SUPERFUND ACCELERATED CLEANUP MODEL fSACM) INFORMAfI^:^^dte!fi^rters Library
Man cocie 3404T
TABLE OF CONTENTS 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20460
202-566-0556
Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model (SACM): Questions & Answers.
OSWER 9203.1-10FS
SACM Issue Exchange Form.
Accelerated Cleanup Model Fine-Tuned For Full Operation in 1994,
EPA Officials Say.
GAO Says Speed of Superfund Cleanups Should Be Accelerated.
Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model (SACM) in Highlights: Superfund
Program Management FY 1993 (OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-3).
Further Direction on Implementing the Superfund Accelerated Cleanup
Model (SACM). OSWER 9203.1-08
Getting PRPs to Fund Cleanups, Streamlining Process Top Priorities.
Superfund Cut By $89 Million
The Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model: Moving Forward
EPA's Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model: A Paradigm For CERCLA
Reauthorization.
EPA Guidance Sets Current Superfund Program Priorities For Regions.
Office of Federal Facilities Enforcement to Implement SACM For
Cleanups.
EPA Program Priorities Set Forth In Memorandum To Regional Offices.
Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Bulletin: Presumptive Remedies for
Municipal Landfill Sites. OSWER 9203.1-021
EPA Needs To Increase Public Involvement In SACM Process, Editorial
Says.
Proposal For Speeding Cleanups Can Forward Goals of SACM.
Early Action and Long-Term Action Under SACM - Interim Guidance.
OSWER 9203.1-051 V1N2
Status of Key SACM Program Management Issues - Interim Guidance.
OSWER 9203.1-051 V1N1
Enforcement Under SACM - Interim Guidance. OSWER 9203.1-051 V1N3
Assessing sites Under SACM - Interim Guidance OSWER 9203.1-051
-------
t -
-------
V1N4
SACM Regional Decision Teams - Interim Guidance. OSWER 9203.1-051
V1N5
Draft SACM Shortsheets Map Out Plan For Superfund Cleanups.
The Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model: The Wave of the Future.
The Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model (SACM). OSWER 9203.1-021
V1N4
Exercising Flexibility Through the Superfund Accelerated Cleanup
Model. OSWER 9203.1-03A
Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Bulletin: Presumptive Remedies.
OSWER 9203.1-021 V1N3
Guidance on Implementation of the Superfund Accelerated Cleanup
Model (SACM) under CERCLA and the NCP. OSWER 9203.1-03
Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model (SACM) from the Superfund
Revitalization Public Forum, Washington, B.C. 06/24/1992.
Regional Pilots and Applications of Superfund Accelerated Cleanup
Model (SACM). OSWER 9202.1-03FS
Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Bulletin: Presumptive Remedies for
Wood Treatment Facilities. OSWER 9203.1-021
Publication of "Presumptive Remedies for Wood Treatment Facilities"
Bulletin.
Superfund Accelerated Clea. *odel (SACM). OSWER 9203.1-01
Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Bu. ^iicin: Presumptive Remedies for
Municipal Landfill Sites. OSWER a..03...-021 Vli.'l
EPA to Merge Removal, Remedial Programs in Move To Speed Cleanups.
-------
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Wasta and
Emergency Response
Publication 9203.1-10FS
EPA 540-F-93-024
PB 93-963286
July 1993
svEPA Superfund Accelerated Cleanup
Model (SACM)
Questions & Answers
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response (OWQO)
Office of Waste Programs Enforcement
This bulletin provides answers to issues the Regions have raised on the Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model
(SACM). The answers are based on discussions with Hemy I_ Longest n (Director, Office of Emergency and
Remedial Response), and the SACM Steering Committee which includes: Tom Sheckells (Director, Office of
Program Management); Debbie Dietrich (Director, Emergency Response Division); Larry Reed (Director,
Hazardous Site Evaluation Division); Dave Bennett (Acting Director, Hazardous Site Control Division); and
Sally Seymour (Director, OWPE/CERCLA Enforcement Division).
REGION: What is the priority of
SACM relative to construction
completions?
Henry Longest: In a recent directive
(OSWER Directive No. 9202.1-14),
1WER and the Office of
brcement (OE) outlined the
eight National Superfund
Program Priorities for FY1993.
The top three include: (1)
construction completions; (2)
enforcement first; and (3) accelerating cleanup through
implementation of SACM and presumptive remedies. We
view these as complementary priorities that are aimed at
achieving measurable program results (completions),
leveraging all available resources for cleanup (enforcement
first), and improving and streamlining our process
(acceleration). Our priority still is to deal with the worst sites
first. SACM provides tools to help us accelerate sites already
in the pipeline, and assess and respond to the worst sites
awaiting entry into the pipline. It is a base assumption that
emergencies will always be given first attention. We are
developing more detailed guidance on how to manage the
blending of program priorities.
REGION: How will Regions get credit for work
performed under SACM?
Jom Sheckells: For FY93, the Office of Policy, Planning and
valuation (OPPE) approved the joint Office of Emergency
and Remedial Response (OERR) and Officeof Waste Programs
Enforcement (OWPE) request for increased flexibility in target
adjustments for Regions pursuing
SACM initiatives. Regions were given
the opportunity to request relief
from specific SCAP/STARS FY93
targets by April 30. Targets will
be adjusted accordingly for
^3 Regions to get credit while
implementing SACM.
Faster... Ctea/?er...Safer
REGION: Will the number
of non-NPL sites the removal
program has cleaned up be used to count towards
construction completions?
Henry Longest: No. It has been estimated that over 700 non-
NPLsiteshavebeencleanedupbytheremovalpropram. The
size, duration, and complexity of the non-NPL removals can
not be equated with long-term responses at NPL sites.
However, the number of non-NPL sites cleaned up by the
removal program will be a separate accomplishment from the
NPL construction completion number. Together these
numbers will convey a more comprehensive measure of all of
Superfund's accomplishments to the public.
REGION:
measured?
How are the impacts of SACM being
Tom Sheckells; Initially, we will measure the impacts of
SACM by comparing the results of the pilot project si tes with
a historical baseline. Currently, we are in the process of
developing a comprehensive revision of our FVM SCAT and
STARS measures to focus our program evaluation efforts on
-------
measurement of program results in terms compatible with
SACM'sgoal$of(l)accelerating response, (2) improving cost-
effectiveness, and (3) achieving rapid risk reduction in a
manner consistent with "enforcement first".
REGION: How will SACM activities be funded?
TomSheckells: Currently,SACM funding activities aredealt
withonacase-by-case basis in consultation with Headquarters.
We are working on a FY94 funding strategy that will integrate
funding for SACM initiatives with funding for traditional
pipeline activities. This strategy will be documented in the
FY94 Program Management Manual that will be available to
the Regions in draft form this summer, prior to FY94 resource
negotiations.
REGION: Under SACM, should Regions reevaluate
existing pre-NPL and NPL sites for potential early
actions in addition to focusing on integrated site
assessments and early actions for new sites?
TomSheckells: After determining the resources required to
meet the construction completion goal. Regions should focus
remaining resources on the worst sites first to reduce risk
most quickly and efficiently atNPL, NPL-caUber, and non-NPL
sites.
REGION: What is the definition of an NPL-caliber
site?
Larry Reed: "NFL-caHber" sites are those sites with a potential
for a Hazard Ranking Sy:>tem (HRS) score above 285. At such
sites, the remedial investigation (RI) and enforcement actions
like the PRP search should begin prior to the NPL proposal.
Of course,manyNPL-caHbersites will pose threats which will
meet NCP removal criteria. Removal authority can be utilized
to prevent, minimize or mitigate significant threats. The
SACM Assessment Short Sheet (Publication No. 9303.1-051)
gives an excellent list of examplesofNPL-caliber sites. Further
guidance is being developed.
REGION: What is integrated site assessment?
Larry Reed: Integrated site assessment combines removal
and remedial assessment It eliminates redundancy in data
collection across programs, minimizes the number of
mobilizations for field work, and eliminates the unessential
' down time between steps in the process. A team of Regional
staff determines the focus of assessment activities to meet the
data needs at a site- Data collection proceeds until there is
enough information for the RDT to make a response decision.
