500R05002
October 11,2005
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT Long Term Stewardship Task Force Report and the Development of
Implementation Options tor the Task Force Recommendations
t ROM Thomas P Dunne, Acting Assistant Administrator /s/
Barry N Brccn, Deputy Assistant Administrator /s/
TO OSWER Office and Staff Directors
Supcrfund, RCRA Tanks, and Brownfields Regional Directors
Regional Counsels
Susan Bromm, Office of Site Remediation and Enforcement
Scott Sherman, Office of General Counsel
The attached report, ' Long-Term Stewardship Ensuring Environmental Site Cleanups
Remain Protective Over Time," is a result of a two-year effort by the Long-Term Stewardship
(LTS) Task Force established under the One Cleanup Program The Task Force was comprised
of represcntatn cs from each of OSWER's program offices, OECA, OGC, Regions and the states
of Arizona Illinois, Missouri, New Jersey and Virginia The Task Force was charged to identify
and examine the wide spectrum of LTS issues, perspectives, and ongoing activities - and
recommend potential activities tor EPA to consider in its planning We thank the Task Force
members tor their time and effort in producing this report We believe that this document will be
a good point of departure in developing an implementation strategy for LTS issues
LTS encompasses a broad range of complex issues and many State, Federal and local
programs are dealing \\ ith them The Task Force suggests that EPA work with its regulatory
partners to determine the strategic priority for activities to be implemented Therefore, we have
asked the Land Rcvitahzation Office to work with your offices, Region 6 (as the sub-lead region
tor land rc\ italization), OECA, OGC, and the states to identity and analyze implementation
options to address the LTS Task Force recommendations We would like to have the
implementation options available to share with ASTSWMO, ECOS and other Federal agencies
by January 31 2006 We have also directed the Land Rc\ italization Office to ensure that the
implementation options address LTS issues at federal facilities, as agreed to in the Memorandum
of Understanding (MOU) between EPA, ECOS, the Department of Defense, the Department of
Interior, and the Department of Energy
September 2005
-------
We look forward to your continuing involvement in LTS planning and future
collaborative efforts Please provide the name of your staff lead tor this project to Ellen Manges
(Land Revitahzation Otfice staft lead) by October 18
cc Long-Term Stewardship Task Force,
Jennifer Anderson OOC Solid Waste and Emergency Response Law Office
Michael Bellot, OSWER, Office of Superfimd Remediation and Technology Innovation
Erica Dameron, Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
Dan Forger, Region 2 Emergency and Remedial Response Division
Robert Geller, Missouri Department of Natural Resources
Steven Hirsh Region 1 Hazardous Site Cleanup Division
Tracy Hopkins, OSWER, Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation
Gary King, Illinois Em ironmental Protection Agency
Carlos Lago OSWER Office of Solid Waste
Ellen Manges OSWER Land Revitahzation Office
Monica McEaddy, OSWER, Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse Otfice
Cindy Parker Region 6, Compliance Assurance and Enforcement Division
Nancy Porter OSWER Office of Brownfields Cleanup and Rede\elopment
Bob Soboleski, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
Amanda Stone Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
Greg Sullivan OECA, Office of Site Remediation and Enforcement
Kristin Underwood, OSWER, Office of Underground Storage Tanks
Joseph Vescio, OSWER, Office of Underground Storage Tanks
Attachment
September 2005 iti
-------
Acknowledgments
For more information or questions concerning this report, contact the project leader
Ellen Manges
Land Revitalizetion Office
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
U S Environmental Protection Agency
Ariel Rios Building
1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 566-0195
manges ellen@epa gov
This report would not have been possible without the contribution of the many individuals listed
below who participated in EPA's Long-Term Stewardship Task Force The Task Force was
organized and chaired by EPA's Land Revitalization Office (Edward Chu, Acting Director) within
the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Jennifer Anderson, OGC, Solid Waste and Emergency Response Law Office
Michael Bellot, OSWER, Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation
Erica Dameron, Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
Dan Forger, Region 2, Emergency and Remedial Response Division
Robert Geller, Missouri Department of Natural Resources
Steven Hirsh, Region 3, Hazardous Site Cleanup Division
Tracy Hopkins, OSWER, Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation
Gary King, Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Carlos Lago, OSWER, Office of Solid Waste
Ellen Manges, OSWER, Land Revitalization Office (Task Force Chair)
Monica McEaddy, OSWER, Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse Office
Cindy Parker, Region 6, Compliance Assurance and Enforcement Division
Nancy Porter, OSWER, Office of Brownfields Cleanup and Redevelopment
Bob Soboleski, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
Amanda Stone, Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
Greg Sullivan, OECA, Office of Site Remediation and Enforcement
Kristin Underwood, OSWER, Office of Underground Storage Tanks
Joseph Vescio, OSWER, Office of Underground Storage Tanks
This report was prepared for the U S Environmental Protection Agency by SRA
International, Inc , under Contract No 68 W-01-048
September 2005 iv
-------
Page intentionally left blank
September 2005
-------
Disclaimer
This report is a work product of the Long-Term Stewardship Task Force The report is intended
to provide information to EPA management, program staff, and other stakeholders for their
consideration and to inform and encourage discussion on the topic The statements in this
document do not constitute official Agency policy, do not represent an Agency-wide position, and
are not binding on EPA or any other party
September 2005
-------
Page intentionally left blank
September 2005 vn
-------
Table of Contents
Executive Summary 1
Task Force Recommendations Summary 2
Introduction 4
What is Long-Term Stewardship7 6
Why is Long-Term Stewardship Important7 9
What Are EPA and Others Doing about Long-Term Stewardship7 10
Challenges and Recommendations 14
Challenge- Ensuring that Stakeholder Roles and Responsibilities Are Clearly Understood
14
Recommendation #1 EPA should continue to review its decision documents,
agreements, and other tools as appropriate, to ensure that site-specific Long-Term
Stewardship (LTS) roles and responsibilities are clearly delineated 16
Recommendation #2 EPA should continue to develop guidance addressing LTS
implementation and assurance across its cleanup programs, as appropriate 17
Recommendation #3 EPA, State, and Tribal cleanup programs and other Federal
agencies should invest more time working with and building stronger relationships with
local governments, and conduct more training and outreach to help them better define
and understand their potential specific LTS roles/responsibilities 17
Recommendation #4 (Cross-Cutting) EPA should partner with other Federal agencies
and State, Tribal, and local government organizations to sponsor one or more "summits"
in which representatives from Federal, State, Tribal and local agencies can share their
perspectives and insights on LTS 18
Challenge Ensuring that LTS Information Is Managed and Shared Effectively 19
Recommendation #5 EPA should continue to facilitate the maintenance and exchange
of LTS information through existing grants and other resources, and by establishing and
promoting data standards (e g , data element registries and XML schema and tags) 20
Recommendation #6 EPA should continue to support the development of mechanisms
for sharing information to prevent breaches of institutional and engineering controls 20
September 2005 v>"
-------
Challenge* Understanding and Considering the Full, Life-cycle Costs of Long-Term
Stewardship When Making Cleanup Decisions 22
Recommendation #7 EPA should evaluate current ITS costing guidance and, if
appropriate, either revise them or develop new guidance to improve the Agency's ability
to produce more consistent and reliable cost estimates As appropriate, EPA should draw
on existing governmental and non-governmental studies and information for estimating
LTS costs 22
Challenge* Ensuring the Effective Implementation of Institutional Controls 24
Recommendation #8 EPA should develop mechanisms and criteria across its cleanup
programs for evaluating the effectiveness of institutional controls (ICs) at sites 25
Recommendation #9 EPA should support the development of an analysis of ICs to
determine the reliance on (and burden to) State, Tribal, and local governments 25
Recommendation #10 To enhance the availability and reliability of ICs, EPA should
encourage States to review and consider the Uniform Environmental Covenants Act or
similar legal provisions for potential State applicability 26
Challenge- Ensuring the Effective Implementation and Evaluation of Engineering
Controls 27
Recommendation #11 EPA should adopt a flexible approach for re-evaluating the
effectiveness of engineering controls (ECs) and, if appropriate, modifying ECs to optimize
remedial system performance and minimize LTS costs 28
Challenge: Ensuring that Funding and Other Resource Needs Are Adequate and
Sustainable 29
Recommendation #12 EPA should work with outside organizations to explore adequate
and sustainable funding sources and mechanisms at the Federal, State, and local level to
monitor, oversee, and enforce LTS activities 30
Recommendation #13 EPA should continue to explore the role of the private sector in
supporting the LTS of sites and foster their involvement, as appropriate 30
Appendix A Key Long-Term Stewardship Themes Gathered from Other Agencies and
Groups 31
Appendix B Long-Term Stewardship Studies and Initiatives 34
September 2005 ix
-------
Executive Summary
The cleanup remedies for contaminated sites and properties often require the management and
oversight of on-site waste materials and contaminated environmental media for long periods of
time Long-Term Stewardship (ITS) generally refers to the activities and processes used to
control and manage these material and media, and ensure protection of human health and the
environment over time Clear and effective ITS allows for beneficial and protective use of these
properties The EPA and its regulatory partners rely on ITS after construction of the remedy and
for as long as wastes are controlled on site LTS can last many years, decades, or in some cases,
even longer LTS involves ongoing coordination and communication among numerous
stakeholders, each with different responsibilities, capabilities, and information needs The
importance of LTS is even clearer when you consider that thousands of contaminated sites
throughout the U S may now or in the near future require post-cleanup monitoring and
maintenance
LTS is increasingly presenting challenges and issues to EPA and other regulatory agencies
responsible for ensuring its implementation, oversight, and enforcement In response, EPA
identified and gathered State and EPA staff with a broad perspective of views to form the Long-
Term Stewardship Task Force in spring 2004 The LTS Task Force consists of representatives from
EPA and States in the Brownfields, Superfund, RCRA, Federal Facilities, and Underground Storage
Tank (UST) cleanup and enforcement programs The Task Force was asked to identify and
examine the wide spectrum of LTS issues, perspectives, and ongoing activities - and recommend
potential activities for EPA to consider in its planning LTS encompasses a broad range of
complex issues and many State, Federal and local programs are dealing with them The Task
Force recognized that not all of the report recommendations may be acted upon or appropriate
for every program, and suggests that EPA work with its regulatory partners to determine the
strategic priority for activities to be implemented
The purpose of this report is to present the particular LTS challenges and opportunities for
improvement identified by the Task Force, and to make recommendations for how EPA and its
State, Tribal, and local partners should proceed in addressing them This report also includes a
definition of long-term stewardship, why long-term stewardship is important, and what EPA and
others are currently doing to address LTS issues
The Task Force addressed a variety of challenges facing EPA and its partners when they select,
implement, monitor, and enforce LTS responsibilities These challenges generally fall into the
following six categories roles and responsibilities, institutional controls (ICs), engineering
controls (ECs), costing, funding and resources, and information management Within these
categories, the Task Force identified recommendations that EPA pursue to respond to the
challenges most seriously impacting Federal, State, Tribal, and local government abilities at LTS
sites While these recommendations are focused on EPA activities, many of them may be
beneficial to other Federal, State, Tribal, and local program activities In addition, the Task
Force recognizes that EPA's cleanup programs operate under different authorities, may approach
the cleanup and stewardship of sites differently, or may already be addressing the challenges
identified in this report For this reason, certain challenges or recommendations may not apply
to every cleanup program
t VVVVVVVVVVVWVWVYVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVlV.Vv' V
September 2005
-------
Task Force Recommendations Summary
Roles and Responsibilities (page 14)
1 EPA should continue to review its decision documents, agreements, and other tools as
appropriate, to ensure that site-specific LTS roles and responsibilities are clearly
delineated (pase 16)
2 EPA should continue to develop guidance addressing LTS implementation and assurance
across its cleanup programs, as appropriate (page 17)
3 EPA, State, and Tribal cleanup programs and other Federal agencies should invest more
time working with and building stronger relationships with local governments, and
conduct more training and outreach, to help them better define and understand their
potential specific LTS roles/responsibilities (page 17)
4 EPA should partner with other Federal agencies and State, Tribal, and local government
organizations to sponsor one or more "summits" in which representatives from Federal,
State, Tribal and local agencies can share their perspectives and insights on LTS (page
18)
Information Management (page 19)
5 EPA should continue to facilitate the maintenance and exchange of LTS information
through existing grants and other resources, and by establishing and promoting data
standards (e g , data element registries and XML schema and tags) (page 20)
6 EPA should continue to support the development of mechanisms for sharing information
to prevent breaches of institutional and engineering controls (page 20)
LTS Costs (page 22)
7 EPA should evaluate current LTS costing guidance and, if appropriate, either revise it or
develop new guidance to improve the Agency's ability to produce more consistent and
reliable cost estimates As appropriate, EPA should draw on existing governmental and
non-governmental studies and information for estimating LTS costs (page 22)
Institutional Controls JICs) (page 24)
8 EPA should develop mechanisms and criteria across its cleanup programs for evaluating
the effectiveness of ICs at sites (page 25)
9 EPA should support the development of an analysis of institutional controls to determine
the reliance on (and burden to) State, Tribal, and local governments (page 25)
10 To enhance the availability and reliability of ICs, EPA should encourage States to review
the Uniform Environmental Covenants Act or similar legal provisions for potential state
applicability (page 26)
September 2005
-------
Engineering Controls (ECs) (page 27)
11 EPA should adopt a flexible approach for re-evaluating the effectiveness of ECs and, if
appropriate, modifying ECs to optimize remedial system performance and minimize LTS
costs (page 28)
LTS Funding and Resources (page Z9)
12 EPA should work with outside organizations to explore adequate and sustainable funding
sources and mechanisms at the Federal, State, and local level to monitor, oversee, and
enforce LTS activities (page 30)
13. EPA should continue to explore the rote of the private sector in supporting the LTS of
sites and foster their involvement, as appropriate (page 30)
September 2005
-------
Introduction
Long-term stewardship (LTS) of contaminated
sites is taking on greater significance as an
increasing number of these sites are cleaned
up and put back into beneficial use Many
sites cleaned up under Federal and State
programs involve restrictions or limits on their
use to ensure long-term protection of human
health and the environment Long-term
cleanup requirements and any subsequent
restrictions at these sites should be monitored,
maintained, and enforced to ensure that the
integrity of the remedy is protected and the
site remains protective of people and the
environment Federal, State, Tribal, and local
governments, responsible parties, and other
site stakeholders serve as long-term stewards
for many cleaned up sites
The U S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
formed the Long-Term Stewardship Task Force
to evaluate the current state of long-term
stewardship across its cleanup programs and to
make recommendations for where EPA should
focus its efforts to address particular issues or
opportunities for improvements The Task Force
includes representatives from each of EPA's
cleanup programs, including the Superfund,
Resource Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA),
Underground Storage Tank (UST), Brownfields,
Federal facilities, and enforcement programs,
and several State cleanup programs The Task
Force examined a variety of aspects associated
with LTS, with an emphasis on the following six
elements
• Roles and responsibilities—Who is or
should be responsible for implementing
and overseeing LTS activities, and are
these responsibilities understood and
clearly communicated7
• Information management—Is there
adequate information on LTS activities,
is it effectively communicated, and is
there a need for improved information
and training7
• Institutional Controls-Are there
problems with implementation and
effectiveness of ICs and are there
opportunities for improving how they
are selected, implemented, monitored,
and enforced7
• Engineering controls/remedies - Are
there problems with engineering
controls and opportunities for re-
evaluating them and the physical
remedies to reflect changing science
and technology, improve performance,
and optimize operation and
maintenance without minimizing
human health and environmental
protection
• Life-cycle costs-Are there effective
methods for determining the costs of
LTS activities and are cleanup programs
consistently applying them when
making cleanup decisions7
• Resources and funding mechamsms-
Are there adequate resources to
effectively carry out LTS activities and
are there mechanisms to ensure
funding is sustained over time7
The purpose of this report is to present
particular challenges and opportunities for
improvement identified by the Task Force
and to make recommendations that EPA
and its State, Tribal, and local partners
should consider in addressing them This
report represents the first effort by the
Task Force to identify and address the
challenges that EPA's cleanup programs are
facing As the state of LTS evolves across
the different cleanup programs, new or
different issues may emerge that may
result in additional recommendations
Similarly, as the Task Force and EPA's
cleanup programs continue to address the
many issues inherent in LTS, lessons
learned and new solutions may be
identified and shared with other programs
September 2005
-------
The remainder of the report provides the currently doing to address it, and the
background or context of LTS (including a specific ITS challenges and
definition and explanation of its recommendations of the Task Force
importance), what EPA and others are
September 2005
-------
What is Long-Term Stewardship?
