to support
 protective cleanups of voluntary
 cleanup program sites and
 sustainable redevelopment of
 Brownfields sites.

 On September 9, 1997, EPA
 issued draft guidance on
 developing Superfund Regional/
 State Memoranda of Agreement
 concerning State voluntary
 cleanup programs.  EPA
 reviewed the 78 comments
 submitted to the docket for this
 draft guidance as well as other
 communications and outreach
 efforts with stakeholders. Based
 on this review, it is clear that
 there is currently no consensus
 among various stakeholders on
 critical aspects of the guidance
 or on the appropriate course of
 action for EPA. It does not seem
 likely that the Agency could
 issue a final guidance in a timely
manner. Therefore, EPA has
withdrawn the proposed final
 draft guidance it published in
 the Federal Register.  EPA/State
 MOAs concerning State VCPs
 continue to be a good way for
 EPA to promote effective
 programs and their success.  Por
 negotiation of future MOAs,
 Regions should look to the
 November 14, 1996,
 memorandum entitled "Interim
 Approaches for Regional
 Relations with State Voluntary
 Cleanup Programs" as a
 framework for these
 negotiations. This will enable
 Regions and States to negotiate
 MOAs on a case-by-case basis
 that can be customized to better
 fit the State's voluntary cleanup
 program and legislation. •

 Next  Steps

 •  EPA anticipates signing up to
   $15 million in cooperative
   agreements during FY98
 Contact
Ann McDonough, OSWER,
 (202) 260-0145
  Results
  35 States have implemented
  voluntary cleanup programs
  (VCP) since the program's
  inception. 11 States have
  signed Memoranda of
  Agreement (MOAs) with
  their respective Regions. A
  November 1996
  memorandum, "Interim
  Approaches for Regional
  Relations with State Voluntary
  Cleanup Programs," provides
  a framework for MOA
  negotiations.
B E N E FITS
      Promotes cooperation
      between States/Tribes
      and Regions.
      Provides limited financial
      assistance to State/Tribal
      voluntary cleanup
      programs.
                 o rm  Etv a  Lu $ t i
 -^Through core cooperativejgreeraents, EPA distributed $10 '
  million of FY97 funding to supportState Voluntary Cleanup  """
  Program infrastructure.  EPA's FY9^8 budget is $15 milhWfof>
 .VCPinfrastructureiugport. The November 14,,1996
  memorandum completes^this.refbrm.         >   -  »'
                                                                                    83

-------
                             Superfund  ft e f
                      o r m s
  2-11,   Integrated  Federal/  State/Tribal  Site
             Management   Program
  EPA and States are working together to develop a pilot program under which States, Territories,
  Commonwealths, and Federally recognized Tribes would oversee and compel PRP actions at
  selected NPL-caliber sites.                                                        ~
On May 2, 1995, EPA issued
final guidance on the deferral
program. The deferral program
allows EPA to defer listing
considerations for NPL-caliber
sites while States and Tribes
initiate and oversee PRP
responses. The Agency
originally expected to evaluate
the pilots to determine how to
improve the guidance to
fadlitafe greater State
empowerment and more
effective cleanups.

In addition to implementing the
deferral program, EPA Regional
offices worked to increase State
participation through innovative
site characterization cooperative
agreements (CA) and new
funding for Tribes. •