It is not anticipated that there will be an overall, significant
increase in workload associated with the process change for
the screening level operations.
REGION: Do Regions need to track each compon
the integrated site assessment? If so, how is
component defined?
Larry Reed: Regions still need to continue the individual
activity reporting we currently have for site assessment
activities in CERCUS. It is important to track this information
to report our achievement in meeting the statutory goals for
a$sessmentactivities,and to report the statusof site assessment
at sites. Headquarters is currently developing guidance on
entering combined assessment activities into CERCUS.
REGION: Will credit be given for negotiations to do
monitoring at no-action ROD sites under SACM?
Sally Seymour Negotiation completion/settlement credit
will not be given for negotiation of monitoring agreements
pursuant to no-actionRODs. This is to a void encouraging the
use of limited negotiation resources to negotiate an agreement
which addresses a nominal site at the expense of using those
resources to negotiate an RD/RA settlement at a higherj
and higher cost site. If the Region committed to a SC APl
at a site where action was anticipated, but the ROD resl
in no action, and the Region has no site substitutions, the
Region should submit a request for relief from the RD/RA
negotiation completion and RD/RA settlement For SACM
sites which do not meet FY93 RD/RA negotiation completion
and settlement definition. Regions should submit a request
for target relief to Headquarters. Consultation with
Headquarters is recommended prior to proceeding with the
action and resulting request
g Mtwat
icrrgfc
•
REGION: Under SACM, how will negotiations be
referred to?
Sally Seymour: For CERCUS purposes, negofaa a ons will be
tracked as removal negotiations and RD/RA negotiations.
For SCAP purposes, SACM project negotiation completions
will be referred to as cleanup negotiation completions. For
reporting purposes, SCAP reports will be modified to pickup
removal and RD/RA negotiations consistent with SCAP
definitions at NPL and NPL-caliber sites.
-------
REGION: What type of decision documents are required
for removal actions at NPL sites where those removal
actions are the sole or final responses at the site?
Debbie Dietrich: The action memorandum is the decision
it for all removal actions. When a removal action is
• sole or final response at a NPL site, a ROD is required in
addition to the action memo. EPA's polky on site deletion is
that a ROD is needed to document that no further action is
necessary for an entire NPL site. The basis for this policy is
that the ROD and the supporting RI provides the information
necessary for the finding that the site warrants deletion from
the NPL. This information is included in the administrative
record to support the site deletion. This policy is under
review in light of SACM. (See Interim Final Guidance on
Preparing Superfund Decision Documents, October 1989,
OSWER Directive 9335.3092, page 9-2).
REGION: Do non-time-critical removals need an action
memorandum?
Debbie Dietrich: Every response action using removal
authority must be authorized with an action memorandum.
This includes emergency, time-critical and non-time-critical
removals. The action memo is the decision document and
justifies the use of removal authority as required by the NCP.
GION:Towhatextentareretnedialbalancingcriteria
ed in non-time-critical removal response decisions?
Debbie Dietrich: Generally, non-time-critical removal
(NTCR) actions are focused on problems of relatively limited
complexity and scope. Consequently, the NTCR decision
process is a streamlined version of the RIPS/ROD process.
The nine criteria used in remedial decision-making will not be
applied individually; for NTCRs, these criteria have been
collapsed into three categories effectiveness, impJementability
and cost These categories will be the basis of the alternatives
analysis, which will lead to the selectionof the NTCR response.
REGION: What does the $50 million set-aside
cover?
Debbie Dietrich: These funds are for removal or remedial
response work that will contribute to early action at NPL
sites. Unless part of the response action, the funding should
not be used exclusively for site analysis, response planning, or
negotiations. Unplanned funding for these activities may
come from approved realisations of RI/FS and design
budgets or the regular removal allowance. The set-aside
funds are allocated on a first-come, first-served basis. Regions
should submit proposals directly to the Emergency Response
Division.
REGION: What is EPA's policy on State deferral under
SACM?
Larry Reed: Superfund currently does not defer cleanups to
the States. Deferral to the States and PRPs was proposed in
1988 in the draft NCP. There was considerable opposition
from Congress and environmental groups, and the
Administrator agreed not to carry the issue any further. EPA
should work with the States to appropriately prioritize the
"worst sites" with regard to threats to human health and the
environment This prioritization is for establishing the order
in which sites are addressed, not to remove sites from further
consideration. The Adininistrator'sSupeTfundAdnurastrative
Improvements study is Devaluating the usefulness and
feasibility of State deferral.
REGION: How does the Long-Term Contracting
Strategy (ITS) support SACM?
Tom Sheckells: The Long-Term Contracting Strategy
(LTCS) supports SACM in several ways. The LTCS was
designed to gain contract flexibility beyond the services
provided to only one particular program area. The new
contracts are structured to support functions, rather
than specific program areas.
For example. Field Assessment capabilities will
be available in the Superfund Technical Assessment and
Response Team (START) contracts and will provide
flexibility to cross program areas to serve multiple
Regional personnel. START is a merge of what used to be
the TAT (removal) and FIT (remedial) contracts. Many
of the underlying principles of SACM, such as expanding
short-term responses, were anticipated in activities
under the LTCS. One example of this is the Emergency
and Rapid Response Service (ERRS) contracts. The
Regions felt that Regional management of the contracts
would lead to improvement in oversight and contractor
responsiveness. This also provides maximum support
to the Regional Decision Teams (RDTs).
-------
REGION: Since many of the SACM/LTCS contracts
tvillbt under thepunriew of the R£gions,urill appropriate
resourcesbeprovided to the Regions to properly manage
the contracts?
Tom Sheckell*: There will not be additional resources for
Superfund; however; the workload model for Superfund is
currently being revised, with active Regional participation, to
more accurately reflect the resource distribution needs of the
program. Contracts management is and will continue to be an
important part of doing business responsibly under
Superfund; contracts management will have to be given
appropriate weighting: overall resource distribution. The
Administrator has made it dear mat EPA managers are to
adopt a philosophy of * management over mission" in an
effort to "effectively leverage the Agency'sresources to protect
the environment" Hence, contract management issues will
need to be addressed and the necessary resources devoted to
them.
REGION: Will there be adequate capacity in the
contracts to handle SACM activities? Will there be
extramural funds available to add to the contracts?
Tom Sheckelli: The Regions have formed work groups
to put together plans for the implementation of LTCS and
how they will address various issues. One of the issues
currently being addressed as Statements of Work and
procurement packages are put together is contract
capacity m support of SACM activities. If there are
specific concerns about a contract or area of SACM, you
should contact your Regional LTCS lead. Contracts will
be designed to best support the streamlined process of
One Program. While no additional resources are expected.
there may be shifts in resources from different contract areas
to meet the demands of the program.
REGION: Are there any limitations on
using the Emergency and Rapid Response Services
(ERRS) contracts for early actions?
Debbie Dietrich: There are no hard and fast limitatio
the use of the ERRS contracts. Though the first priority must
be given to emergency and time-critical actions, ERKS contracts
may also be used for non-time critical removals and early
actions using remedial authority.
j
Use of the ERRS contracts will be limited, obviously,
by their capacity. The amount of early remedial responses
to be performed by the ERRS contracts must be determined by
theRegionsandbuiltintoallnewcontracts. ThecurrentERRS
contracts do not allow for a significant amount of work over
the removal needs.
Currently, the OSCs provide on-site supervision of ERRS
contractors. Use of the ERRS contracts will be determined by
OSC staffing levels and resources. Some Regions may train
Remedial Project Managers to oversee and manage ERRS
work for early remedial and non-time critkalremoval response
actions. (See OSWER Directive #924Z2-07F5).
REGION: HowdoestiteDeliveryofAnalytical
(DAS) Strategy support SACM?
'>ertj^^^^
Larry Reed: The DAS Strategy decision gives the Regions and
RDTs maximum flexibility in determining the best analytical
contract structure to meet its needs.