The Task Force established the following
definition of ITS
Long-term stewardship applies to sites
where long-term management of
contaminated environmental media is
necessary to protect human health and the
environment Long term stewardship
generally includes the establishment and
maintenance of physical and legal
controls, implementation entities,
authorities, accountability mechanisms,
information and data management
systems, and resources that are necessary
to ensure that these sites remain
protective of human health and the
environment '
ITS activities typically center on physical and
legal controls to prevent inappropriate
exposure to contamination left in place at a
site Physical or "engineered" controls are the
engineered physical barriers or structures
designed to monitor and prevent or limit
exposure to the contamination Certain
engineered cleanups will involve ongoing O&M,
monitoring, evaluation, periodic repairs, and
sometimes replacement of remedy
components Legal or "institutional" controls
are non-engineered instruments, such as
administrative and/or legal controls intended
to minimize the potential for human exposure
to contamination by limiting land or resource
use Institutional controls may be used to
supplement engineering controls and also must
be operated, monitored, and evaluated for
effectiveness as long as the risks at a site are
present Informational devices, such as signs,
state registries and deed notices, are
commonly used informational, non-
enforceable tools.
Examples of Engineering Controls
Landfill soil caps
Impermeable liners
Other containment covers
Underground slurry walls
Fences
Bioremediation
Groundwater pump and treat and
monitoring systems
Examples of Institutional Controls
Zoning
Notices and warnings
Easements
Restrictive covenants
Other land or resource use restrictions
Permits/Governmental Controls
Administrative Orders
1 This definition should not in any way infringe
upon or limit the authority of any party to carry
out its responsibilities under various Federal
and State laws
The functions of institutional controls,
engineering controls, and other tools are to
protect human health and the environment
and to preserve the integrity of the selected
remedy
LTS helps ensure the ability of people to reuse
those sites in a safe and protective manner
While reuse of a site is beneficial to the
affected community, site reuse can also help
ensure the protection of the remedy itself
For example, sites with active users can help
ensure that LTS requirements or activities are
occurring, as well as ensure that inappropriate
uses of the site are not occurring (i e , vacant
sites that can be targets for trespass,
vandalism, or inappropriate uses that may
damage the remedies) In addition, because
the use or condition of a site can change over
time, it is important that LTS activities adapt
to those changes and that adjustments to LTS
activities are made
LTS typically involves numerous public and
private stakeholders who are responsible for
implementing, monitoring, and enforcing the
September 2005
-------
engineering and institutional controls These
stakeholders may include government agencies
at the Federal, State, Tribal, and local levels,
private parties who either own the land or
otherwise have an interest in the property,
communities and local groups living near or
affected by the site, as well as a potential range
of other parties, such as land developers,
financial institutions, insurance companies, and
land or other third party trusts Each
stakeholder involved at a site plays a particular
role and has certain responsibilities for carrying
out stewardship activities
Even though the various cleanup programs have
different authorities and mechanisms for
addressing LTS, there are common elements
inherent to all LTS efforts As part of its
research, the Task Force has compiled a set of
themes/ideas that may be of interest to other
LTS programs (see Appendix A)
Because the authorities and responsibilities for
carrying out these activities vary across the
different cleanup programs, each program may
approach LTS differently and face different
types of issues For example
• Under the Superfund program, LTS
activities are performed as part of the
operation and maintenance (O&M) of a
remedy Responsibility for O&M is
contingent upon whether the cleanup
was conducted by a potentially
responsible party (PRP), including
Federal facilities, or whether EPA
funded the cleanup For PRP-lead
remedies, the PRP continues to operate
and maintain the remedy during O&M,
and EPA provides oversight to ensure
that it is being performed adequately
At federal facilities, LTS may be
transferred to another entity, such as
another Federal agency, State, or
Tribe For fund-financed remedies,
States are required to pay for or assure
that O&M is completed, EPA can only
fund the oversight of O&M EPA retains
responsibility for determining when
O&M is complete and for conducting a
review and evaluation of the remedy at
least every five years For fund-lead,
long-term response actions involving
treatment or other measures to restore
groundwater or surface-water quality,
EPA funds the operation of those
activities for a period up to ten years
after the remedy becomes operational
and functional After ten years,
responsibility for 0&M is transferred to
the State EPA requires five-year
review at sites that cannot support
unlimited use and unrestricted
exposure In some cases, even sites
deleted from Superfund's National
Priorities List include an LTS
component
Under the RCRA program, cleanups are
conducted in connection with the
closure of regulated units and in
facility-wide corrective action either
under a permit, imminent hazard, or
other order or agreement While not
all facilities are subject to the post-
closure requirements—only land
disposal facilities and any facility that
cannot clean close are subject to the
post-closure care requirements-LTS is
particularly important at those sites
during post-closure For instance,
information submission requirements
for post-closure permits specify a
performance monitoring program to
include, among others information
regarding protection of groundwater
monitoring data, groundwater
monitoring system design, etc If the
institutional control is being imposed
through a RCRA corrective action
permit, remedy performance
monitoring (often long-term) is
necessary to measure progress towards
remedial goals and ensure that
remedial objectives are met, especially
when waste is left in place and
institutional and engineering controls
are employed to guarantee the
integrity of the final remedy
September 2005
-------
Responsibility for overseeing corrective
action and post-closure activities
belong to the authorized States EPA
maintains responsibility for monitoring
and enforcing corrective action and
post-closure activities in non-
authonzed States, on Tnbal lands, and
where corrective actions are carried
out under Agency enforcement
authority In terms of monitoring, all
RCRA permits allow authorized
representatives to inspect the facility
upon presentation of credentials They
also require the facility to report any
non-compliance that may endanger
health or the environment within 24
hours and to maintain and report all
records and monitoring information
necessary for compliance
Under the Brownfields program, EPA
provides cleanup grants to State and
local governments and non-profit
organizations to carry out cleanup
activities, including monitoring and
enforcement of institutional controls
Specifically, a local government that
receives a grant for site remediation
can use up to ten percent of that grant
to monitor and enforce any
institutional control used to prevent
human exposure to any hazardous
substance from a brownfield site
States can use grant funds to establish
or enhance their response program,
including O&M or long-term monitoring
activities However, EPA does not have
direct responsibility for LTS activities
at brownfield sites and its authority to
oversee cleanups and collect
information is subject to the terms and
operating period of the grant
mechanism
Pursuant to the Underground Storage
Tanks (UST) program, when a release
has been detected or discovered at a
UST, the UST owner/operator must
perform a corrective action to clean up
any contamination caused by the
release from the UST Under
cooperative agreements between EPA
and States, States are largely
responsible for overseeing corrective
actions in connection with these USTs
EPA is generally responsible for
overseeing the corrective actions,
including LTS activities on Tribal lands
Typically, UST owners/operators
prepare a corrective action plan that
the State reviews and modifies and/or
approves In some cases, the
corrective action approved for a
release at a UST may not achieve
complete cleanup (i e , a risk-based
corrective action is undertaken)
Depending on known or anticipated
risks to human health and the
environment, appropriate action may
include site closure, monitoring and
data collection, active or passive
remediation, or institutional controls
In these cases, residual contamination
may remain m the environment and
must be monitored and/or contained to
prevent further migration of the
contamination
Under EPA's Removal program, it is
estimated that over 7,000 removals
have occurred Because the overarching
premise of the removal program is
stabilization, it is likely that on-site
contamination remains and that LTS is
key to the proper management of these
sites
September 2005
-------
Why is Long-Term Stewardship
Important?
LTS activities are critical at sites with
contamination remaining and are used by
EPA and its Federal and State partners to
ensure
• the ongoing protection of human health
and the environment,
• the integrity of remedial or corrective
actions so they continue to operate
properly, and
• the ability of people to reuse sites in a
safe and protective manner
With several decades of experience, EPA
and State cleanup programs have evolved
and matured to a point where LTS is an
ever increasing portion of their
responsibilities The nation's cleanup
programs have cleaned up thousands of
sites Many of these sites have on-site
contamination that requires
implementation, monitoring, and
enforcement of engineering and
institutional controls
LTS of contaminated sites also takes on
greater importance with the increased
demand for cleaned-up properties for
beneficial reuse The success of the
Brownfields program in responding to-and
even bolstering—market demand for
properties with known or suspected
contamination has led to increased demand
for contaminated properties that are
cleaned up under the other EPA programs
(e g , Superfund, Base Realignment and
Closure) The demand and use of such
sites includes those properties where some
contamination is controlled on site and LTS
activities are needed to ensure the
continued protection of those land uses In
fact, the Superfund program estimates that
approximately 80% of its sites entering the
construction completion universe will
require LTS The BRAC program similarly
anticipates requiring LTS at an increasing
number of sites, while almost 400,000
acres have been transferred and put back
into use by others, only 30% is estimated to
be uncontammated
Site reuse and the implementation of
appropriate and effective LTS activities
(e g , institutional controls) are
complementary When people look to
reuse sites, it prompts a close look at the
status of the site and its remedy, including
LTS This examination usually includes
local governments, who may be one of the
principal entities for tracking, maintaining,
and enforcing institutional controls The
people responsible for these controls want
to make sure they remain protective during
future use and future users want to make
sure that their activities are appropriate
and do not cause future problems Thus,
all parties want to ensure continued
implementation of appropriate and
effective LTS
The importance of LTS has never been
greater with the maturation of EPA, other
Federal agency, and State cleanup
programs, the increasing number of sites
requiring ongoing monitoring and
maintenance, and the emphasis on reusing
sites following cleanup
September 2005
-------
What Are EPA and Others Doing
about Long-Term Stewardship?