     Contact
     Marti Otto, OERR,
     (703) 603-8853


 Next Steps

 • Evaluate OIG review of State
   deferrals and determine
   appropriate followup actions.
BENEFITS
      Facilitates State
      empowerment and more
      effective cleanups by
      deferring sites from NPL
      listing and handing
      cleanup responsibilities
      to State or Tribal
      environmental agencies.
 Results
EPA has signed deferral
agreements with 12
States, covering 30
Sites. 12 of these sites have
completed the remedy
selection phase. The Agency's
Regional offices have also
increased State participation
through characterization
cooperative agreements (CA)
and additional Tribal funding.
        SUCCESS
 Remedies
         The FY95 and FY96 EPA appropriations reports required EPA
         to obtain Governors' concurrence as a prerequisite to listing
         sites on the NPL, and this had the effect oi reducing the
         importance and effectiveness of this reform. Also, the need
         for the reform has been reduced as a result of the growing
         importance of State voluntary cleanup programs. Still, as of
         November 1997, EPA has signed deferral agreements,
         covering 30 sites, with 12 states, and four of those
         agreements have been signed over the past two years.
         Remedies have been selected at 12 of the sites.
            Reform   IvaIu  at ion
    In 1997, the Office of Inspector General (OIG), with Support
    from OERR, initiated a review of Superfund deferral sites,
    including State deferrals.  OERR will be working with the OIG
    to evaluate the results of the review and determine appropriate
     n'ftj. '/	diW  .,".'. (  ,  ....  „ ', '   •'* ,'••', y, "; .' ' ,''- ./i;1,1  ' •  '    '- •'•::;||,;1'1; „'- '.  ••' 	:
    followup actions.
 84

-------
                           Annual  Report  FY  1997
    2-12.   State/Tribal  Superfund  Block  Funding
    Superfund Block Funding offers ways for States and Tribes to realize greater flexibility in their
    use of Cooperative Agreement (CA) resources. EPA, working in conjunction with States and
    Tribes, has developed recommendations to enhance State and Tribal involvement throuqh
    improved administration of assistance agreements.
 In March 1995, EPA s Office of
 Emergency and Remedial
 Response (OERR) formed the
 Superfund Block Funding
 Workgroup to explore ways in
 which States and Tribes could
 realize greater flexibility in their
 use of Cooperative Agreement
 resources.  EPA currently enters
 into several types of site- and
 non-site-specific cooperative
 agreements with States to
 conduct or assist Superfund
 response actions. The
 Workgroup has developed
 recommendations to enhance
 State involvement in Superfund
 through improved
 administration of assistance
 agreements. The intent of this
 initiative is to incorporate block
 funding recommendations into
 program operational
 procedures. The Block Funding
 Workgroup report is complete
 and was distributed.

 In order to insure the benefits
 derived from the Block Funding
 recommendations are realized,
 OERR has developed a block
 funding implementation plan
that includes the following
activities:
        OERR is working with
        the Office of the Comp-
        troller to insure that
        regions are allowed to
        shift funds from existing
        cooperative agreements
        to block funding
        cooperative agreements.
        FY98 deobligation
        guidance allows for this
       procedure.
       Class Deviations from
       parts of 40 CFR Part 31
       and 40 CFR Part 35 have
       been submitted.
       Monitoring, evaluating,
       and refining implemen-
       tation.
       Documenting Agency-
       wide and State govern-
       ment savings in full-time
       equivalents (FTE), as
       well as, in increased
       improvement
       of program
       implementation. •
Next Steps
  Issue final report
  documenting obstacles in
  awarding and utilization of
  Superfund resources (12/97)
  Evaluate ongoing pilots in
  FY98
  Results
  EPA established a 50-
  member workgroup on
  block funding which
  included input from 17
  States and Tribes. Block
  Funding Pilot projects
  launched under the
  recommendations
  developed by the
  workgroup are already
  manifesting resource
  savings to both levels of
  government. For example,
 the State of Illinois is
 reporting an 85 percent
 reduction  in
 preparation and
 processing of
 paperwork due to
 regulatory deviations
 received under their Block
 Funding Pilot. Regulatory
 deviations from portions
 of 40 CFR Part 31,
 procured under the
 auspices of the Block
 Funding Reform, allowed
 the State of Illinois to cut
 at least three months out
 of the remedial process for
 one Superfund site and
 insured that construction
 would not be delayed into
	   (continued see Results)
                                                                                      85

-------
                                  Superfund  Reforms
Results, continued


  the next construction
  season. The following nine
  States and three Tribes are
  currently piloting the
  Block Funding reform:
  Colorado, Illinois, Hawaii,
  Massachusetts, Minnesota,
  Missouri, Nevada, Ohio,
  Utah, the HoopaTribe, the
  Tohono O'Odham Tribe,
  and the Gila River Tribe.
     Allows States and Tribes
     to direct CA funds
     between sites and
     activities to the extent
     allowed by the Advice of
     Allowance.