NOTICE: The policies set out in this fact sheet are not final Agency action, but are intended solely as
guidance. They are not intended, nor can they be relied upon, to create any rights enforceable by any party
in litigation with the United States. EPA officials should follow the guidance provided in this fact sheet,
or may act at variance with the guidance, based on an analysis of site-specific circumstances. The Agency
also reserves the right to change this guidance at any time without public notice.
-------
f
SACM ISSUE EXCHANGE
FAXTO: Katie Daly (Office of Emergency and Remedial Response)
Phone*: (703)603-9026
FAX #: (703) 603-9133
Issue/Recommendation
Contact Information-
bur Name and Office: .Your FAX f:
Your Phone •: Date:
-------
-------
1476
TOXICS LAW REPORTER
The directives, "Model Administrative Order on Con-
sent for Removal Actions" (OSWER Directive No.
9833.06) and "Model Unilateral Administrative Order
for Removal Response Activities" (OSWER Directive
No. 9833.07) contain model language that EPA regional
offices should use when issuing removal action orders.
The administrative order on consent is used in cases
when the potentially responsible party reaches an agree-
ment with EPA. Unilateral administrative orders are
used if the agency must force the PRP to take a removal
action.
Previous to these orders, EPA's regional offices would
use their own versions of the orders. Although most of
the regions had similar orders, there were some vari-
ations, Zimmerman said. The new policy eases the pro-
cessing of those orders and provides consistency, he said.
Both model orders contain sections covering jurisdic-
tion and general provisions, parties bound by the order,
definitions, findings of fact, conclusions of law and
determinations, the order itself, authority of the EPA
on-scene coordinator, reservation of rights, other claims,
modification procedures, notice of completion require-
ments, insurance requirements, additional removal ac-
tions, severability, and the effective date.
In addition, the model unilateral administrative order
addresses administrative record compilation, penalties
for non-compliance, opportunity to confer, and reim-
bursement of oversight costs.
The model order on consent includes provisions on
reimbursement of costs, dispute resolution, stipulated
and statutory penalties, a covenant not to sue, contribu-
tion protection, indemnification, financial assurance, and
public comment requirements.
Both model orders require designation of the contrac-
tor, project coordinator, and on-scene coordinator; a
description of work to be performed (including the work
plan and implementation schedule, a health and safety
plan, quality assurance and sampling, and reporting
requirements); access to property and information; rec-
ord retention, documentation, and availability of infor-
mation; compliance with off-site transfer requirements
and other pertinent laws; and immediate emergency
response and notification of releases.
Additional information on the orders is available from
Zimmerman at (703) 603-9063. Copies of the directive
are available for a fee from BNA Plus at (800)
452-7773.
OUTSIDE THE COURTROOM
Superfund
ACCELERATED CLEANUP MODEL FINE-TUNED
FOR FULL OPERATION IN 1994, EPA OFFICIALS SAY
The Environmental Protection Agency plans to move
its Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model into full oper-
ation in 1994, integrating SACM concepts into virtually
every superfund cleanup, according to a spokesman for
the program.
The SACM concept, now being fine-tuned in pilot
projects, is designed to speed up the cleanup process by
performing many of the site assessment processes at the
same time instead of sequentially.
"Full implementation" means that SACM's stream-
lining ideas would be implemented at every superfund
site in some form, Sven-Erik Kaiser, a spokesman for
EPA's Superfund Revitalization Office, told BNA April
29.
The agency is currently evaluating the program to
determine what improvements are needed, agency offi-
cials said.
According to Tim Fields, head of the Superfund
Revitalization Office, 1992 was the year the program
was introduced, 1993 is the "piloting year," and 1994
will be the first year SACM will be fully implemented.
He said the priorities this year will be to review how
SACM is operating, how states are involved, and the
status of the pilot projects.
The SACM program was announced by EPA in 1991
as an effort to revitalize the ailing superfund program.
Under SACM, the agency is integrating site assessment
activities and forming regional decision teams to deter-
mine whether superfund sites warrant early action, long-
term action, or both.
Henry Longest, head of EPA's Office of Emergency
and Remedial Response, said one goal of the program
this year is to show progress in the SACM program to
Congress. If Congress approves of the program, it is
likely to be incorporated into legislation, he said.
According to Longest, using integrated assessment, in
which pre-remedial, removal, and remedial assessments
are performed simultaneously, will shave years from the
cleanup process. This revelation has led many to ask why
the concept of SACM was not implemented at the outset
of the superfund program, he said.
The agency has taken a long time characterizing and
prioritizing the 36,000 contaminated sites, Longest ex-
plained. But EPA now is "pretty much over the backlog
and the time is right to move the program to a parallel
process." Longest said Congress could help the SACM
program by increasing the amount allowed to be spent
on the removal process and extend the cap on the
completion time frame. The caps are currently $2 mil-
lion and one year.
Longest said his office also will start encouraging
voluntary cleanups prior to listing a site on the National
Priorities List. The incentive of staying off the NPL
should encourage more voluntary cleanups, he said.
Superfund
ATSDR SEEKS EARLIER INVOLVEMENT
IN CLEANUP PROCESS, OFFICIAL SAYS
ATLANTA—The Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry, which assesses human exposure and
5-12-93
Copyright C 1993 by The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc., Washington, D.C.
OM7-7394/93/$0+|1.00
-------
-------
May 3,1993—Hazardous Waste Report
DATELINE WASHINGTON D.C.
Critics of the agency as it currently stands say that
too frequently, political pressures from whatever ad-
ministration is in power influence the agency's ability
to gauge accurately how polluted the nation really is,
and hamper EPA's development of new regulations
based on these facts.
The move to establish independent satellite agen-
cies to take the nation's environmental pulse is an
effort to circumvent politics in basic fact-gathering,
say the bill's sponsors. - - ..-;.-
„. Another important issue related to the bill would be
the transfer of most of the Council of Environmental
Quality's" duties'to the newly created Environment
Department. CEQ was established by the N?iional
Enviionmental Policy Act (NEPA) to oversee imple-
mentation of the law, and could not be dismanded, as
President Clinton wanted, without congressional ac-
tion. ' :"::.:'r •''•_•'•
GAO SAYS SPEED OF
SUPERFUND CLEANUPS SHOULD
BE ACCELERATED
The Superfund program has become an expensive,
contentious and long-term effort involving potentially
thousands of sites, General Accounting Office Envi-
ronmental Protection Director Richard Hembra told a
House panel April 21. Superfund will probably be
reauthorized this year, and Congress has been holding
a series of hearings to address problems wi:h the pro-
gram.
Speaking before the House Transportation and
Hazardous Materials Subcommittee, Hembra enumer-
ated the following issues that Congress mus: address if
it hopes to improve the Superfund program.
First, site cleanups must be accelerated, he said.
For the future, EPA expects that more sites will enter
the cleanup process than leave iL Consequently, the
number of sites waiting to be cleaned up can be expect-
ed to increase.
Second, Superfund costs need to be controlled.
While cleanup costs are mounting, high adir.inistraave
costs and contract management have wasted trust fund
resources. At the same time, EPA's low recover, of
past cleanup costs has driven up the federal govern-
ment's share of these costs.
Third, completed cleanups need to be more protec-
tive of human health and the environment. The
permanance of some cleanup remedies is uncertain,
Hembra remarked. Over the next few years, as more
cleanups are completed, the efficacy of cleanup reme-
dies will need to be monitored and evaluated.
Finally, how much should the federal government
invest in addressing human health and environmental
risks posed by hazardous waste sites? Hernbra noted
thai these risks have not been clearly defined The
Congress and public need better information to help
set expectations for the program in light of alternative
possible uses for scarce environmental protection re-
sources. :.••;." . . -.••- .
. Addressing the first issue, the GAG director said
that a major cause of the slow cleanup pace at Super-
furKl sites is the extended lime it takes EPA to choose
and design a cleanup remedy. Site studies now last
four years, and remedial designs take three years.
To address this problem, in early 1992 EPA initiat-
ed the Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model (SACM).