The Task Force recognizes that a
significant amount of work has previously
been undertaken within individual EPA
programs, other Federal departments and
agencies, States and State organizations,
and non-govern mental organizations The
following provides a few highlights of these
efforts, and Appendix B provides a more
detailed description of the studies that
have been prepared and the initiatives
underway
Interagency Efforts
EPA has entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOD) on long-term
stewardship of Federal facilities with the
Department of Energy (DOE), Department
of Defense (DoD), Department of Interior
(DOI), and the Environmental Council of
States (ECOS) The MOU provides a
common understanding and agreement,
and basis for discussion and coordination,
among relevant Federal agencies and
ECOS The MOU provides a definition of
ITS, a set of guiding principles, and the
key elements or components of LTS
The Environmental Financial Advisory
Board, a Federal advisory committee
composed of public and private entities
that provides advice to EPA, is currently
working with EPA and The Association of
State and Territorial Solid Waste
Management Officials (ASTSWMO) to
address the issue of the reliability of
financial assurance for environmental
stewardship of contaminated properties
The results of this effort will be
documented in a report that should
supplement and educate the work of the
LTS Task Force
EPA Activities
EPA's cleanup programs have been
addressing LTS for many years and are
increasingly addressing such matters
through new strategies, initiatives,
guidance, and pilot projects Highlights of
several key efforts include
• The Superfund program has developed
a "National Strategy to Manage Post-
Construction Completion at Superfund
Sites," which provides a framework of
initiatives to provide greater assurance
that Superfund remedies remain
protective over the long-term This
strategy will help EPA focus efforts
during the next five years on activities
to ensure human health and the
environment are protected at
Superfund sites after construction is
complete
• The Superfund program has established
a strategy for identifying, tracking, and
evaluating institutional control
effectiveness, developing an 1C tracking
system, engaging other government and
non-government organizations on
institutional control data collection
standards and systems, issuing cross-
program guidance on the full life-cycle
of institutional controls, and piloting
one-call systems and other public-
private partnership efforts
• In 2000, the Superfund program began
an initiative to optimize Superfund-
fmanced ground water pump & treat
(P&T) systems, which continues today
Optimization is intended to encourage
systematic review and modification to
operating remedies in order to promote
September 2005
10
-------
continuous improvement and enhance
overall remedy and cost effectiveness
Optimization also plays a key role in
ensuring smooth transfer of P&T
remedies to States In addition, the
Interstate Technology and Regulatory
Council has a Remediation Process
Optimization Team that is developing
various fact sheets and training
modules on optimization
The RCRA base program includes
regulations that establish the post-
closure permit and post-closure care
requirements and has published
guidance on completion of corrective
actions, including provisions for
corrective action complete with
controls, when long-term stewardship
is required In addition, both OSW and
OSRE are presently collaborating on a
joint memorandum addressed to the
RCRA Regional Divisional Directors and
Enforcement Managers titled "Ensuring
Effective and Reliable ICs at RCRA
Facilities" that includes advice on ITS
issues and presents key considerations
on their implementation
The RCRA 1C tracking component of
RCRAInfo asks for information from the
regulated community to allow the
Agency to keep track of sites with
institutional and engineering controls in
place It provides dates when
institutional and engineering controls
are either projected to be or are
actually fully implemented
The U5T program is currently
developing a system for tracking
institutional controls at sites for which
they have oversight—those on tribal
lands
The Brownfields Program is providing
contractor support to ICMA to continue
to enhance the LUC5 org web site to
serve as a reference site for all
information on institutional controls
related issues, including State
regulations, model laws, professional
papers written on the issue, and other
information related to the
implementation and enforcement of
institutional controls
• The Brownfields Program collects
institutional control information about
certain brownfields sites in the
Brownfields Property Profile Form,
which are completed by cleanup and
revolving loan fund grantees The
grantee indicates if an institutional
control was required and if so the
grantee must identify the type of
institutional control This information
is available through Brownfields
Envirofacts
Other Federal Agency Activities
DoD and DOE have extensive experience
addressing ITS issues at their cleaned-up
sites While they may face unique issues
with respect to the cleanup of their sites,
both DOE's and DoD's efforts have broad
applicability to other contamination sites
requiring post-cleanup care Several
noteworthy reports and initiatives are
summarized below Others are noted in the
appendix at the back
• DOE prepared a comprehensive study
on LTS in 2001 to identify
programmatic and cross-cutting issues
and information that DOE should
consider while implementing its LTS
activities
• DOE established policy to guide DOE
decisions related to planning,
maintenance, and implementation of
ICs when such controls are used at DOE
sites or utilized under a statutory
program, and published a Long-Term
Stewardship Planning Guidance for
Closure Sites to provide a framework
for planning LTS activities at DOE
facilities
September 2005
11
-------
• DDE/Idaho National Engineering and
Environmental Laboratory (INEL)
developed an LTS national science and
technology roadmap program to
provide the context for making LTS
R&D investment decisions and guide
national research priorities for LTS
• DoD developed policy and guidance on
implementing, documenting, and
managing land use controls associated
with environmental restoration
activities
• US Navy developed a "point in time"
land use control information system
known as LUCIS, which is a Geographic
Information System (GlS)-based
database that houses environmental
baseline surveys, CIS displays, site
maps, deeds, and LUC summaries
States and State Organizations
Highlights of several key State efforts to
address LTS issues include
• ECOS established a Long-Term
Stewardship Subcommittee and is
promoting an mteragency dialogue to
improve consideration of LTS in the
remediation process
• National Association of Attorneys
General (NAAG) is working on a State-
by-State analysis of statutory and
common law in each of the States,
designed to evaluate whether existing
mechanisms could be used to impose
effective and enforceable institutional
controls
• The National Governors' Association's
LTS Committee is conducting a study
{drawing on NAAG research) on Federal
and State statutory issues and LTS that
will examine, among other issues, the
adequacy of existing mechanisms for
institutional controls, and the
applicability of State 1C laws to Federal
agencies
• ASTSWMO has published several key
documents, including a white paper on
the future direction of institutional
controls and LTS and a survey of State
institutional control mechanisms
Non-governmental Organizations
Several noteworthy initiatives and studies
by non-governmental organizations
include
• The National Conference of
Commissioners on Uniform State Laws
(NCCUSL) has prepared and is actively
supporting the Uniform Environmental
Covenants Act, model legislation for
States to adopt to remove legal barriers
to implementing institutional controls
• Environmental Law Institute (ELI) and
Energy Communities Alliance (ECA),
prepared a joint study on the practical
implementation of LTS
• Resources for the Future has addressed
LTS issues including, among other
studies, preparing a paper on the
mechanisms for financing and oversight
of long-term stewardship, with an
emphasis on trust funds
Private Sector
The private sector is increasingly playing a
role in several aspects of LTS For
example, insurance companies and others
in the risk management field are
developing products and services that
provide the financial mechanisms and
address the liability concerns for those
with LTS responsibilities at sites Private
firms are also engaging landowners and
regulatory agencies, through several pilot
projects, to establish not-for-profit trust
mechanisms that assume a direct property
interest in remediated sites and take over
September 2005
12
-------
all LTS responsibilities for those sites,
including inspections, operation and
maintenance, monitoring, and tracking
implementation of institutional controls
Companies are also developing new or
improved methods of monitoring sites with
residual contamination and detecting
possible breaches of engineering or
institutional controls
September 2005
13
-------
Challenges and Recommendations
The following presents a summary of the LTS
challenges, and recommendations for
addressing those challenges that the Task
Force identified and EPA's cleanup programs
should consider Where appropriate, potential
recommendations for LTS implementation and
issues/concerns were identified and called out
in the report by the Task Force In addition,
the Task Force recognizes that EPA's cleanup
programs operate under different authorities,
may approach the cleanup and stewardship of
sites differently, or may already be addressing
the identified challenge For this reason,
certain challenges or recommendations may
not apply to every cleanup program
Challenge: Ensuring that Stakeholder
Roles and Responsibilities Are Clearly
Understood
Although EPA cleanup programs frequently
select remedies that rely on LTS activities,
including ICs, the responsibility for
implementation, monitoring, and enforcement
is often under the jurisdiction of other levels
of government and private parties As such,
there are a variety of public and private
stakeholders that may be involved in selecting,
implementing, monitoring, and enforcing LTS
activities at a site Each stakeholder has
specific responsibilities for carrying out those
activities To be effective, each stakeholder
needs to have a clear understanding of its
current and future responsibilities, as well as
those of any other stakeholder The roles and
responsibilities need to be clearly articulated
and accepted by all parties and well
documented through legal and other means
Also, involved parties need to be able to adapt
to changing site and site management
conditions Appropriate mechanisms are
necessary to ensure continued performance of
these responsibilities, especially with the
ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
Problem Cleanup programs do not always clearly
convey the appropriate LTS roles and
responsibilities.
Goal Ensure stakeholder LTS roles and
responsibilities are clearly communicated and
understood
Recommendations.
• EPA should continue to review its decision
documents, agreements, and other tools as
appropriate, to ensure site-specific LTS roles and
responsibilities are clearly delineated
• EPA should continue to develop guidance
addressing LTS implementation and assurance across
its cleanup programs, as appropriate
• EPA , State, and Tribal cleanup programs and
other Federal agencies should invest more time
working with and building stronger relationships
with local governments, and conduct more training
and outreach to help them better define and
understand their potential specific LTS roles and
responsibilities
• EPA should partner with other Federal agencies
and State, Tnbal, and local government
organizations to sponsor one or more "summits" in
which representatives from Federal, State, Tnbal
and local agencies can share their perspectives and
insights on LTS
potential for change of stakeholders and site
conditions over time
The Task Force considered the following as
potential LTS challenges and opportunities for
improvement
• Federal, State, Tribal, and local
governments are not always clear on, or do
not often specify, the appropriate roles
and responsibilities for implementing and
overseeing LT5 activities
States often claim that land use
controls and other types of
institutional controls-a key
element of LTS-are typically the
responsibility of local governments
September 2005
14
-------
Local government officials often
maintain that either the State or
EPA has responsibility for assuring
the protection at sites
The transfer of sites between
Federal agencies can also create
questions of roles, responsibilities,
resources, etc
Local governments are not clearly
assigned a role or responsibility
under several statutes and
regulations governing waste cleanup
and management
Local governments are typically not
a party to the formal agreements
that govern cleanup at waste sites
Local government activities to
support the LTS of sites (e g ,
zoning and permitting) are typically
not designed with environmental
protection as an objective
State or local governments may not
always agree with the cleanup
action selected for a site, yet may
be responsible for either
implementing or monitoring and
enforcing LTS activities
Sites located on Tribal lands
present unique issues in
determining the roles and
responsibilities of EPA, States, and
Tribes
At some sites, ft may not always be
clear who has the responsibility or the
ability and resources to effectively
implement, monitor, and enforce LTS
activities
Decision documents and agreements
do not always delineate
responsibilities for specific LTS
activities
The LTS activities, such as
institutional controls, may only be
identified generally in a decision
document and the responsibility for
their implementation and oversight
left vague or based on assumptions
Mechanisms that ensure the
transfer of information on roles and
responsibilities to other
stakeholders over time need to be
evaluated and developed
There is a need to ensure that legal
or other agreements specify the
responsibilities of parties beyond
the expiration or performance dates
of key documents as reasonable
At many sites, the responsibility for
LTS falls to PRPs, however, there are
circumstances in which the roles and
responsibilities of PRPs are ambiguous
PRPs are not always fulfilling their
LTS responsibilities, particularly
when planning and designing the
remedy and its LTS needs
It is not always clear what the
responsibilities are for PRPs in the
long-term, especially if the PRP
goes out of business
It is important to clarify the roles
and responsibilities of PRPs that are
small companies with limited
resources
It is unclear what the roles and
responsibilities are of operators of
facilities when they are not the
facility owner (e g , gas station
operators) In RCRA corrective
actions, owners and operators
commonly share responsibility for
cleanups
September 2005
15
-------
PRPs need to ensure that other
stakeholders involved in the
implementation of LT5 (e g ,
insurance companies or third party
trusts established by the PRP)
understand and fulfill their
responsibilities
Almost all States are authorized for
RCRA closure and corrective action
cleanups, so States typically have a
responsibility in the selection,
implementation, monitoring, and
enforcement of institutional and
engineering controls
Future users can play an important
role in the LTS of sites, but in order to
do so effectively, need to be involved
early and often in discussions with key
players
Future users may take over certain
0&M requirements, such as mowing
or fence repair
Future users should know any
limitation associated with the
property to ensure there is no
unintentional damage done to the
remedy
Future users can discourage illegal
activities that may damage
remedies, such as all terrain vehicle
racing on a cap
Future users can help enforce
institutional controls, or alert the
appropriate authorities if there has
been a breach This may be
especially useful if the regulatory
agency is not expected to visit the
facility on a regular basis
Recommendation #1 EPA should
continue to review its decision documents,
agreements, and other tools as
appropriate, to ensure that site-specific
LTS roles and responsibilities are clearly
delineated
Decision documents and legal agreements
(e g , consent orders, permits, grants, and