     Insures that States have
     the ability to transfer
     funds from site and
     activity, within the
     approved tasks for the
     cooperative agreement,
     without prior EPA
     approval.

     Reduces specific
     administrative budget
     and reporting
     requirements, where
     appropriate, which can
     produce resource saving
     for both levels of
     government.
                                      iUCCESSI
                                                                         1 o c! k  Grant
   In January 1996, Illinois EPA and USEPA began work on the Block Grant
concept as a way to streamline the state role and its linkage to Federal
funding. Both agencies agreed that this pilot should cover as many sites as
possible while leaving fiscal safeguards in place. USEPA also was seeking
some relief in the number of CA amendments that it was processing.

By the end of 1996, Illinois EPA had completed status reports and budgets for
each site, the Core Grant, and the Site Assessment Grant, which were
included as part of the Block Grant. Illinois EPA's application was fairly
straightforward and not as difficult as originally anticipated. USEPA-
Superfund seemed to have the more difficult job of convincing other
segments of USEPA to loosen control and oversight. They also were faced
with deobligation, reobligation, deviation requests and Headquarters
concerns. Nevertheless, the Block Grant was awarded in  February 1997.

The Block Grant has resulted in far fewer CA amendments in 1997 as
compared to 1996.  In that year, USEPA processed 7 Illinois EPA CA
applications. With only one quarter left in FY97, Illinois EPA had only
submitted one CA application. This is a dramatic 85 percent drop in the
preparation and processing of fiscal paperwork due to the Block Grant. This
has saved both USEPA and Illinois EPA a great deal of time, effort, and
resources which are better spent on cleanups.

The Block Grant also has allowed Illinois EPA to go from quarterly reporting to
bi-yearly reporting. While Illinois EPA continues to send quarterly financial
statements for cost recovery purposes, project status updates are now sent on
a bi-yearly basis. This has resulted in a 50 percent drop in the effort expended
in reporting.
The Block Grant allows Illinois ERA to transfer money from one project to
 another based on need and changing program priorities. Illinois EPA is
 required to report on each budget shift, but prior USEPA approval is not
 needed and delays associated with CA application preparation and processing
 are largely eliminated.
 Illinois EPA has recently decided to use the Block Grant's flexibility to transfer
 additional money into the Parsons Casket project.  The Parsons Casket ROD
 was completed by Illinois EPA in September 1996.  USEPA decided at that
 time to pursue a settlement with a former owner of the site. In October 1997,
 USEPA announced a tentative cash-out settlement with the PRP. Instead of
 waiting until the next fiscal year for available funds, this  settlement allows
 Illinois EPA to immediately begin design work on the remedy. The Block
 Grant's use has cut at least three months out of the remedial process and has
 insured that the remedy is constructed in the next construction season.
 Without the Block Grant, design and contractor procurement would have
 prevented construction in FY98.

 Illinois EPA continues to believe that the Block Grant is a necessity for the
 State role in a reauthorized Superfund Program.
                v*". K11;1!!',	:'; 7.KWR*.J!%Kn.
                      Contacts
                      Ken Fisher, OERR,
                      (703) 603-8764

                      Kirby Biggs, OERR,
                      (703) 308-8506
 86

-------

-------
o |[ Q.


   -* DO
   o c
   ~" w
            b    £"
             O    T)




             I    I
             O    O
                   CO

                   CD

-------