Among other things, this model calls for combining
the removal ana remedial parts of the program and for
standardizing investigation procedures and remedies
to help accelerate the initial assessments and subse-
quent cleanups of Superfund sites.
Less Than Half of Superfund Money Used for
Cleanups
The second problem, costs, is mainly caused by
high administrative costs at EPA and large outlays of
Superfjnd collars to contractors, said Hembra. Only
about 44 percent of the SI0.5 billion in Superfund
appropriations in fiscal sear 1992 went for actual clean-
up operations, while 11 percent went for enforcement
activities. This leaves 45 percent of the Superfund
budget for "support activities."
"The proportion of costs going for things other
than actual cleanups is so large that it warrants scrutiny
by Congress," Hembra remarked.
In addition, the hiring of so many contractors to
perform Superfund remediation work "raises concerns
about the cost-effectiveness of having work performed
by contactors rather than in-hoi:se personnel," he said.
-------
-------
May 3, 1993—Hazardous Waste Report
DATELINE WASHINGTON D.C.
And at EPA, this issue is compounded by the agency's
heavy use of cost-reimbursable contracts, which re-
quires a significant commitment of resources to properly
administer.
Effectiveness of cleanups is also a problem plagu-
ing the Superfund program. Currently, available
technologies are often expensive, ineffective or unac-
ceptable to the public. There are already some problems
with the effectiveness of remedies. For example, some
clay caps that were built to isolate contaminated soil have
_ . failed to do so because they have cracked over time.
•_;'."- Also, ah EPA study about pumping and treating
-.>!:.. groundwater raises serious questions about the effec-
X;' tiveness of this technology for remedying certain types
of groundwater contamination." While contamination
can be reduced by this method, it is not always reduced
i" to target levels. And once pumps were turned off.
contaminant concentrations rose again because the
«iurce of contamination had not been eliminated.
Finally, Congress and the public need to make
Decisions on what the long-term investment in Super-
fund should be. In September 1990, EPA's Science
Advisory Board recommended that EPA's program
priorities be better aligned writh health and environ-
mental risks. In effect, the board advocated spending
money where it would do the most good, that is, where
i; would reduce health and environmental dangers the
most.
They, and the GAO, concluded that the scope of
Superfund —its lofty goals of cleaning up every haz-
ardous waste site—has not been fully justified based
on the risks posed by these sites.
EPA BANS OZONE-DEPLETING
EMISSIONS FROM
REFRIGERATORS AND AIR
CONDITIONERS
is^l
•
The Environmental Protection Agency on April 23
eleased a final rule prohibiting the release of chlo-
fluorocarbons (CFCs) and other stratospheric ozone
pleiers into the atmosphere during the servicing and
c:sposal of refrigerators and air conditioners.
EPA research indicates th-i maintenance and dis-
posal accounts for 50 to 94 percent of total
ozone-depleting emissions fran these products during
their entire lifetime. The agency estimates that current
emissions of ozone-depleting refrigerants during ser-
vicing and disposal total 111 ,C*JO metric tons annually.
The rule is estimated to bring car. level down to 51,000
metric tons per year. . .-__. •..._-•
The rule expands on a prcoibition that took effect
July 1,1992, preventing repair firms and other individ-
uals from knowingly releasing ozone-depleting
substances into the atmosphere whILe working oa com-
mercial or residential air^ndi~oiunig~aod refrigeration"
equipment."..--." ;-:..' '• **•' ~~ -1..- " ~"-
;-''' Ozone depletion is believed to result In increased
skin cancers and other adverse healih effects.
••-••-• "This rule complements c~ recently proposed ear-
ly phaseout of CFCs and oti^r ozone deplsiers, and
represents another step forward in the Clinton Admin-
istration's aggressive program to protect human health
from the dangers of o?one de™!tnon,""ssid EPA AdnuT-
istrator Carol Browner. - -
While the regulation does require that ozone-de-
pleting substances not be venif-.: into ihe atmosphere, it
does not prohibit the continue-: use of ozone depletes
in residential and commercial sir ccxicicioners and re-
frigerators.
Besides the prohibition or. veering, the rule estab-
lishes standards and requircmfcts for service people to
maximize recovery and recycling of refrigerant* and to
ensure the quality of recycled refrigerant.
The rule calls for.
a certification program fo: removal and recycling
equipment under which EPA would require test-
ing of equipmen: to entire aha: it minimized
refrigerar.: emissions dcrir.g the recycling or re-
covery process.
a mandatory technician csitifiraiion program to
ensure proper recovery ar_u recycling of rsfriger-
ants. Technicians will te required to pass an
EPA-approved test, and sales cf refrigerants will
be restricted to certified technicians.
a safe disposal recuiremen to ensure that refriger-
ants are safely removed from equipment before
being thrown away or recycled. Equipment dis-
mantled en-site will have to have the refrigerant
3
1
-------
-------
Directive 9200.3-01H-3
SECTION I: OVERVIEW OF FY
93 STRATEGIC PLANNING
GOALS
The focus of the Superfund program is to
maximize the protection of human health
and the environment through fast,
effective cleanup of priority hazardous
waste sites and releases. Maximizing
appropriate participation of Potentially
Responsible Parties (PRPs) and timely
remediation of sites, including Federal
Facilities, are two of the Superfund
program's highest priorities.
FY 93 PROGRAM THEMES
Fiscal Year 1993 (FY 93) is a critical year for
the Superfund program as the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
approaches the final year of the three-year
extension to the Superfund Amendments
and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA).
Accomplishments in FY 93 will be the
most significant indicators of the
program's performance. New initiatives
are being proposed that embody the
Agency's vision for the future and reflect
the application of three key principles:
efficiency, effectiveness, and equitability.
Efficiency and effectiveness initiatives will
reduce the timeframe for moving sites
through the remedial pipeline and
increase the number of site
completions/National Priorities List (NPL)
deletions. An increase in the number of
de minimis settlements, the allocation of
equitable costs to municipalities, and the
pursuit of non-settlors will improve the
Superfund program's equity in dealing
with the PRPs.
SUPERFUND ACCELERATED
CLEANUP MODEL (SACM)
The Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response (OSWER), through its continued
investigation of ways to make the
Superfund program more efficient, has
developed a model for streamlining and
accelerating the Superfund program. (See
OSWER Directive 92te.l-03, Guidance on
Implementation of the Superfund
Accelerated Cleanup Model (SACM) under
CERCLA and the NCP, July 7,1992.) This
model concept is designed to make the
Superfund program work better, eliminate
redundancies, and accelerate cleanup. The
model will deliver results the public will
value:
• Quick reduction of acute risks at all
Superfund sites (removal and
remedial); and
• Restoration of the environment over
the long term.
The SACM, which is presented in Exhibit 1
(page 2), includes:
• Instituting a one-step site screening and
risk assessment at the front end of the
process to expedite cleanup and blend
removal and remedial cultures;
• Establishing multi-disciplinary
Regional Decision Teams (RDTs) to
serve as "traffic cops" for moving sites
to early response action or long-term
action. This team will also develop
standards for remediation levels and
technologies;
• Reducing immediate risk by
performing early actions;
-------
-------
r
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01 H-3
IBIT1 - THE SUPERFUND ACCELERATED CLEANUP MODEL (SACM)
Public Notification of
Early Action Start
Early Action
to Reduce
Risk
L j , fas««« (
Issue Order/ M»~.
Negotiate N'P
PRP Search/ I ^
All Notification ^^^^ S
Slart Site ^RegionalX ./Long
^^^^^^^ Screening ^ £ Decision/ X ^f H*
^^^^^^^ and ^Management/ V ™
Assessment >^Teamy/^ >^Kanl
Public Notification I
of Completion 1
Early Action •
Completed H
3rder/
tiate
1
V Long-
^^ Terra
TerrX *£«
aid >— •*- for
kt.. / Media
"ln»/^ Restoration
^Y' >/ (>S years) — »* Long-Tenn
I I ^^_^^^— Cleanup
No ^
I "'
Other
L Authority
Completed
\
i Delete 1
Enforcement Activities
State/Public Participation/Community Relations
• Implementing long-term actions to
restore the environment/media.