contracts) are often the tools that are used
to communicate LTS responsibilities at
specific cleanup sites In some cases, such
as a RCRA permit, provisions specifying the
LTS responsibilities may be clear and
unambiguous In other cases, a decision
document may not provide specific LTS
requirements or a clear delineation of who
has responsibility for each LTS component
To ensure that there is no ambiguity as to
the site-specific roles and responsibilities
of different stakeholders for implementing,
monitoring, and enforcing LTS, the cleanup
programs should consider reviewing
existing decision documents, legal
agreements, contract or grant provisions,
or other tools used to specify LTS
responsibilities This review needs to
identify specific documents used to
establish LTS responsibilities and ensure
that specific LTS responsibilities are clearly
identified At a minimum, such documents
may require that information be included
on who specifically or what private party
or organization, or specific branch of
government, is responsible for each LTS
activity needed, where they are to carry
out those responsibilities, and how often
and for how long they must do so Where
third parties are expected to fulfill certain
LTS responsibilities (e g , a holder of an
easement, a trust organization), or where
implementation depends on the actions of
those not a party to an agreement or
settlement (e g , a local government),
provisions should be included that identify
their responsibilities and those of the
entity who will oversee and ensure that the
LTS activities are being properly earned
out It is important to note that individual
programs will need to develop strategies to
address deficiencies in roles and
responsibilities that are identified in the
review of its documents
September 2005
16
-------
To provide greater flexibility during the
cleanup process by ensuring that up to-
date information is available on the
operational aspects of a remedy, programs
should consider providing greater detail on
specific roles and responsibilities during
the design phase of the cleanup In an
upcoming guidance on institutional
controls, the Agency asks that an
Institutional Controls Implementation Plan
(ICIP) be developed prior to, or at the
same time, as the design for the physical
remedy The use of an Implementation
and Assurance (I&A) Plan for ITS
initiatives, together with inclusion of an
ICIP as part of the decision documents or
agreements (see Recommendation #2)
could be the tools used to document full
site-specific LTS responsibilities, or
establish a process for doing so during the
design phase
Recommendation #2 EPA should
continue to develop guidance addressing
LTS implementation and assurance across
its cleanup programs, as appropriate
To ensure that adequate guidance is
available to EPA and State staff and other
stakeholders with LTS responsibilities, the
Agency should consider developing
guidance on LTS implementation and
assurance Such guidance could establish
the expectations and provide the
guidelines for ensuring the specific
responsibilities, mechanisms, and
frequency for implementing, monitoring,
and enforcing LTS activities are clearly
identified and assigned at individual sites,
across multiple sites, or program-wide
The guidance should be developed
according to the programmatic context of
each cleanup program and tailored to
complement existing policies, processes,
tools, and guidance For example, cleanup
programs may rely on a variety of
documents and tools that serve the
purpose of clarifying roles and
responsibilities at sites, including cleanup
decision documents, model agreements,
0£tM plans, and institutional control
implementation plans New guidance on
implementation and assurance would
recognize these existing tools and
incorporate them into an overall strategy
or approach for ensuring that
responsibilities are clear and unambiguous,
and that assurance and accountability
mechanisms are integrated into their
implementation
As an initial effort, EPA could identify the
core set of cross-program LTS-related
information that needs to be included in
LTS implementation and assurance
guidance regardless of cleanup program
The guidance may also provide guidelines
for developing LTS I&A plans or comparable
tools, where appropriate I&A Plans are
tools that EPA's cleanup programs may
wish to consider adopting either on a site-
specific, multiple site, or program-wide
basis
For programs where EPA does not have
direct responsibility for LTS
implementation and assurance (e g , a
State VCP program, or a local government
grant recipient), EPA guidance could
encourage these other program
implementers to consider adopting similar
approaches and mechanisms for
delineating specific roles and
responsibilities at cleanup sites, ensuring
their implementation, and holding
accountable those responsible for LTS
Recommendation #3 EPA, State, and
Tribal cleanup programs and other Federal
agencies should invest more time working
with and building stronger relationships
with local governments, and conduct more
training and outreach to help them better
define and understand their potential
specific LTS roles/responsibilities
Local governments can, and often do, play
an important role in the implementation of
September 2005
17
-------
LTS activities at a site However, the
legal, administrative, and other tools of
local governments that EPA and others call
upon to protect people and the
environment often were not intended to
serve this purpose Moreover, local
governments often do not have the
necessary knowledge and expertise, nor
resources to gam such expertise, to carry
out LTS responsibilities As a result, local
government resources (whether people or
processes) may not be adequate to fulfill
the growing LTS needs across the cleanup
programs EPA, States and other Federal
agencies should work with local
governments-either individually at sites or
on a broader basis through such
organizations as The International
City/County Management Association
(ICMA)-to communicate LTS
responsibilities and needs, provide
guidance and training, and otherwise offer
assistance to enhance local government
capabilities Generally, EPA and States
may consider working together to provide
training to local governments on LTS and
on how local legal and other tools are used
at waste sites to protect remedies and
minimize possible exposure At the site-
specific level, EPA needs to identify, if
present and available, specific
opportunities for involving local
governments in LTS decisions, gauging
their capabilities, and taking steps to
enhance those capabilities through training
and other educational activities EPA's
cleanup programs may consider tailoring
their outreach to local governments
according to their programmatic context
(e g , existing program authorities, or
current Federal-State-local relationship)
Recommendation #4 (Cross-Cutting)
EPA should partner wtth other Federal
agencies and State, Tribal, and local
government organizations to sponsor one
or more "summits" in which
representatives from Federal, State,
Tribal and local agencies can share their
perspectives and insights on LTS
The Task Force recognizes that various
public and private sector organizations
have undertaken a significant amount of
work to research and address LTS
challenges and opportunities EPA sees a
distinct opportunity for LTS stakeholders to
convene one or a series of meetings to
open a dialogue on the LTS challenges
facing regulatory agencies As LTS
challenges affect all levels of government,
a "summit" of officials representing
Federal, State, Tribal, and local
governments would allow stakeholders to
share their insights and perspectives,
resulting in a holistic view that is needed
to better understand and address the
issues involving LTS Such a summit could
address the challenges posed in this report
—either individually or in a cross-cutting
manner-as well as other challenges that
may be considered a priority by other
stakeholders Participants in the summit
could address whether and how best to
involve non-governmental and private
stakeholders to share their perspectives
and approaches that may help government
agencies improve their LTS responsibilities
Potential partner organizations identified
by the Task Force include ECOS, ASTSWMO,
ICMA, and the Energy Communities Alliance
(EGA)
September 2005
18
-------
Challenge: Ensuring that LTS
Information Is Managed and Shared
Effectively
Without effective information
management, it is difficult for stakeholders
to understand and implement their LTS
responsibilities effectively Information is
best managed and coordinated across
different levels of government, and should
be widely distributed and accessible to all
stakeholders, including the public, to
communicate risks and safeguards, support
accountability mechanisms, and augment
institutional memory The Task Force
identified the following as potential areas
for concern
• There may be a need to improve data
sharing among stakeholders at sites
requiring LTS
For many cleanup programs, LTS
information may not be collected
and managed systematically and
provided to stakeholders in a timely
or meaningful way
EPA and States have expressed
difficulty in obtaining local
information about the
implementation of LTS activities
Local governments and communities
have difficulty obtaining
information from State and Federal
regulators on the status and
effectiveness of LTS activities
The need to communicate
information to potential developers
is increasingly critical to ensure the
integrity of remedies and the
protection of workers and nearby
residents EPA's Superfund and
RCRA programs are in the process of
making site information available to
the public through the Internet's
INFORMATION MANAGEMENT
Problem4 LTS information is not always
easily and fully shared among relevant
stakeholders
Goal Ensure that LTS information is
managed and shared effectively
Recommendations
• EPA should continue to facilitate the
maintenance and exchange of LTS
information through existing grants and
other resources, and by establishing and
promoting data standards (e.g , data
element registries and XML schema and
tags)
• EPA should continue to support the
development of mechanisms for sharing
information to prevent breaches of
institutional and engineering controls
"Cleanups In My Community" (CIMC)
Web site
It is difficult for regulatory agencies
to evaluate the effectiveness of LTS
programs
Current data management systems to
support the maintenance, monitoring,
and enforcement of LTS responsibilities
are limited
While information management
systems to track and communicate
information on LTS activities have
been established, data are not
stored and communicated in a
common way
It is unclear if and how a central
information management system for
LTS should be developed, and who
should be responsible for
maintaining it
A central and coordinated
information management system
would require extensive resources
to develop and maintain
September 2005
19
-------
Electronically stored records will
need to remain accessible over time
even as information management
technologies change
Some Federal, State, Tribal, and
local governments may not have
adequate resources to develop,
maintain, or support a system,
especially now when their operating
budgets are being reduced
Local government involvement is
critical to ensure data is current
and accurate-yet their resources to
exchange data may be limited
To be most effective, information
management systems (and those
who develop and maintain them)
need to use a universal set of terms
and definitions
Certain private sector organizations
are developing systems that support
the tracking of information on
institutional and other LTS activities
Market-based monitoring and
information tracking services are
being developed independently by
the private sector For example,
Terradex Corporation's information
tracking system allows it to offer
proactive notification services
when a potentially inappropriate
land use is identified, because it
may violate an 1C or an EC
Other Federal agencies are developing
innovative methods to preserve
information For example, DOE is
building monuments and museums at
some sites helping to maintain or
create a "community memory" that
wilt continue across generations
Recommendation #5 EPA should
continue to facilitate the maintenance and
exchange of LTS information through
existing grants and other resources, and by
establishing and promoting data standards
(e g , data element registries and XML
schema and tags)
Information management is central to
properly communicating the
responsibilities and environmental issues
that exist when a site enters the world of
LTS EPA could consider continuing to fund
the development of State and local
information systems that track LTS data
through such funding vehicles as the
Brownfields program section 128(a) and
OEI's grants In addition, while there may
be difficulties in creating a central
database of LTS information, the sharing of
LTS data must continue to grow beyond its
current partners and scope EPA plans to
continue its work on the development of a
common LTS "language " Using a common
set of LTS terms and data names allows
regulators, developers, prospective
purchasers and the general public to
exchange necessary site information Data
registries can be used to align and store
this IC/EC/LTS terminology and thereby
facilitate the exchange and communication
of data
It is worth noting that although it makes
sense to have a common data standard,
the States may already be comfortable
with their own data standards, and may
not want to change to an EPA-designed set
of data standards, especially if it costs
them to implement
Recommendation #6 EPA should
continue to support the development of
mechanisms for sharing information to
prevent breaches of institutional and
engineering controls
EPA for example is currently supporting
one-call pilots in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin,
California, and New York These pilots are
based on the "Miss Utility" model of a free
"one call information exchange center for
September 2005
20
-------
excavators, contractors and property
owners planning any kind of excavation or
digging Several questions concerning the
pilots still need to be answered including
scope of activities to be carried out by the
one-call systems, required timing of calls
(proactive site planning vs day of the dig),
and resource needs to modify the one-call
system to include LTS data
September 20oT 21
-------
Challenge Understanding and
Considering the Full, Life-cycle Costs
of Long-Term Stewardship When
Making Cleanup Decisions
The cost of LTS activities should be a key
factor when making cleanup decisions
Risk-based approaches relying on LTS
activities may appear as less expensive
alternatives However, leaving waste
onsite may require long-term management
for years, decades, or possibly even longer
Costs associated with the LTS at these sites
include implementing and maintaining
institutional and engineering controls,
oversight and enforcement by
governmental or other entities, and other
monitoring and administrative activities
These costs should be calculated and fully
considered when making remedial
decisions at a site It is also important to
note the LTS costs to non-governmental
entities such as PRPs and future users
The Task Force identified the following as
potential areas for concern
• A consistent and reliable method for
defining and estimating full life-cycle
costs for LTS is needed to inform
remedial or corrective action decision
making
There does not appear to be a
systematic method for, or guidance
to support, calculating the costs of
institutional controls and other
implementation, monitoring, and
maintenance activities
Site managers across the cleanup
programs may be using different
approaches to calculate estimated
costs—some may employ standard
engineering cost analysis while
others may factor in discounting,
opportunity costs, and costs of
remedy failure
LTS Costs
Problem* Accurate estimates of ITS costs
may not always be developed or available.
Goal To ensure that the full, life-cycle
costs of LTS are understood and considered
when making cleanup decisions and
planning LTS implementation
Recommendation
• EPA should evaluate current LTS costing
guidance and, if appropnate, either revise
it or develop new guidance to improve the
Agency's ability to produce more consistent
and reliable cost estimates As appropnate,
EPA should draw on existing governmental
and non-governmental studies and
information for estimating LTS costs.