These sites will require years to clean
up but pose no immediate threat; and
• Involving enforcement, community
relations initiatives and the public
throughout the process.
The compressed schedule of the SACM
initiative will require early and
continuous consultations with the State
and local communities. For many site
assessment and early action activities, this
interaction will be essential to the success
of SACM projects.
Each of the elements of the SACM are
discussed in the following sections and
presented in Exhibit 2 (page 3). In FY 93,
continuing the phased implementation of
the SACM concept will be a high priority.
The results of the pilots will be used to
develop and refine the procedures for
implementing SACM to cleanup sites.
Nationwide implementation of the SACM
is expected in FY 94. The information in
this document does not address the
unique issues associated with
implementation of the SACM at Federal
Facility sites. Supplemental guidance on
those issues is under development.
-------
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01 H-3
EXHIBIT 2 - SACM IMPLEMENTATION WITHIN THE
NATIONAL OIL AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
POLLUTION CONTINGENCY PLAN (NCP) FRAMEWORK.
-------
-------
OSW1R Directive 9200.3-01 H-3
Assessment
One of the major initiatives of SACM is to
break down institutional barriers within
the Agency, and to establish an operational
scheme under which data are collected and
used to serve multiple purposes. The
National Oil and Hazardous Substances
Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP)
contemplates that the Agency will
sequentially perform (as warranted) a
removal Preliminary Assessment (PA)
and Site Inspection (SI), a remedial PA and
SI, and ultimately a Remedial
Investigation (RI). These various studies
can be consolidated in appropriate cases
under the SACM model such that one site
assessment can be performed and one site
assessment report written. The report
should, however, include findings
guired by the NCP for moving from one
e of site assessment to another.
Regional Decision Team (RDT)
The RDT is the cornerstone of the day-to-
day implementation of SACM. It is
envisioned that there will be one or
several RDTs functioning simultaneously
to provide adequate coverage for all sites
in the remedial pipeline. The RDTs will
have decision responsibility for select
activities, such as site "triage" (i.e.,
determining the initial responses required
to minimize risk) and helping to set
response priorities. IB addition, the RDT
will be responsible fof developing and
recommending alternatives to upper
management to support the signature of
the Action Memorandum and/or Record
of Decision (ROD).
True emergency situations may be
initiated outside the RDT structure when
[uired to accelerate on-site response.
Early Actions
The purposes of early actions are to
respond to emergencies and to eliminate
or achieve a quick reduction of risks. The
EPA will continue to use the removal
authorities in the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) and the
NCP to respond to emergency and time
critical situations (actions that must be
initiated in less than six months). In non-
time critical situations, where a planning
period of at least six months exists, both
non-time critical removal and early action
remedial authorities could be used to
reduce risk.
A non-time critical removal action must
include an analysis of alternatives in an
Engineering Evaluatipn/Cost Analysis
(EE/CA) and the public must be afforded
30 days to comment on the proposed
alternative before it is selected. It is also
anticipated that it generally will be
practicable for non-time critical removal
actions to attain most Applicable or
Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
(ARARs).
An early remedial action may be either a
final or interim remedial action. An early
remedial action can be taken during
scoping or at other points during the
Remedial Investigation/ Feasibility Study
(RI/FS) process. Due to its use early in the
remedy evaluation process, less
documentation is required for the ROD for
an interim remedial action than for a final
ROD; however, adequate documentation
must be provided to justify the action.
(See OSWER Directive No. 9355.3-02FS-3,
"Guide to Developing Superfund No
Action, Interim Action, and Contingency
Remedy RODs," April 1991.)
r
-------
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-3
Long-Term Actions
The purposes of long-term actions are site
remediation activities including ground
water restoration and other resource and
time intensive activities. The Agency will
continue to use its remedial action
authorities to respond to most long-term
contamination problems.
Involvement of Enforcement
The SACM goal of accelerating cleanups is
not intended to replace other important
goals, such as the Agency's general policy
of enforcement first. Therefore, it will be
necessary to carry out PRP searches early in
the site assessment process. An early and
effective PRP search will allow the Agency
to pursue an effective enforcement
strategy for non-time critical early actions.
In addition, early identification and notice
to the PRPs will strengthen EPA's cost
recovery case in Fund-financed situations.
SETTING INTEGRATED
PRIORITIES
One of the tools used by the Agency to
reconcile the competing Superfund
priorities is the Integrated Priority Setting
Matrix. The Matrix was initially
developed in 1989 by the Office of Waste
Programs Enforcement (OWPE), the Office
of Emergency and Remedial Response
(OERR), and the Regions. It is evaluated
on a yearly basis to ensure that the latest
program priorities are accurately reflected.
The Matrix is used by OERR, OWPE, the
Office of Federal Facilities Enforcement
(OFFE), and the Office of Enforcement (OE)
to allocate resources in Superfund to the
highest priority activities.
The Integrated Priority Setting Matrix
shown in Exhibit 3 (pages 6-7) has been
reorganized to reflect the key principles in
FY 93 of efficiency, effectiveness and
equity. The new Matrix is designed to:
• Identify the most significant program
priorities that support the three key
principles;
• List the major activities or tools that
receive resources, grouped according to
their contribution to a program
priority; and
• Arrange the program priorities and
major tools in order of importance,
where possible.
The Matrix provides a framework for
establishing, testing and adjusting resource
levels. This Matrix will be used by
Headquarters (HQ) and the Regions in
making trade off decisions during:
• FY 94 budget formulation;
• FY 93 operating plan development,
target setting and negotiation; and
• FY 93 mid-year adjustment.
The overall organization of the Matrix is
governed by the following concepts:
• All of the activities listed in the Matrix
contribute in a significant manner to
Superfund program success. Therefore,
priority setting must be couched in
terms of maintenance of an essential
minimum baseline of activity across
the board; and
• A baseline of activities must be
supported to ensure that a constant
flow of projects is maintained across
the remedial and removal pipelines,
and that the entire program maintains
its operating integrity.
-------
-------
OSWER Directive 9200.3-01H-3
T
BIT 3 - INTEGRATED PRIORITY SETTING MATRIX
PROGRAM
THEME
PROGRAM PRIORITIES
Reduce risks by performing
quick response actions at Federal
Facility and non-Federal Facility
sites; Ensure that resources are
available for time critical
removals
Emphasize enforcement first in
Superfund actions; Regions
should be prepared to take action
promptly after the negotiation
moratorium deadlines
Accelerate and streamline the
Superfund pipeline; Accelerate
cleanup at closing military bases
and expedite property transfer
Increase the number of site
completions and NPL deletions
Consider use of all relevant
enforcement tools and apply
these tools to given situations
TOOLS
Classic Emergencies (Fund and PRP)
National Priorities List (NPL) Removals/
Expedited Response (Fund, PRP and Federal
Facility)
Remedial Design (RD)/Remedial Action (RA)
Negotiations
Section 106 Settlement Referrals
Section 106 Unilateral Administrative Orders
(UAOs)forRD/RA
Mixed Funding for RD/RA
Administrative Orders (AO) for Removals
Federal Facility Interagency Agreements (IAG)
Remedial Investigations/Feasibility Study (RI/FS)
Negotiations
AOs for Non-NPL Time Critical Removals
NPL Base Closures «.