Accurate estimates of LTS may not
always be developed and considered
when evaluating the options for
remedial or corrective actions
At some sites, estimates of LTS
costs rely on standard assumptions
about ICs and other long-term
management approaches
LTS cost estimates are not always
developed consistently across sites
• Accurate cost estimates are
important to LTS implementers as
they try to fully understand
resource responsibilities
Recommendation #7 EPA should
evaluate current LTS costing guidance
and, if appropriate, either revise it or
develop new guidance to improve the
Agency's ability to produce more
consistent and reliable cost estimates
As appropriate, EPA should draw on
existing governmental and non-
governmental studies and information
for estimating LTS costs
September 2005
22
-------
While the Task Force is aware that
costing guidance exists, this guidance is
often not effective for developing
accurate or reliable estimates of ITS
Because costing guidance has been
developed across multiple program
areas, EPA should undertake an
evaluation of current costing guidance
to better tie together the elements of
costing and to identify possible gaps
and inconsistencies Specifically, EPA
needs to gam a better understanding of
such issues as the role of discounting in
developing cost estimates, as well as
the use of net present value-both
areas have proved problematic in the
past and make development of
accurate long-term costs difficult to
calculate EPA may also explore
working with other stakeholders to
improve the guidance in these and
other areas Task Force members
suggested several possible sources of
information that may help in
understanding ITS costs, including the
State RCRA programs' annual
corrective-action LTS costs, if
available, the work done by Resources
for the Future regarding discounting,
and ICAAA's expertise on costing ICs at
the local level
September 2005 23
-------
Challenge. Ensuring the Effective
Implementation of Institutional
Controls
Effective implementation of ITS activities
should
Ensure that the institutional controls at
a site remain in effect for as long as
the contamination remaining poses a
risk to human health and the
environment
Ensure that the restrictions on the land
or resources are effectively
communicated to anyone who may
come into contact with the site
Allow for re-evaluation of LTS needs to
determine effectiveness and need for
changes
Enhance the overall protectiveness of
institutional controls by using them in
layers and/or in series
The Task Force considered the following as
potential LTS challenges and opportunities
for improvement
• EPA's cleanup programs increasingly
rely on State and local governments to
implement, monitor, and/or enforce
ICs
• Current property law is often
inadequate to ensure the continuity
and enforcement of institutional
controls
Institutional controls are effective
tools for land use restrictions and
requirements only if their legal
status under State property law and
their enforceability are assured
Institutional Controls
Problem Cleanup programs increasingly
rely on ICs and current property law is often
inadequate to ensure continuity and
enforcement
Goal To ensure that ICs are effectively
implemented and evaluated to protect
remedies and avoid inappropriate exposure
Recommendations
• EPA should develop mechanisms and
criteria across its cleanup programs for
evaluating the effectiveness of ICs at sites
• EPA should support the development of
an analysis of ICs to determine the reliance
on {and burden to) State, Tnbal, and local
governments
• To enhance the availability and reliability
of ICs, EPA should encourage States to
review the Uniform Environmental
Covenants Act or similar legal provisions for
potential State applicability
Archaic common law doctrine and
other State property laws (such as
tax lien foreclosure, adverse
termination, and marketable title
statutes) often work against long-
term institutional controls,
undermining their effectiveness and
compromising the ability of
government agencies to maintain
and enforce them
Current common property law can
limit the long-term effectiveness of
certain institutional controls
because they attach those
institutional controls to property
ownership rather than to the
property itself Thus, while
property is transferred from one
party to another, the control may
fail to transfer with it
Current State property laws often
result in inconsistent application of
institutional controls across sites
and present regulatory agencies
with a significant burden for
September 2005
24
-------
frequent and ongoing monitoring
and enforcement
• Cleanup programs generally do not
have specj/ic processes or performance
standards in place to evaluate the
effectiveness of jnstjtutional controls
There are existing processes for
evaluating whether ICs have been
implemented (e g , Superfund has
five-year reviews, RCRA uses its
tracking system), however, they
generally do not address whether
they are effective or implemented
correctly
There may be opportunities to
reduce the time and resources
needed to implement institutional
controls through an effective
institutional controls evaluation
process (i e , institutional control
optimization)
Recommendation #8 EPA should
develop mechanisms and criteria across its
cleanup programs for evaluating the
effectiveness of ICs at sites
EPA and State programs need to ensure
that the effectiveness of ITS, and
institutional controls in particular, are
periodically evaluated Such an evaluation
needs to go beyond simply determining
whether an institutional control has been
implemented, but rather whether the
institutional controls are being
implemented effectively and accomplish
what they were intended to do In other
words, the evaluation should focus on
determining whether the right information
is being communicated to the right people
at the right time
Each cleanup program is encouraged to
explore mechanisms for integrating the
evaluation of institutional control
effectiveness into their existing program
operations Likewise, to evaluate the
effectiveness of institutional controls, it is
necessary to know what to evaluate and
what questions to ask, for example, not
just that an easement or covenant was
recorded, but whether it was recorded
properly given the local laws and
processes Thus, a set of criteria or similar
device would assist programs in evaluating
the effectiveness of institutional controls
at both the site-specific level, as well as
for an entire program The Superfund
program is developing a standard set of
questions for evaluating the performance
of institutional controls The Superfund
program is encouraged to continue its
development of institutional control
evaluation questions, and to share them
with other EPA, State, and Tribal cleanup
programs The objective is to ensure that
cleanup programs have the proper
mechanisms and tools available to
determine whether or not institutional
control implementation is effective or
whether additional steps are needed to
ensure their effectiveness Such
evaluations should occur more frequently
than every five years, as many things can
change with respect to whether and how
institutional controls are being
implemented at a site
Recommendation #9 EPA should
support the development an analysis of ICs
to determine the reliance on (and burden
to) State, Tribal, and local governments
Because many cleanups involve managing
wastes on site, restrictions on the use of
the site are necessary Often, EPA must
rely on State, Tribal and local government
laws and processes to provide the
necessary restrictions, and on those
government agencies to monitor
restrictions to ensure that they are being
implemented properly This reliance on
State, Tribal and local governments
appears to be resulting in a significant
burden that is only increasing as more sites
enter the post-cleanup stage EPA should
analyze the extent to which its cleanup
September 2005
25
-------
programs rely on State and local
governments to implement, monitor, and
enforce institutional controls and the
extent to which these stakeholders are
incurring a burden that may affect their
ability to ensure the effectiveness of
institutional controls Such an evaluation
should be conducted in concert with, and
inform decisions related to, the
recommendations provided under the
funding and resource challenge below
Recommendation #10 To enhance the
availability and reliability of ICs, EPA
should encourage States to review and
consider the Uniform Environmental
Covenants Act or similar /ego/ provisions
for potential State applicability
To address some of the shortcomings of
State and local property laws with respect
to institutional control implementation and
enforcement, the National Conference of
Commissioners on Uniform State Law
(NCCUSL) promulgated in 2003 the Uniform
Environmental Covenants Act (UECA)
NCCUSL is made up of lawyers chosen by
the States and oversees the preparation of
proposed uniform laws, which the States
are encouraged to adopt UECA is
intended to provide a uniform set of
provisions that States could adopt to
overcome the inadequate common law
rules affecting land use controls it
provides clear rules for a perpetual real
estate interest—an environmental
covenant—to regulate the use of
contaminated properties when real estate
is transferred from one owner to another
By ensuring that institutional controls are
maintained and enforced, UECA would help
to fulfill the dual purposes of such
restrictions—the protection of human
health and the economically viable reuse
of the property in question
It is advisable that EPA should support the
concepts or tenants of UECA or similar laws
that address the problems associated with
various archaic property law that govern in
numerous States In supporting such
provisions that establish a legal basis for
environmental covenants or their
equivalent, EPA and States may be able to
better select, implement, monitor, and
enforce land use restrictions, resulting in
more protective and cost effective
remedies Support of legal provisions
comparable to UECA should come in the
form of senior management statements of
support (written or during presentations),
dialogue with organizations representing
States (e g , ASTSWMO), Regional-State
dialogue, and other general support
through programmatic communications and
documents
September 2005
26
-------
Challenge Ensuring the Effective
Implementation and Evaluation of
Engineering Controls
Engineering controls used to clean up a site
may require ITS activities to ensure that
the remedy functions properly and remains
protective To maintain the effectiveness
and operational integrity of the
engineering component of a remedy, LT5
activities typically involve ongoing O&M,
including performance monitoring, and
periodic reviews and inspections In
addition, ITS activities may include
periodic reviews of the engineering
controls to improve their performance
and/or reduce the annual operating cost of
remedies without compromising
protectiveness Remedies involving
engineering controls, and using monitoring
networks, are designed and constructed
based on the best knowledge of site
conditions and technologies available at
the time of construction
The Task Force considered the following as
potential ITS challenges and opportunities
for improvement
• There does not appear to be a specific
process or mechanism for evaluating
the effectiveness of ECs and for
determining whether changes are
necessary
Some remedies where
contamination has been left in
place are not reviewed periodically
to ensure that the remedies are still
protective
Additionally, current Superfund EC
evaluation guidance only covers a
small subset of sites- e g , there is
a universe of sites that do not fit
into the 5 year review cycle and
that are not being reviewed
Engineering Controls
Problem There does not appear to be a
specific process or mechanism for
evaluating the effectiveness of ECs and for
determining whether changes are necessary
if the ECs are not protective of human
health and the environment.
Goal- To ensure that ECs are effectively
implemented and evaluated to improve
their reliability and effectiveness over lime
Recommendation-
. EPA should adopt a flexible approach for
re-evaluating the effectiveness of ECs and,
if appropriate, modifying ECs to optimize
remedial system performance and minimize
LTS costs
O&M plans do not always account
for changes in science and
technology, and how such changes
could be factored into a remedy
evaluation process
Changes in site conditions or new
science may alter the exposure
assumptions and cleanup standards
This could make existing ECs (and
ICs) overly protective or
inadequate
Changes in cleanup or LTS
technologies may result in the
identification of a more cost-
effective remedy, or alternatives to
the existing engineering controls,
particularly as the life expectancy
of those controls approaches
Private sector firms may be developing
new technologies (e g , materials
engineering, remote sensors,
computing technology, and
geochemistry) and methodologies to
support the monitoring of ECs and
other oversight responsibilities at
sites
September 2005
-------
Recommendation #11 EPA should
adopt a flexible approach for re-
evatuatm$ the effectiveness of ECs and, if
appropriate, modifying ECs to optimize
remedial system performance and
minimize LTS costs
A significant element in reducing LTS costs
may come from advancements in the fields
of science and technology In some cases,
a new treatment technology may make
retrieval and treatment more cost
effective than ongoing long-term care and
thus alleviate the need for a site to remain
under long-term stewardship care EPA,
State, and Tribal cleanup programs may
consider adopting a flexible approach and
continually work to identify where new
developments could be applied to LTS
activities, or where advancements are
desired EPA and States may identify
opportunities to enhance LTS operations by
reducing risk, improving the reliability of
monitoring methods used or employing new
treatment technologies, or by reducing
cost This recommendation is not intended
to create any new obligation for remedy
review by EPA or the States However, it is
recommended that existing programmatic
remedy reviews and optimization efforts
consider new technologies and activities
which would improve the effectiveness and
or reduce the cost of LTS activities
In order to provide new technologies for
monitoring sites and optimizing remedies,
the Federal Agencies and Departments
should continue their investment in
technology development
'
September 2005 28
-------
Challenge Ensuring that Funding
and Other Resource Needs Are
Adequate and Sustainable
A reliable funding source or mechanism is
needed to ensure that the LT5
responsibilities are fulfilled For
responsible parties, operating facilities,
and new landowners, this may involve
securing funding or other financial
mechanisms For government agencies
with oversight and enforcement
responsibilities, this may involve obtaining
adequate funding through an annual
appropriations process With a true
understanding of the life cycle ITS costs
and a reliable source and mechanism for
funding, sound decision-making will lead to
cleanup actions that are both effective and
fiscally responsible
• Given the fiscal constraints that
Federal agencies, States, Tribes, and
local governments are facing, funding
to support LTS is uncertain and may
impact their ability to effectively
monitor and enforce such activities
As more sites reach the post-
cleanup stage, State governments
are shouldering an increasingly
large burden to carry out their LTS
responsibilities
State, Tribal, and local
governments currently face
significant funding constraints as
they are subject to shrinking
appropriations from their respective
legislatures
Local governments may also face
similar funding constraints as States
turn to them for monitoring and
enforcement needs
LTS Funding and Resources
Problem It is not clear that reliable funding
is available to ensure that LTS responsibilities
are fulfilled over the long term
Goal To ensure that LTS funding and other
resource needs are adequate and sustained so
that LTS activities are effectively earned out
for as long as necessary
Recommendations
• EPA should work with outside organizations
to explore adequate and sustainable funding
sources and mechanisms at the Federal,
State, and local level to monitor, oversee,
and enforce LTS activities
• EPA should continue to explore the role of
the private sector in supporting the LTS of
sites and foster their involvement, as
appropriate
Other Federal agencies, such as
DOI, do not have adequate funding
for LTS activities
State, Tnbal, and local governments
may have additional resource needs to
meet their LTS responsibilities
State, Tribal, and local
governments need resources to
develop and/or enhance their
institutional and personnel
capabilities (e g , to educate and
train their staff)
States and Tribes need additional
resources to develop information
systems to monitor sites, track
activities, and share information
among the stakeholders
State and local government funds
earmarked for LTS activities may be
re programmed to other activities
based on changing priorities
Funds intended for LTS activities do
not sit in escrow or other protected
accounts and, therefore, may be
directed for use by other
September 2005
29
-------
environmental, or non-
environmental, programs if
priorities change
• New or alternative mechanisms for
conducting and funding long-term
stewardship activities (e g , insurance,
trust funds) are increasingly becoming
available
States, such as Wisconsin and
Massachusetts, have developed
their own programs where
insurance companies take over the
LTS management for a portfolio of
sites
Private sector firms have
demonstrated (through pilot
projects with EPA and States) the
viability of third-party trust
mechanisms to assume a direct
property interest in remediated
sites and take over all LTS
responsibilities for those sites,
including inspections, operation and
maintenance, monitoring, and
tracking implementation of
institutional controls
Recommendation #12 EPA should work
with outside organizations to explore
adequate and sustainable funding sources
and mechanisms at the Federal, State, and
local levels to monitor, oversee, and
enforce LTS activities
Based on the current fiscal environment,
funding to support LTS is uncertain and
may be inadequate to implement necessary
LTS activities EPA may work with State
and local organizations to conduct an
analysis of funding issues, needs, and
sources to determine whether adequate
funding is available to fully implement LTS
responsibilities across all sectors of govern-
ment In addition, as environmental
budgets tighten at all levels of govern-
ment, the governmental units responsible
for LTS are going to have to be more
creative in finding sources of funding for
these activities Insurance programs m
States like Wisconsin, as well as activities
such as New Jersey's annual LTS manage-
ment fee program, and Federal tax
incentives need to be evaluated to
determine their potential for more wide-
spread use in the LTS arena
Recommendation #13 EPA should
continue to explore the rote of the private
sector in supporting the LTS of sites and
foster their involvement, as appropriate.