Superfund Accelerated Clean-up Model (SACM)
RA Starts (Fund, PRP and Federal Facility)
RD Starts (Fund. PRP, and Federal Facility)
RI/FS Starts (Fund, PRP, and Federal Facility)
Site Assessment (Preliminary Assessment
(PA)/Site Inspection (SI), Listing)
Non-NPL Time Critical Removals
Complete Ongoing RAs
Prepare and Approve RA Reports,
Preliminary Site Close-Out Reports,
Interim Site Ctose-Out Reports and Final
Superfund Site Close-Out Reports
Delete Sites from the NPL
Five Year Reviews
Complete Ongoing RDs
Complete Ongoing RJ/FSs
Section 104 Access
Section 106 Litigation to Enforce UAOs
Compliance Enforcement
Section 106/107 Litigation
Section 106 Litigation
-------
-------
OSWER
e 9200.3-01 H-3
EXHIBIT 3 - INTEGRATED PRIORITY SETTING MATRIX (CONTINUED)
PROGRAM
THEME
PROGRAM PRIORITIES
Effectively communicate
progress in the Superfund
program
Ensure effective management
of activities that support the
Superfund program; Further
the use of innovative
technologies to permanently
clean up sites
Achieve early and appropriate
settlements with collateral
PRPs
Select the best cases to ensure
cost effective litigation and to
maximize recovery to the Trust
Fund
Take actions to identify PRPs
Enter into Cooperative
Agreements, Superfund
Memoranda of Agreement or
other management assistance
agreements
TOOLS
Pilot Projects to Support Efficiency,
Effectiveness and Equity
Environmental Indicators
Technical Assistance Grants
Community Relations
Administrative Record (Removal and
Remedial)
Innovative Technologies
Contract Management
Contract Laboratory Program
Removal Support
Remedial Project Support
Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Information
System (CERCLJS) Data Base
Management
Records Management
Program Management
De Tnir^mifl Settlements
Settlements with Municipalities
Section 107 Statute of Limitation (SOL) Cost
Recovery Referrals
Section 122 Administrative Settlements
Section 104(e) Referrals
NPLPRP Searches
Non-NPL PRP Searches
Core Program Cooperative Agreement
(CPCA)
Stale Program Support
-------
-------
1
OSWER Directivi
[CTION II: I5HPLEMENTING
THE PROGRAM PLANNING &
BUDGETING PROCESS
Successful planning in the Superfund
program requires The translation of
program priorities into a site management
process that supports the goals established
in the Agency Operating Guidance. These
program goals must be reflected in the
budget and workload models, and
translated into quantifiable program
commitments in the Superfund
Comprehensive Accomplishments Plan
(SCAP) and the Strategic Targeted
Activities for Results System (STARS).
Candid evaluation of performance against'
these commitments is essential to
assessing the viability of program
«' >rities, resource requirements, and
rail program effectiveness. This
ion describes the key components and
responsibilities of the Regions in
supporting the program planning and
budgeting process.
INTEGRATED TIMELINE FOR
SITE MANAGEMENT
Success in implementing the Superfund
program depends in large part on
identifying critical decision points and
timeframe goals for moving from one
phase of activity to the next In 1989, the
Agency developed a timeline that
provides an overview of the major
remedial and enforcement activities
required in the Superfund site cleanup
process. The Integrated Timeline (Exhibit
4, page 9) is a multi-step site management
process that, in the ideal situation, spans
quarters. The Integrated Timeline will
evaluated in the upcoming year in light
the SACM. Implementation of the
SACM may result in the elimination of a
number of steps and a reduction in the
duration of activities in the timeline.
In FY 93, the Integrated Timeline will
continue to be utilized to establish
performance expectations. Performance
improvements will be tracked against the
Timeline. To embody the concept of good
timeline management, trends analyses
will be undertaken. The average duration
will be measured—by Region—for sites
where Remedial Design (RD)/Remedial
Action (RA) negotiation starts or
completions, RD starts or RA starts, are
planned in FY 93 as follows:
• ROD to RD/RA negotiation starts;
• ROD to RD/RA negotiation
completions;
• ROD to RD start; and
• ROD to RA start
Each of these averages will be reported
relative to prior years (FY 91 and FY 92)
and prior quarters performance. In
addition, RI/FS start to completion
timeframes and RD/RA negotiation
timeframes also will be tracked.
The durations in the Integrated Timeline
are goals that should be used if more
accurate estimates are not available.
When better planning data and schedules
are developed, the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Information System
(CERCLIS) must be revised to reflect these
schedules.
*»*•
•
-------
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
Affi 27 1993
HVOREMH - - ALL READ OFFICEOF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
DIRECTIVE NO. 9203.1-08
SUBJECT: Further Direction on Implementing the Superfund
Accelerated Cleanup Model (SACK)
FROM: Henry L. Longest II, Director
Office of Emergency
Bruce M. Diamond,/ Director
Office of Haste Programs Enforcement
TO: Addressee*
This memorandum provides a summary of where we are in our
efforts to implement the Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model
(SACM). It i& essential that we continue to refine our goals as
we transition to full implementation in Fiscal Year (FY) 1994
when all sites will be addressed under the SACM principles.
He have made excellent progress in developing SACM over the
past year and it has been due in great part to the coordination
among every facet of the Superfund program. As SACM is
implemented, we expect to see all staff working more and more
closely with each other to take advantage of the strengths and
economies of each program. Headquarters remains committed to
assisting you.
SACM is the most significant change to the Superfund program
to date. Hith any major change comes some resistance to letting
go of what is familiar. As you know, Superfund was first
designed with the expectation of a small number of sites that
would receive absolute and complete cleanup. Experience in
implementing the many requirements of the statute and the
National Contingency Plan (NCP) has brought us to a new
environmental equilibrium. We must balance cleanup resources
Pnnfed on Recycled Paper
-------
with the need to tackle worst pollution sources first and reduce
risk to people and the environment. As pointed out in Osborne's
and Gaebler's »«*nv«ntina Government, traditional bureaucracies
have tended to focus solely on cost of services and control of
tax dollars in order to avoid waste, fraud and abuse. However,
nodera government must also find creative ways to speed,
streamline and leverage traditional government services under
tight budget constraints and funding cuts. This, along with the
desire to quickly reduce risk, is the intent of SACM.
SACM will accelerate and streamline the Superfund process in
order to: BUILD PUBLIC COMTXDBMCB THBOOO1 PBOHPT AMD APYROFRZATB
HASAADOUS VAST! CLBAMU9 THAT PROTECTS THB EXALT! OF PEOPLE AMD
We will achieve this through:
working together as One Program: coordinating our
efforts among enforcement, assessment, removal,
remedial, community relations, information management,
analytical services,.and contracts; Headquarters and
Regions
focusing on the worst sites first by addressing sites
on the "One List". The one List is the integrated site
list for all site assessment, non-emergency early
actions, and long-term actions
applying SACM principles to everything we do to ensure
a smooth transition to full implementation of SACM in
rt 1994
e
In a recent directive (OSWER Directive No. 9202.1-14), the
Acting Assistant Administrators for OSWER and the Office of
Enforcement (OB) outlined the eight National Superfund Program
Priorities. The top three are: (l) meeting our construction
completion commitment of 650 by the year 2000; (2) maximizing
PRP participation while testing ways to accelerate cleanup; and
(3) accelerating cleanup through implementation of SACM and
presumptive remedies.
•
We view these as complementary priorities that are aimed at
achieving measurable program results (completions), leveraging
-------
all available resources for cleanup (enforcement first), and
improving and streamlining our process (acceleration). As public
managers we must allocate our resources to create synergy among
our program priorities. SACK provides tools to help us
accelerate sites already in the pipeline, and assess and respond
to the worst sites that are awaiting entry into the pipeline.
Headquarters is developing more detailed guidance on how to
manage, the blending of these program priorities.
with SACK, we must continue to keep sites moving through the
pipeline, our priority still is to deal with the worst sites
first. As part of SACK implementation in PY 1993, we are asking
each Region to develop an integrated site list for all
assessment, non-emergency early actions and long-term actions
(the "One List"). It is a base assumption that emergencies vill
always be given first attention, and are "above" the List. The
purpose of this list is to help ensure that resources are
directed to the most serious risks at National Priorities List
(NPL), NPL-caliber, and non-NPL sites. "NPL-caliber" sites are
those sites with a potential for a Hazard Ranking Score (HRS)
above 28.5. At such sites, the remedial investigation (RI) and
enforcement actions like the PRP search, can begin prior to the
NPL proposal. This will enable faster response. The SACK
Assessment Short Sheet (Publication No. 9303.1-051) gives an
excellent list of examples of NPL-caliber sites. Further
guidance on NPL-caliber sites is being developed.