Where there is a viable owner/operator or
other responsible party, such as at many
RCRA, Brownfields, and UST sites, the
success of LTS depends on their
involvement and commitment
It is the responsibility of the viable
owner/operator to implement the selected
remedy and also to conduct LTS activities
at the cleaned-up site with engineering or
institutional controls in place Performance
monitoring also belongs to the
owner/operator or other responsible party,
and is a critical aspect of remedial
alternatives that leave waste m place and
rely on engineering controls {e g , caps and
barrier walls)
Private entities developing innovative
approaches are another potential source of
LTS funding, and EPA should continue to
examine these alternatives For example,
EPA should explore the viability of third
party trust organizations like the Guardian
Trust to determine the viability of its
program and the potential benefits of its
use to manage LTS sites EPA might also
want to explore the viability of alternative
approaches that depend on the greater
involvement of non-governmental entities,
such as community or church groups to
provide certain oversight or watchdog
activities at LTS sites These entities,
while not in the traditional chain of
government, might serve as a low-cost
extra set of site monitors or historians
September 2005
30
-------
Appendix A:
Key Long-Term Stewardship
Themes Gathered from Other
Agencies and Groups
The following themes were compiled from various reports and studies conducted on Ions-
term stewardship and represent a collective set of goals or objectives from numerous public
and private organizations Therefore, these themes reflect an ideal set of goofs that may
not be applicable for every situation under each of EPA's cleanup programs
The full set of source information for the themes below can be found in Appendix B Long-
Term Stewardship Studies and Initiatives
Roles and Responsibilities
Theme Long-term stewardship must be a part of the remedial decision making, planning,
design, and implementation processes (Memorandum of Understanding on Long-Term
Stewardship, April 9, 2003)
Theme A mechanism for re evaluating prior long-term stewardship decisions should be
incorporated into cleanup programs (Memorandum of Understanding on Long-Term
Stewardship, April 9, 2003)
Theme Roles and responsibilities of those funding, implementing, monitoring, and enforcing
LTS responsibilities must be clearly articulated, understood, accepted, and documented at
the outset Consideration should be given for succession of replacements should original
stewards no longer function (ASTSWMO White Paper, "Institutional Controls and Long-Term
Stewardship Where Are We Going?", May 20, 2004)
Theme State, Tribal, and local governments should be involved in decisions affecting their
roles and responsibilities in carrying out LTS activities, and evaluating the capabilities of
those who are expected to carry out LTS activities (Memorandum of Understanding on Long-
Term Stewardship, April 9, 2003)
Theme Members of the public and other affected stakeholders should be meaningfully
involved in the planning and implementation of long term stewardship activities
(Memorandum of Understanding on Long-Term Stewardship, April 9, 2003)
•rAAft^^^V^WAVlWlV'VA.VkftWWUWL'W. V. W1A VV^WVWWWVWVWV'.W.'l.Wl. -.VWVVl V. V4 V4VlA.VW4Vl.'.VlrtA •. "• V. VVVVVVVWVVWVVJVVWVVVVVN.Vrt.\ VkVA\%VrtVl
September 2005 31
-------
Information Management
Theme Comprehensive information management systems are needed to effectively manage
long-term stewardship responsibilities (U S DOE Long-Term Stewardship Study, Volume 1
Report, October 2001}
Theme Information on long-term stewardship needs to be managed and coordinated across
different levels of government (U S DOE Long-Term Stewardship Study, Volume 1 Report,
October 2001)
Theme Information maintained on long-term stewardship responsibilities should be widely
distributed and accessible to all stakeholders, including the public, to communicate risks and
safeguards, support accountability mechanisms, and instill institutional memory (State and
Tribal Government Working Group Interim Report on Information Management for Long-Term
Stewardship, October 2001)
Institutional/Engineering Controls
Theme Institutional and engineering controls must assure the ongoing protection of human
health and the environment for sites with residual contamination for as long as residual
contamination remains hazardous or until a reliable substitute can be implemented
(Memorandum of Understanding on Long-Term Stewardship, April 9, 2003)
Theme Institutional controls should be clearly defined and unambiguous (ASTSWMO White
Paper, "Institutional Controls and Long-Term Stewardship Where Are We Going7", May 20,
2004)
Theme Multiple levels of control and layers are desirable for any institutional control
program {U S Army Corps of Engineers Guidance, "Recurring Reviews on Ordnance and
Explosives Response Actions", October 2003)
Theme Institutional controls should have a firm legal basis that makes them enforceable by
persons responsible for and capable of enforcement (ASTSWMO White Paper, "Institutional
Controls and Long-Term Stewardship Where Are We Going7", May 20, 2004)
Theme Institutional controls should run with the land and be free from archaic common law
defenses (ASTSWMO White Paper, "Institutional Controls and Long-Term Stewardship Where
Are We Going7", May 20, 2004)
Theme Institutional controls should be designed to allow maximum reuse of the land
consistent with protection of human health and the environment (ASTSWMO White Paper,
"Institutional Controls and Long-Term Stewardship Where Are We Going7", May 20, 2004)
Theme Systems should be in place that provide for regular monitoring and inspection to
ensure LTS mechanisms and activities work as designed (ASTSWMO White Paper,
"Institutional Controls and Long-Term Stewardship Where Are We Going7", May 20, 2004)
September 2005 32
-------
Theme Long-term stewardship oversight functions should extend over the lifetime of the
contamination hazard and be able to span generations (ASTSWMO White Paper, "Institutional
Controls and Long-Term Stewardship Where Are We Going'", May 20, 2004}
Theme Long term stewardship programs should be dynamic and continually evaluate and
adjust based on new information on site conditions or new technologies for cleanup and
effectiveness of existing LT5 activities (U 5 DOE, "Long-Term Stewardship Planning
Guidance for Closure Sites")
Theme Assurance strategies and/or contingency plans should be considered and developed
in the event of long-term stewardship failure (Environmental Law Reporter, "Institutional
Controls or Emperor's Clothes7 Long-Term Stewardship of the Nuclear Weapons Complex",
November 1998)
Costs and Funding
Theme Comprehensive life-cycle costs for long-term stewardship should be identified,
understood, and incorporated into the remedy decision-making process (Memorandum of
Understanding on Long-Term Stewardship, April 9, 2003)
Theme The amount, source, and mechanism for securing the necessary funding to manage
long-term stewardship activities must be identified and found acceptable before selecting a
remedy (Memorandum of Understanding on Long-Term Stewardship, April 9, 2003)
Theme The funding source for long-term stewardship responsibilities must be secure and
sustainable (Environmental Law Reporter, "Institutional Controls or Emperor's Clothes7 Long-
Term Stewardship of the Nuclear Weapons Complex", November 1998)
Theme Those entities with the financial capabilities and incentive to maintain, monitor, and
enforce ICs should fund them (U S Army Corps of Engineers Guidance, "Recurring Reviews on
Ordnance and Explosives Response Actions", October 2003)
September 2005 33
-------
Appendix B:
Long-Term Stewardship
Studies and Initiatives
September 2005 34
-------
One Cleanup Program Long-Term Stewardship Task Force:
Summary of Long-Term Stewardship Activities and Key Documents
The following is a compilation of studies i epot ts and initiatives that wei e identified by the L TS Task FOJ ce diu ing its discuss ions on
long-teim stewardship challenges The Ta\k l~o>ce recognizes that this list reflects only a pott ion of the entire body of \\ork that
government and non-gover nment organizations have developed to address the various aspects ofLTS Although this list may not be
complete, the intent is to identify some oj the key players and their ejforts to dale, which may lead to an increased undetstanding of,
andgieater collaboration to address, the challenges associated with LTS
Organization &
In itiattve/S.tudy/Repo rt
General/Cross-Cutting
Scop e & S u m m a ry
Status/Contact
Information
/ US EPA, DoD, DOE, DO/, and
Environmental Council of States
(ECOS)
Memorandum of Understanding on
Long-Term Stewardship
The purpose of this MOU is to provide a common
understanding and basis tor discussion and coordination
between LCOS and relevant Federal agencies regarding LTS
Given that there arc multiple Federal agencies conduetmg both
cleanup and stewardship activities a coordinated effort is
needed to address LTS at these sites Such a forum provides an
opportunity for the parties to discuss LTS issues policies,
procedures, coordination mechanisms, and generally applicable
tools tor LTS sites The MOU provides a definition of LTS,
guiding principles, and key elements or eomponents of LTS
MOU signed by ECOS, CPA, DoD,
DOt and DOI on April 9 2001
Contact TBD
2 US EPA/OSWER
Post-Construction Completion
Strategy tor Supertund Sites
Thi!> document outlines EPA Superfund's strategy for post-
eonstruelion completion (PCC) at NPL sites The PCC Strategy
is a management framework to aid the Agency in resource and
work planning It provides information to Agency staff, the
public, and the regulated community on how the Agency
intends to manage the PCC stage of the Supertund program
The PCC Strategy established five overarching goals under
which specific products are planned or underway, based on
need, potential impact, resources and other program priorities
Under development
Contact Tracy Hopkins, (701) 601-
8788, hopkins tracy@epa gov
September 2005
15
-------
Organization &
Initiative/Study/Report
3 US Department of Energy
"Long-Term Stewardship Planning
Guidance tor Closure Sites"
4 US Department of Energy
"Long-Term Stewardship Study
Volume 1 - Report"
Scope & Summary
Guidance provides the rationale and framework for planning
LTS activities The stated goals ot the LTS planning guidance
arc to focus management on post-closure requirements before
cleanup is complete facilitate development of a baseline scope,
schedule, and cost tor LTS, facilitate transition ot sites and LTS
responsibilities and provide a mechanism to ensure continued
proteetiveness of remedies
The study describes and analyzes issues and a variety ot
information associated with long-term stewardship, including
physical controls, institutions, information, and other
mechanisms needed to ensure protection of people and
environment The purpose of the study is to identity
programmatic and cross-cutting issues and information that
DOE should consider while implementing its LTS activities
Specific areas addressed in the study include managing residual
site hazards managing land and real property, maintaining
sustamability of LTS over multiple generations information
management funding and financial management and public
involvement
Status/Contact
Information
Report completed
Contact TBD
Final Study published October 2001
Contact TBD
5 US Department of Energy
Report "From Cleanup to
Stewardship"
This background report provides a national summary ot the
nature and extent ot DOE's current and anticipated LTS needs
It also examines some of the issues, challenges, and barriers
associated with the transition from cleanup to long-term
stewardship
Final report published October 1999
Contact TBD
September 2005
-------
Organization &
1 nitiative/Study/Report
6 Rocky Flat* Stewardship
Working Group
The Rocky Flats Stewardship
Toolbox Tools tor Long-Term
Planning
Scope <£ Summary
Report provides an analytical matrix designed to help
dccisionmdkers ensure thai long term stewardship requirements
are thoroughly considered during the remedy selection process
The toolbox is divided into six eomponents ot LTS analysis
physical controls, institutional or administrative controls,
operational and performance monitoring and maintenance,
information management, periodic assessment and maintenance
by a responsible controlling authority Toolbox only marginally
addresses issue of cost, and recommends that Federal agencies
revisit and improve upon how lite-eycle costs are calculated
Status/Contact
Information
final Report issued June 2002
Contact TBD
7 ECOS Long- Term Stewardship
Subcommittee
Interagency Dialogue Improve
Consideration ot LTS in the
Remediation Process
The ECOS LTS Subcommittee has been charged with
addressing LTS issues tor ECOS across all relevant Federal
agencies and programs The Subcommittee is coordinating its
internal efforts among relevant CCOS Forums and Committees,
and is also coordinating with other State executive business
organizations ECOS is interested in assuring that LTS issues
are identified early and considered throughout the remedial
planning, design, and implementation process ECOS has
proposed that a dialogue be held among interested governmental
partners to mutually define how the current processes for
considering LTS can be accelerated and improved
ECOS' LTS Subcommittee has been
inactive due to funding constraints
(currently waiting tor EPA funding) If
funding from EPA comes through, it
will work on a project to develop a case
study of sites to formulate LTS
standards The Subcommittee will
primarily focus on Federal Facility
sites, but will also address non-Fed
Facility sites (Sites have not been
selected yet)
Contact Carolyn Hanson LTS
Subcommittee, 202-624-3660, or
R Steven Brown, Executive Director,
sbum , iAso orr
September 2005
37
-------
Organization &
1 nitiative/Study/Report
8. Resources far the Future
Report "Long-Term Stewardship
and the Nuclear Weapons Complex
The Challenge Ahead"
Scope & Summary
The purpose ot the report is to stimulate discussion about the
need for long-term stewardship at the sites in the nuclear
weapons complex Included are the key functions ot a long-
term stewardship program and important institutional issues that
must be addressed to develop a successful LTS program
including a pros and cons discussion of several institutional
alternatives tor carrying out stewardship activities The report
also presents recommendations to address the challenge of LTS
at nuclear weapons sites
Status/Contact
[n formation
Final Report published
Contact Kate Probst
9 National Environmental Policy
Institute
Report "Rolling Stewardship
Beyond Institutional Controls
Preparing Future Generations for
Long-Term Environmental
Cleanups"
Report addresses issues affecting the long-term stewardship ot
contaminated waste sites by posing point-counterpoint
discussion ot issues, and suggests next steps tor policy makers
to consider as they formulate solutions at the national, State, and
local level Key issues include national infrastrueture to
manage post-cleanup care, tailoring the Federal role, balancing
Federal mandates with local/private land use controls,
compiling stewardship sites and tools, funding, and identifying
the universe ot sites and matching solutions
Final Report issued December 1999
Contact TBD
September 2005
38
-------
Organization &
Initiative/Study/Report
10 Environmental Law Institute
(ELI) and Energy Communities
Alliance (ECA)
Study on Practical Implementation
otLTS
Scope & Summarv
LLI and LC A have initiated a project to analyze the practical
implementation ot the legal authorities available to the local
governments States DOt EPA and citizens to implement
long-term stewardship activities at DOE facilities tLl and EGA
will focus on the following issues Federal Statutes and
Regulations Zoning Law and Procedures, State Constitutions
Title Insurance State Statutes and Regulations, Title Searches
and Reporting Procedures, Local Ordinances and Permits DOE,
LPA, NRC Guidance and Local Real Estate Practices ELI and
LCA will review these specific issues and the legal tools
available to implement LTS at two DOE facilities Further LLI
and LCA will interview key real estate professionals and State
and local government officials to develop a "how-to" guide for
eaeh site These two ease studies and the process utilized to
identity the tools available to implement LTS will be instructive
tor local, State, and Federal governments and citizens and
ensure that eaeh party understands the authority, practical
implementation, and limits ot the legal tools when selecting
remedies at sites
Status/Contact
Information
Under development
Contact Seth Kirshenberg, Lxeeutive
Director, sethk(«,energyca org
11. Guardian Trust
Pilot Study
The Guardian Trust is an outgrowth ot a pilot study funded by
the U S EPA and the Pennsylvania Department ot
Environmental Protection Also participating in the study were
the United States Navy, the Maryland Department ot the
Environment and the California Environmental Protection
Agency The pilot study looked at innovative approaches to
solving problems associated with land use and engineering
controls at sites where contamination remains behind after the
initial clean up The vast majority of all environmental clean ups
use risk-based methods
Guardian Trust Pilot Study issued
February 2002
Contact TBD
September 2005
39
-------
Organization &
Initiative/Study/Report
12 Environmental Financial
Advisory Board (EFAB)
Report "Protecting America's Land
Legacy Stewardship Policies,
Tools and Incentives to Protect and
Restore America's Land Legacy'
Scope & Summary
This report discusses general land stewardship practices and
ethics in terms ot protecting "America's Land Legacy " In this
report, EF AB defines stewardship, lays out guiding principles
and a framework for planning a nationwide approach to
stewardship EFAB examines the tools and policies currently
affecting stewardship practices and ethics as well as the
economic incentives involved The report concludes with a
series ot recommendations for the Administrator of EPA The
report focuses primarily on pollution prevention and only
marginally addresses long-term stewardship issues
Status/Contact
Information
Final Report published February 2003
hUp *\«w cp! ^m hfij yi iM J) s x o\,
13. Environmental Law Reporter
Article "Institutional Controls or
Emperor's Clothes9 Long-Term
Stewardship of the Nuclear
Weapons Complex"
The article discusses the challenges that DOE races in
developing an effective LTS program, and presents Findings on
legal limitations and other barriers to effective LTS, including
the failure to establish the types of institutions needed to
manage long-lived wastes Article concludes that existing ICs
are not likely to be effective over time and advocates the
development ot new legal instruments, procedures for current
deeisionmakmg, and stewardship institutions
Article published November 1998
Document reference 28 ELR 10631
14. US Department of Energy
"Legacy Management Strategic
Plan"
This strategic plan explains the responsibilities of the DOE
Office ot Legacy Management and outlines a comprehensive
management plan tor all environmental and human legacy
issues
Strategic plan completed July 2004
Contact TBD
NOTE Submitted by An/ona DEQ
September 2005
40
-------
Organization &
Initiative/Study/Report
Roles and Responsibilities
Scope & Summary
Status/Contact
Information
15 US EPA/OSWER
Guidance for Community
Involvement in Institutional
Controls
EPA is developing guidance on the rolt ot communities in
monitoring and enforcing institutional controls implemented at
sites EPA has held several workshops on 1C issues including
the topic ot community involvement in the 1C process
Workshop participants provided recommendations, which are
captured in the meeting summaries
Under de\ elopmenl
Contact Mike Bellot, (701) 603-8905,
bellot michael@epa gov
16 State and Tribal Government
Working Group (STGWG)
Study on Land Transfers in the DOL
STGWG's Long-Term Stewardship Committee (nicks DOE and
other efforts to address long-term stewardship issues and
contributes to the dialogue and information associated with
these issues on behalf ot STGWG and its members The
STGWG LTS Committee conducted surveys and investigations
ot selected land transfers developed findings on such issues as
responsibility for long-term controls and developed
recommendations tor DOE improvements in area ot land
transfer and long-term stewardship
Study completed October 2001
Contact TBD
17 ELI and EC A
The Role ot Local Governments in
Long-Term Stewardship at DOC
Facilities
In this report, ELI and LCA examine how local governments are
only beginning to develop the capacity to apply their experience
to the highly speciali/ed types of environmental ha/ards that
DOE leaves behind The report presents the results of in-depth
studies of the existing and planned roles and capabilities ot local
governments with respect to LTS at three DOE facilities The
report provides recommendations tor how DOE and local
governments should work together to address LTS issues
Final report issued 2001
Contact TBD
September 2005
41
-------
Organization &
Initiativc/Study/Report
18 International City/County
Management Association (ICMA)
Report "Striking a Balance Local
Government Implementation of
Land Use Control"
Scope & Summary
This report highlights the best practices, strategics, and lessons
learned from a peer exchange between local government
officials trom Louisville- Jefferson County, Kentucky, and
Chautauqua County, New York, in which they shared
information about the challenges they face and the strategies
they employ to address land use controls in their communities
The report takes an m-depth look at land use controls and the
challenges and opportunities that local governments and other
public and private stakeholders face in maintaining them It
also addresses such issues as design and implementation ot land
use controls, stakeholder coordination, information
management, enforcement, and funding
Status/Contact
Information
Final November, 2003
Contact
Danielle Miller Wagner
Director, Brownfields Program
ICMA
777 North Capitol Street, Nt
Suite 500
Washington, D C 20002-4201
http //www2 icma org/mam/ld asp^fro
m-search&ldid=16738&hsid-l
September 2005
42
-------
Organization &
1 nitiative/Study/Report
19 Energy Communities Alliance
(ECA)
Interagency policy meetings
Scope & Summary
LCA members conduct peer meetings to discuss the potential
rok ot local governments in long-term stewardship at DOL
facilities EGA held its first meeting in Grand Junction,
Colorado and plans to hold at least two additional meetings to
scope out the specific roles at specific sites This study should
educate local governments on long-term stewardship issues,
educate State and Federal government officials on the potential
role of local governments when selecting remedies, and ensure
that local, State and Federal government officials communicate
on these important issues that impact local communities CCA
also believes that one of these meetings would be ajoint State
and local government meeting
Status/Contact
Information
ECA held a peer meeting in Santa Fe to
bring together local government and
DOE officials to voice concerns about
LM and LTS A summary and next
steps are currently being developed
ECA is also holding an
intergovernmental meeting with DOE
officials in DC in early November The
meeting will focus on LM and LTS,
although the product ot meeting is
uncertain considering possible
administration change ECA's policy
statement on Lnvironmental
Remediation and Long-Term
Stewardship can be found at
h!t£i , WAV, i ! ( i^.tdor^P.)! * t A '( 1
pdt
Contact Sara S/ynw elski Assistant
Program Manager,
g\ v! e-rg
Information Management
20 US EPA/OSWER
InMitutional Controls Tracking
System (ICTS)
EPA is currently developing and populating ICTS, a web-based
system with a mapping component that tracks the life-cycle ot
ICs and allows tor data sharing with stakeholders The system is
being developed in two phases with the first focusing on
collecting and maintaining basic 1C information and the second
expanding to include more detailed information and data
exchange capabilities
Under development
Contact Mike Bel lot (703) 6CB-8905
bellot michael(o:epa gov
September 2005
-------
Organization &
I nitiativtVStud y/Report
21 US EPA/OSWER
1C Data Element Registry (DER)
Scope & Summary
EPA has drafted the 1C DER as a tool to facilitate the exchange
of information among existing tracking systems using common
language EPA requested input from 300 organizations wilhm
various levels of government, and org
-------
Organization &
Initiative/Study/Report
25 US Department of Energy
Report "Managing Data tor Long-
Term Stewardship"
Scope & Summary
Report presents a preliminary assessment ot how successfully
information about the ha/ards that remain at DOL sites will be
preserved and made accessible tor the duration ot LTS Report
addresses such issues as defining LTS data, how data will be
used tor future LTS activities, how data is managed and
preserved tor future generations consequences ot information
loss, organization and references tor stewardship data and
requirements tor developing a system to manage stewardship
data
Status/Contact
Information
Working draft report issued in 1998,
final report unknown
Contact TBD
26 State and Tribal Government
Working Group
Interim Report on Information
Management tor Long-Term
Stewardship
STGWG's Long-Term Stewardship Committee tracks DOE and
other efforts to address long-term stewardship issues and
contributes to the dialogue and information associated with
these issues on behalf of STGWG and its members The
STGWG I TS t ommittce conducted a survey ot state and tribal
governments to determine the scope of potential long-term
stewardship information needs including identifying and
ranking the importance ot the types ot information needed
potential users ot information, and purposes tor \vhich
information would be needed
Survey completed and interim report
prepared October 2001 Tollow-up
study discussed to address data gaps
Contact TBD
2 7 International City/Co unty
Management Association
Land Use Controls e-Library Web
Site
ICMA has launched a Web site dedicated to the collection and
distribution ot information related to land-use controls (LLJCs)
at browntlclds, Supertund sites, military bases, or other
contaminated properties As a clearinghouse ot information
related to LUCs, the electronic library (e-Library) represents a
tool and resource tor communities and local government
professionals The e-Library contains a wide variety ot
information including public and private LUCs, model LUCs
zoning codes, restrictive covenants and easements, and site
reuse plans
Ongoing see xv .vv i I v. >
Contact Joe Schilling
September 2005
45
-------
Organization &
I nitiative/Study/Report
28. American Society of Testing
and Materials (ASTM)
Workgroup for Identifying 1C
Tracking Data Elements
Scope & Summary
ASTM has formed a workgroup to consider options tor
developing an industry standard of minimal 1C data elements to
ensure long-term stewardship at sites Preliminary discussions
have identified the following six general categories ot
information site identification/IC location 1C instruments 1C
objectives 1C restrictions/obligations location of other 1C
information and 1C eontact information
Status/Contact
Information
Ongoing
Contact TBD
Institutional and Engineering Controls
29 US EPA/OSWER
Report "Institutional Controls A
Site Manager's Guide to Identifying,
Evaluating, and Selecting
Institutional Controls at Superfund
and RCRA Corrective Action
Cleanups"
Provides Superfund and RCRA site managers and other
decision makers with an overview of the types ot ICs that are
commonly available, including their relative strengths and
weaknesses, and to provide a discussion of the key factors to
consider when evaluating and selecting ICs in Superfund and
RCRA Corrective Action cleanups
Final Guidance, September 2000
Contaet Mike Bellot, (703) 603-8905,
bellot miehacl@epa gov
30. U.S EPA/OSWER
Report "Institutional Controls A
Guide to Implementing, Monitoring,
and Enforcing Institutional Controls
at Superfund, Brownfields, I-ederal
Facility, UST, and RCRA
Corrective Aetion Cleanups"
Provides site managers and site attorneys with an overview of
responsibilities for the implementation, monitoring, and
enforcement of ICs at their sites, and discusses common issues
they may encounter when carrying out these responsibilities
Draft Guidance, February 2003
Contact Mike Beiiot, (703) 603-8905
bellot michael(«)cpa gov
31. U.S EPA/OSWER
1C Tracking/Monitoring Pilot
Projects
EPA Superrund is sponsoring several pilot projeets in
conjunction with State and local governments, industry, and
other NGOs to monitor sites and alert stakeholders ot possible
activities affecting established ICs Several pilots are exploring
the inclusion of information about waste sites in existing one-
call systems designed to prevent damages to utilities from
excavation and other development
Ongoing
Contact Mike Bellot, (703) 603-8905
bellot michael@epa gov
September 2005
46
-------
Organization <&
Initiative/Stud)/Report
32 US EPA/OSWER
The Comprehensive i i\c-Ycar
Review Guidance
Scope & '.Summary
Document provides guidance for complying with requirements
to conduct a review of the remedy every five years to ensure
protection of human health and the environment tor remedial
actions that result in hazardous substances, pollutants, or
contaminants remaining at the site Guidance is intended to
provide an approach for conducting five-year reviews, clarify
current policy provide consistency, and discuss roles and
responsibilities, including community involvement
Status/Contact
Information
final issued June 200!