SAOf will make greater use of both remedial and removal
authorities to eliminate or significantly reduce risk. Keep in
mind that this year we are testing facets of SACK at "SACM
sites," and we will transition to full implementation in PY 1994
where all sites will be addressed under SAflt nytnelttlaa. The
principles of SACM should be applied to everything we do.
Although we do not expect resource growth over the next
couple of years, SACN can achieve economies of time and money so
we can accomplish more in the long run with the resources we
have.
The concept of a continuous integrated assessment seems to
present a particular implementation challenge, since the removal
and remedial programs have traditionally approached "assessment"
differently. The removal program usually moves quickly into an
on-site assessment phase, while the remedial program usually has
a more prolonged examination of site records and other file
materials for HRS scoring purposes, with on-site assessment
happening later in the process. However, SACM calls for a single
unified approach that includes coordinated sample collection and
analysis performed during site assessment. The data will support
future removal, NPL listing and remedial activities; one report
-------
should be written to satisfy both programs' needs where
necessary. In the long-run, this will save us time and money
because wo will not be doing redundant work, other key elements
to integrated site assessment include: (1) ensuring smooth
transition* between studies; (2) basing decision* on the
commonalities of Data Quality Objectives (DQO's); and (3) using
the new START contract to compile one integrated site assessment
report. We are working on a directive that addresses data
quality issues.
Enforcement
Enforcement First will eoatimue to be emphasised, since an
HI may begin with or during an integrated site assessment,
potentially responsible parties (PRPs) must be identified earlier
in the process in order to give them an opportunity to
participate in the RI and Feasibility Study (FS) . Regions should
use a phased approach for PRP searches. This involves
establishing liability for PRPs on whom we have the most
information and then expanding the search process to address the
remaining PRPs. Regions should maximize information sharing and
cooperation among site assessment staff, staff conducting^
emergency or time-critical removals, PRP search personnel, and
PRPs.
Hon-tiae Critical
Regions must consult with Headquarters on PRP- or Fund-lead
non-time critical removals costing more than $5 million. We will
be issuing guidance soon on conducting non-time-critlcal
removals. It is important to recognize that the use of non-time
critical removals will expedite higher risk oompomeats of
remedial actions and is not meant to encumber routine removal
actions with inappropriate analytical requirements'. There is no
intent to push bona fide time-critical removals into the non-time
critical category.
Regional Decision Teams fRDTsi
The RDTs are in place in all Regions. There has be*n
considerable flexibility in establishing a decision process that
works for each Region. However, at a minimum the RDT:
(1) ensures that all parties are involved at critical points for
site decisions; (2) is empowered with as much decision power as
possible; and (3) provides policy and strategy direction to
designated site managers, while not assuming site management
responsibility. True emergency responses remain the purview of
the emergency response program.
-------
Community Involvement
Communicating with the citizens who live near sites is
essential for SACK to be successful. We must ensure that the
public is involved early in the process while ve accelerate the
pace at which we clean up sites. Experience has shown us that
the earlier the public is involved, the smoother the process will
90. We need to be responsive to citizens' concerns and opinions
from the beginning. Therefore, it is essential that a community
relations specialist is a part of the Regional Decision Team.
State Involvement
Regions should discuss and establish with each State a
process for appropriate and meaningful State involvement to
ensure that the worst sites first are being handled and there is
no duplication of effort. SACK requires traditional
consideration of State-cost share and Applicable or Relevant and
Appropriate Requirements (ARARs). For non-time critical removals
costing over $2 Million, Regions should request state
participation in the response (e.g. funding or in-kind services).
COMCLPmlOM
We have made great headway over the past year in developing
SACM and the credit is due to you who have been striving for
continuous improvement in the way we do business. It is
essential that all components of the Superfund program work
together as one team in order to implement SACK. We urge you to
continue to be innovative and aggressive in finding better ways
to reach our goals.
-------
Addressees
Waste Management Division Directors
Regions I, IV, V, VIZ
Emergency and Remedial Response Division Director
Region II
Hazardous Haste Manageaent Division Directors
Regions III, VI, VIII, IX
Hazardous Waste Division Directors
Region X
Environmental Services Division Directors
Regions I, VI, VII
Superfund Branch Chiefs
Regions I-X
Superfund Branch Chiefs
Office of Regional Counsel
Regions I-X
cc: Rich Guiaond, OSWER
Halt Kovalick, OSWER
Bill White, OE
Lisa K. Friedaan, OGC
Tia Fields, SRO
Superfund Section Chiefs
All OERR, OWPE and SRO Staff
-------
Reuast is lowast leva! aica
;-r~/v*-;4
sM; -'
piAnliB pttlvs.l . .
pofat oottbatAe-
"
^ request provided „ r
--;';' is over $250 millionfess than!
The decrease tewerfyears
While the-ag^ty is po
pace of cleanups finite the cut, isof&pisjiside aadi
b^owlthecuite«72%6fprrvatelylttWtedwoTk. :--;-.-
News of the Cofe'nas raised a wife'range of concerniii^Sdg both industry v»«
sources are concerned that the cut could mean that EP^wiljttjpB less frequentry td> n
settlements with PRPs, while environmentalist sources say die budget cut coulfftnipi
The actual cot^fbnding for ^A^ase^actmties is 1B«^ pasexbttDpayr
lower than $88.8 million, since the cot <
sional add-ons V1r% the 19931 "
'?&!£&&&•
represented about $60ailUioo of the 1993 budget,Jfae
source says. They include pK^ictt^lM^'ttb.Oepartttwll'^f^ .-^—^^, ,,.,,,, ^ „ ,?,„, ,
Heahh ft Human Services, the A«ency,for Took Substanca ft ' v. .;V'f' J^^mm
«»•« » * - ... -... -> ..'•«•- • T««i,._ ^h». ^j- ' '""f A
Health Sciences.
^ ..The response prograoi wQI
poteAttalnatkmaJprioridesUstsbes,
and design a»d>4jM toiu
Funding fdr
in line with the
term -ction, according 10 EPA_
Agency A< v
aAninistration's
"We do not anticipate a,
Browner
private paities to pay
underway inthe
_.
ptu^^^m ^^"
-*'&•?•'••••'.•'?•&'*'.
.
^4^ "''•,:'
»*.Wj>;T»*-*lv
».. a&,.t£&
•
•-
-'-'--^•^S^»?^
Me«)j
^m^^'A^^
^•'•••'3^?.:^r.>'Vv.:-.;'i;
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
"' "
VV;.^
.-.|£^ _
.^!'^TO
- .«*
»$M*;'
•••••VL4
'- *'JN?I
^'
;^^S
-v-v, ^a
f~;£*
».fei.-^:**
•'.*Ti
^P«,J.
-------
'*!••. V - . ,
Browner said implementing S ACM
-—•*" Theagency wiU oontJM* to
.F?V 7T -:^:!* *^> . "T" ~**^
to SuBerfund man previous
say.
upenuna man previous aoninnnraDaiu, smmym mpn iramsvuunvQi
For over a decade Superfund has>e«n run by ifoa^^^ym* -%
,, wvp.
In an April 2 letter to memb«no^% House EMpigyft
ccmmittoes, major »vtfonmen^
ittdertaldaggrTortt ta «*te
^ sT:"7; *• » ~
™- .,„ ,. Conpessacti.
fto dw frofram, environmentalists
& Public Works
toSuperftind,
Environnteataliits reject calls far
argHingthat many asfMeti offlw
most fi'iMa"*" with AtfeiBrMItI
isteativefy. Furtaer, ttac se<«ew|iBf
ion on Superfimd
g W» that it is
g*oupspo«-
Vefmoat Law Schod.
and rep-
most fitfly developed DCOp
, _,
for replacing nbfwtr^
<«lfc*l*
financed b
PHbfcWorks
•...:>:
- .'. ' .V,-'«^TT
•• ?.*f-'>'?- '''',-<•'*- •'•
•-^••f.-:-a3^V^ag
-------
REAUTHORIZATION
eaming op Superfund
""'
fliture generation*, whether it It
'
-------
.»:•*••.