Contact Rafael Gonzalez LPA
gon/alez ratacl(«jepa gov
33 US EPA/OSWER
Guidance 'Operation and
Maintenance in the Supertund
Program"
Document provides guidance to site managers tor conducting
O&M activities at sites, including O&M considerations
throughout the life cycle of site cleanup and post-cleanup care
Guidance also provides information on the roles and
responsibilities of EPA, Slates, and PRPs throughout O&M
process, including EPA cnersight as O&M responsibilities are
transferred to States or PRPs
Final issued Mav 2001
34 US EPA/OSWER
Guidance ' Transfer of Long Term
Response Action (LTRA) Projects
to States
Guidance provides key elements of the LTRA transfer process
and provides guidance to site managers concerning the transfer
of responsibilities from EPA to States tor O&M
1- mal issued July 200"}
September 2005
47
-------
Organization &
I n itiative /Study/Report
35 US Department of Energy
Policy Use of Institutional Controls
Scope & Summary
Policy delineates how DOE will use ICs in the management of
resources, facilities and properties under its control The policy
also explains how DOE will use ICs to implement its
responsibilities pursuant to various statutes, such as the Nuclear
Waste Policy Act, the Atomic Energy Act, and the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act This pohey is intended to
guide DOE decisions related to planning, maintenance, and
implementation of ICs whc-n such controls are used at DOE sites
or utilized under a statutory program The policy is also
intended to address DOE's responsibilities related to its role as a
steward of Tederal lands and properties and identify activities
that DOE needs to accomplish to ensure that ICs are properly
used and maintained
Status/Contact
Information
Hnal April 20(H
Contact TBD
36. DOE Idaho National
Engineering and Environmental
Laboratory (INEEL)
Technology Innovations
In support of DOE's perspective on long-term solutions, the
INEEL is concentrating considerable resources on its
Environmental Stewardship Initiative The INEEL will integrate
the best science and engineering talent into its stewardship
activities The major thrust is to coordinate investments in
science and technology that result in significant reductions of
risk and cost, and increased protection of human health and the
environment after cleanup activities have ended Various
technological innovations are identified to reduce eosts of long-
term stewardship
Kevin Kostelmk
208-526-9642
Kvk@mel gov
September 2005
48
-------
Organization &
I nitiat ive/Study/Report
37 US Department of Defense
' Policy on Land Use Controls
Associated with Environmental
Restoralion Activities"
Scope & Summary
Provides DoD components with environmental restoration and
land use management responsibilities an overall DoD
framework tor implementing, documenting, and managing land
use controls for real property being transferred out of federal
control and for active installations The intent of the policy is to
ensure land use activities in the future remain compatible with
the land use restrictions imposed on the properly during the
environ menial restoration process
Status/Contact
Information
Final issued
Contact TI3D
38 US Department of Defense
"Guidance on Land Use Controls
Associated with Environmental
Restoration Activities for Property
Planned for Transfer Out of federal
Control'
This document provides DoD Components with
environmental restoration and land use management
responsibilities guidance on dc\clopmg, implementing,
recording, and managing land use controls (LUCs) for
properly planned for transfer from Department of Defense
(DoD) to non-Federal entities This guidance is b ised on DoD
Polity on Land Use Controls Associated \\ith Environmental
Restoration Aclnities This guidance provides a range of
options that may be used separately or collectively tor
incorporating land use controls into existing land use
management processes
Final issued March 2001
Contact TBD
39 US Army Corps of Engineers
Guidance "Recurring Reviews on
Ordnance and Explosives (OE)
Response Actions"
Guidance presents procedures for developing and implementing
recurring rev lew requirements for OE response actions The
purpose of recurring reviews is to determine if a response action
continues to minimize explosive safety risks and continues to be
protective of human health, safety, and the environment
Recurring reviews are conducted under the long-term
management phase once a Formerly used Defense Site achieves
response complete Recurring reviews satisfies CLRCLA five-
year review requirements
Final published October 2001
Contact TBD
September 2005
49
-------
Organisation &
1 nit iath e/Stu dy/Repo ft
40 U S Army Corps of Engineers
Guidance "Establishing and
Maintaining Institutional Controls
tor Ordnance and Explosives (OE)
Projects"
Scope & Summary
Document provides an overview of ICs and guidance and tools
for establishing, implementing, and maintaining an 1C program
The guidance also provides key principles of an 1C program
Status/Contact
[nfornuUion
Final issued December 2000
Contact TBD
41 National Governors
Association Long- Term
Stewardship Committee
Report on Federal & State Statutory
Framework for Effective LTS
An NG A Task Force, composed of State regulators and
Governors' policy advisors, established a Long-Term
Stewardship Committee The NGA LTS Committee is
conducting a study (drawing on NAAG research) on Federal
and State statutory issues & long-term stewardship that will
examine, among olher issues, the adequacy ot existing
mechanisms tor institutional controls, and the applicability of
state 1C laws to federal agencies
NGA operates an LTS Subcommittee
under its Federal Facilities Task Force
NGA holds regular meetings and
conference calls primarily between
State and DOE representatives, and is
focusing on ICs and post-closure
agreements NGA anticipates it will
produce a paper on post-closure
agreements and the role ot the States by
the end ot the year NGA's policy
statement on Environmental
Compliance at Federal Facilities (NR-
8) can be found on its website at
Contact Kara Colton
kcolton@ngaorg
202-624-5300
September 2005
^/w/wvvwwvvvvvwvsrjv-JvA^^
50
-------
Organization &
lnitiativ«/St«dy/Report
42 National 4ssot lation of
Attorney* General fA'AAO)
Legal Handbook of Institutional
Controls
Scope &...Summary
NAAG is working on a state-by-statc analysis of statutory and
common law in cachot the states, designed to evaluate whether
existing mechanisms could be used to impost ettective and
entoreeablc institutional eontrols The handbook will include a
general discussion of the common law in this area, the state-by -
state breakdown- charts and textual material- and probably a
discussion ot the legal issues, surrounding transfer ot federal
properties
Status/Contact
Information
Under development
Contact TBD
43 National Association of
Attorneys General
In-Depth Analysis ot State
Authorities tor Institutional Controls
In conjunction with ELI NAAG is working on a detailed
review of legal authorities and processes that govern
institutional controls at three sites The LLI analysis will be a
detailed investigation ot the State laws* that attect land-use
restrictions at the sites For instance, the analysis will look at
/oning laws, Slate laws related to building codes groutuiwater
laws, public health laws and mining laws that might be used to
restrict certain types ot uses NAAG expects to contribute State
law research and analysis, descriptions ot environmental
regulation by the State and general review ot other taeets of the
in-depth analysis
Under development
Contact TBD
44 National Association of
Attorneys General
Review ot Barriers to federal
Transfer ot Land-Use Rights
NAAG expects to produce legal research related to the legal and
policy issues on the barriers to federal transfer of land-use
rights, but has not decided what format to use tor making the
research available to the larger community There may be a
published colloquium, a law review style paper, or possibly a
conference among the various knowledgeable parties
Under development
Contact TBD
September 2005
51
-------
Organization &
Initiative/Study/Report
45 National Conference of
Commissioners on Uniform State
Laws (NCCUSL)
Uniform Lnvironmental Covenants
Act - Model Language
Scope & Summary
Developed at the request of EPA and DoD, NCCUSL has
developed standard statutory language tor consideration and
adoption by State legislature!) to facilitate the implementation
and enforcement of institutional controls at sites where residual
contamination exists
Status/Contact
In formation
http //www Uw upinn edu/bll/ulc/ueca/
2 003 final htm
46 Association of State &
Territorial Solid Waste
Management Officials
White Paper "Institutional Controls
and Long Term Stewardship Where
Are We Going9"
Paper identifies the present and future hurdles associated with
the use ot ICs, and what State and Federal programs should
consider in developing poliey to address these hurdles The
paper also provides guidance on principles that are important for
an effective 1C program, and should be included in any
institutional control or long-term stewardship policy or strategy
I mal issued May 20, 2004
Contact Gary King (IL) Chair,
CCRCLA Research Center
Subcommittee
47. Association of State &
Territorial Solid Waste
Management Officials
"Survey of Slate Institutional
Control Meehamsms"
ASTSWMO conducted a survey of State cleanup programs to
determine to what extent ICs are used nationally, and to
determine the successes and issues surrounding their use
Specific elements addressed in the survey results melude the
frequency ot use in State programs and eommunity and local
government involvement in ICs
Survey results published in Deeember
1997
Contact TBD
September 2005
52
-------
Organization &
Initiative/Study/Rcport
48 Am eric an Society of TVs ting
and Materials (ASTM)
"Standard Guide for Use ot Activity
and Use Limitations, Including
Institutional and Engineering
Controls" (L 2091-00)
49 Environmental Law Institute
Report 'Institutional Controls in
Use'
Scope & Summary
This guide covers information tor incorporating activity and use
limitations that are protective ot human health and the
environment into Federal Stale, Tribal or local remediation
programs using a risk-based approach to corrective action
Specifically, it identifies screening and balancing criteria that
should be applied in determining whether any particular activity
and use limitation may be appropriate This guide identifies the
need to develop long-term monitoring and stewardship plans to
ensure the long-term reliability and entorceabihty ot activity
and use limitations This guide explains the purpose of activity
and use limitations in the remedial action process and the types
ot actrv ity and use limitations that are most commonly
available
This report anticipates amendments to Supcrtund and describes
in concrete terms how institutional controls have been used at
Superfund sites and in similar situations in the past Experience
with past use of institutional controls provides Superfund
policymakers with valuable examples and knowledge about how
best to use these tools to protect humans tor as long as risk
remains at a site
Status/Contact
information
Guide published
http //www astm org/cgi-
bin/SoftCart exe/DATABASE CART/
REDLINE_PAGLS/E2091 htnVL+mys
tore+ltwd2355+10881460]5
Final rcpoit published 1995
Contact TBD
SO Resources for the Future
Report ' Linking Land Use and
Supciiund Cleanups Uncharted
Territory'
This report describes the intersection between land use and
remedy selection and explores how these two processes become
interconnected when pressure's for site reuse and restricted
cleanups converge A key chapter ot the report addresses ICs
and the entical role they play in linking land use and remedy
selection, including a. detailed analysis ot the reliability ot local
land use regulatory systems to maintain the viability of ICs
Final report issued June 1997
Contact Kate Probst
September 2005
53
-------
Organization &
Initiative/Study/Report
Cost and Funding
Scope & Summary
Status/Contact
Information
5/. U.S EPA/OSWER
Guidance tor Estimating Costs tor
Implementing Institutional Controls
EPA is planning to develop guidance tor estimating the costs of
implementing ICs An October 2001 workshop addressed the
issues associated with estimating the costs of establishing and
maintaining institutional controls The discussion and feedback
was centered on five issue areas (1) What costs should be
included in 1C cost estimates7 (2) When is the right time to
estimate/define the costs9 (3) Who should develop the cost
estimates and what tools ean be provided to assist them7 (4)
How should the out-year cost evaluation be performed7 and (5)
Who pays tor these costs in the future and what are the options
for financing ICs9
Under development
Contact Mike Bcllot (703) 603-8905
bellot michael@epa gov
52 US DOE, National Energy
Technology Laboratory
LTS Cost Estimating Techniques
DOE/NETL is currently leading efforts to develop separate cost
estimating techniques for long-term stewardship and incorporate
these modules into the Environmental Cost Element Structure, a
cross-agency framework tor estimating and managing
environmental management costs
Status unknown
Contact TBD
S3 US DOE, Rocky Flats,
Environmental Technology Site
Cost Estimation Methodology
DOE/RFETS developed an activity-based methodology to
estimate its annual stewardship costs based on the type, cost,
and duration of anticipated long-term stewardship activities
Completed 1999
Contact TBD
JVWVVWWWVl^VUl^VWl/^JVJWJV^^^ "
September 2005
54
-------
Organization &
I nitiative/Stud y/Rcport
54. State and Tribal Government
Working Group
Paper "Long-Term Gobi Lstimation
in the DOE"
Scope & Summary
STGWG conducted research on (he economics and cost
estimating literature .ind interviewed experts in these fields to
identity potential alternative methodologies to DOL cost
estimation methods using present worth analysis The paper
makes several recommendations tor continuing to explore
alternative methods tor developing cost estimates ot LTS
commitments
Status/Contact
Information
Paper issued in October 2001, efforts
are ongoing
Contact TBD
55 National Governors
Association Long-Term
Stewardship Committee
Report on Federal & State Statutory
Framework tor Lttective LTS
An NG A Task Force, composed ot State regulators and
Governors' policy advisors, established a Long-Term
Stewardship Committee The NGA LTS Committee is
conducting a study on Federal and State statutory issues &. long-
term stewardship that will examine LTS handing mechanisms
and related issues
NGA operates an LTS Subcommittee
under its Federal Facilities Task Force
NGA holds regular meetings and
conference calls primarily between
State and DOL representatives and is
tocusmg on ICs and post-closure
agreements NGA anticipates it will
produce a paper on post-closure
agreements and the role ot the Stales by
the end ot the year NGA's policy
statement on Cnv ironmcntal
Compliance at federal Facilities (NR-
8) can be tound on its website at
\v AW n'a orj
Contact Kara Col ton
kcolton@nga org
202-624-5300
September 2005
55
-------
Organisation &
1 nitiative/Study/Report
56 National Governors
Association Center for Best
Practices
Issue Brief Funding Long-Term
Stewardship ot DOE Weapons Sites
Tennessee's Perpetual Care Trust
Fund
Scope 4& Summary
Based on a 1999 agreement between DOE and Tennessee
Department of Environmental Conservation, DOE is funding a
trust fund to finance long-term stewardship (e g , annual O&M)
costs following the closure of an Oak Ridge disposal cell for
hazardous, radioactive, and mixed wastes This issue brief
provides an overview of the trust fund approach, the ehallenges
it may faee rn the future, and possible solutions to those
challenges It also provides next steps for State officials to
follow to pursue the establishment ot similar LTS trust funds
Status/Contact
Information
Status Unknown
Contact TBD
57 Environmental Financial
Advisory Board (EFAB)
Guidebook "A Guidebook ot
Fmaneial Tools"
A Guidebook oj Financial Tools is a reference work intended to
provide an overview ot a wide range of ways and means that are
useful in paying for sustainable environmental systems The
document presents comprehensive financing tools that include
traditional means ot raising revenue, borrowing capital,
enhancing credit, creating public- private partnerships, and ways
of providing technical assistance The document also presents
financing tools that are, will, or might soon be, available to
address significant environmental priorities, including ways ot
lowering the costs ot compliance encouraging pollution
prevention, paying tor community-based environmental
protection, financing brownfields redevelopment, and
improving access to capital tor small businesses and the
environmental goods and services industry Each tool is
described along with its actual and potential uses, advantages
and limitations, and references tor further information
Latest Edition April 1999
http //www epa gov/efmpage/guidbkpd
f htm
September 2005
56
-------
Organization &
Initiative/Study/Report
Resources for the Future
Diseussion Paper "Long-Term
Stewardship of Contaminated Sites
Trust Funds as Mechanisms for
Financing and Oversight"
Scope & Summary
RFF explores different mechanisms for financing and oversight
of LTS aetivilics at both private and 1 edera.1 contaminated silts,
focusing primarily on trust funds The paper evaluates two
components of the issue (1) the finaneial aspect, so that funds
are available now and m the future, and (2) the legal and
institutional aspect, to ensure that LTS activities will m tact be
implemented in the future and that those commitments can be
enforced over time
Status/Contact
Information
Discussion paper issued December
2000
Contact Kate Probst
September 2005
57
------- |