April 15.1993
SQUd WMte Rftnnrt
t
EPA Budget Proposal
NotKlndtoSuptrfund
The scope of President Clinton's fiscal 1994
Environmental Protection Agency budget is a
question of semantics.
According to some environmental groups,
the commitment by the self-termed environmental
president is less than his Republican predecessor.
According to EPA officials, the agency win have
more money to protect human health and the envi-
ronment.
Most of the discrepancy Iks in Clinton's
economic stimulus plan, which at presstime was
soil mired in a political quagmire on the Senate
floor. EPA is including the $916 million outlay
for environmental programs in its FY "94 budget
proposal of $6.4 billion. In that scenario, the FY
"94 budget is an increase of $375.1 million over
FY "93. Critics are not including the stimulus
money in their analysis of the environmental bud-
get They point out the $6.4 billion proposal is
actually an 8 percent drop from the current $6.9
bUion outlay.
At a press briefing April 8. EPA Adminis-
trator Carol Browne? discounted criticism over in-
cluding the economic stimulus money in the FY
•94 budget She said that step, and me fact there
were $500 million in Congressional add-ons for
specific projects to the FY "93 budget, actually
means EPA will have more money for programs
and enlbicement next year.
Browner sakf fee White House is proposing
an increase in enforcement dollars from $426.7
million in FY -93 to $454.7 million next year.
EPA wiU streamline its enforcement process by
targeting major waste generators to achieve the
greatest deterrent effect Enforcement actions will
be directed at non-compliance, especially for the
Clean Air Act and Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act
Suptrfuitd Cut By $89 MOtto*
A major loser in EPA's new budget is Super-
fund's Hazardous, Substance Response Trust
Fund. Money for toxic site cleanups would fall by
$89 million, or 6 percent, to $1.5 billion. Browner
said the $89 million cut from FY "93 will not
hamper cleanup operations because it has become
much more efficient at collecting money from
potentially responsible parlies (PRPs). About 70
percent of cleanups are finanf**! by PRPs, ac-
cording to EPA.
Another EPA official agreed with Browner1*
analysis. "Superfund has been historically fund
related, but now we're beefing up earlier enforce-
ment efforts," Richard Oinmond. acting assistant
administrator for the Office of Solid Waste,
Emergency Response, told SWR The challenge
is now to become more efficient and streamlined."
EPA's Supernmd Accelerated Cleanup Model
(SACM), which focuses on streamlining and
speeding up cleanups, will be fully implemented
in 1994. The budget proposes $114.5 minion for
SACM early action.
SoM Waste Sptciflcs Not Woriud Out
Guimond said the agency has not worked out
the specifics of assigning dollars and resources to
specific solid waste issues, such as Subtitle D and
various recycling initiatives. He noted $3 million
already is earmarked for a new recycling, reuse
and reduction program. And he pointed to efforts
under the "Green Lights" program to get busi-
nesses to recycle more.
The Green Lights program, which relied on
emerging technology and cooperation to get busi-
nesses to use energy efficient lights in the work-
place, wfll be expanded under the 1994 budget
proposal. EPA said its largest pollution prevention
investment for 1994 is in "Green Programs."
Resources win go to build programs for en-
ergy efficient heating, cooling and buildings. EPA
also wffl fund efforts to develop natural gas and
methane reduction i*rEfl|lam« The goal of the ini-
tiative is to help companies tower operating costs,
latf! capital investment, increase jobs and re-
duce energy use.
Air Programs Get 6 Pereau SptmOmg Boost
The proposed spending for the. agency's air
programs would increase $33.4 minion (6 per-
cent) next year, with almost half the extra money
earmarked for continued implementation of the
1990 Clean Air Act «"Mtid»»*fflf The agency
plans to boost spending for its air enforcement ef-
forts, fac»w*hig stale field citation ptograms and
emorceaDie operating permit programs. A crucial
goal is to strengthen turning of m^e^oni %> pro-
vide them the background required to wo& with
industry to achieve tht moss cost-effective pollu-
tion conttol measures," accenting to EPA.
The agency also wffl invest in science and
emerging trchnologies under Clinton's Environ-
mental Technology Initiative.
-------
-------
SACM »:• SACM •:*. SACM •:* SACM *:* SACM *:» SACM *:• SACM »:*
THE SUPERFUND
ACCELERATED
CLEANUP MODEL:
MOVING FORWARD
THE SUPERFUND PROGRAM HAS RECENTLY
UNDERTAKEN A REVAMPING AND STREAM-
LINING OF ITS ACTIVITIES TO REMEDIATE
HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES. IN THE LAST
ISSUE OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS CONTROL.
WE DESCRIBED THE GENERAL OUTLINES OF
THE PROGRAM. THIS ARTICLE DISCUSSES
FURTHER DEVELOPMENTS AND PROVIDES
MORE DETAIL ON THE SUPERFUND
ACCELERATED CLEANUP PROGRAM.
PRPSEARCH
SITE
SCREENING .
ASSESSMEN
NO ACTIO.
FIGURE 1
28 MARCH/APRIL t993
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS CONTROL
-------
-------
*:• SACM * SACM * SACM * SACM * SACM »:• SACM * SACM »:
EPA's Regional offices have been
empowered to move forward with the
Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model
{SACM). The Regional decision teams
(RDTs)—which include assessment, removal,
remediation, enforcement, and community
relations managers—are in place. We are cur-
rently conducting pilot SACM programs for
various SACM elements in all of the Regions,
and will be assessing their success over the
coming months. Regions have been given the
flexibility to design RDTs that suit their work-
load and resources, and that include appropri-
ate involvement of state officials. Cleanup
decisions will be made in a coordinated and
integrated fashion, reducing duplication and
down time between site study and cleanup
phases. Appropriate public involvement will be
assured under SACM.
SACM is designed to make hazardous
waste cleanups more timely and efficient. This
will be accomplished through more focus on
the front end of the process and better integra-
tion of all Superfund program components,
which results in building public confidence
through prompt and appropriate hazardous
waste cleanup that protects people and the
environment.
THE NEW STREAMLINED PROCESS
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION OF EARLY
ACTION START
EARLY ACTION
TO REDUCE RISK
(<5 YEARS)
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
EARLY ACTION
COMPLETED
T
ISSUE ORDER/
NEGOTIATE
ISSUE ORDER/
NEGOTIATE
DECISION/
v MANAGEMENT
TEAM
LONG-TERM
HAZARD
RANKING
LONG
TERM
ACTION
FOR
MEDIA
RESTORATION
(>5 YEARS)
LONG TERM
CLEANUP
COMPLETED
ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
STATE/PUBLIC PARTICIPATION/COMMUNITY RELATIONS
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS CONTROL
MARCH/APRIL 1993 29
-------
-------
FIGURE 2
• SACM, EPA
* • . eierate and
• • • ~e cleanups,
• >• to respond to
•• - .-. • •/ sues first, and
•••• ; • !• je enforcement
• •• • • ze responsible
; •. •. .:••• Cement in site
.; *ne public will
: • . ,ed at every
• ine cleanup
: • The focus will
• .•? to be on
: Priority List
-.- 3 NPL-caliber
.'. • .', ! build on Superfund's 12
. • : • experience and continue to
•. • • •-•' oractices that have proven
- -'... while making continuous
. ••" e~ts where needed. I see
.-•• " :-. a revolutionary change that
.-. - • • -•' all major Superfund play-
: • . .i-se it will
• •-.? d'y reduce the majority of
' - " r-;-3Die and the environment
•• •• .; --_nd sites;
• -.-r. :ate more money to actual
•- • .;. ,ersus the support/study
• r.,r cost and time efficient by
-•• f :-s z ng standard remedies and
• ••; .it ,e technologies; and
• z., o public confidence
oe:~..,5e • >% i commit and deliver the
e-, •r""-.e-?a' protection that the pub-
• c e*cc-cti a-d deserves.
Soeec e' ':sk reduction at a greater
r-^cer o' sites will help assure the
Arenca- Dofcl.c that Superfund is
achieving the goals of the Superfund
lav,
THe heart o' SACM ,s the one-step
s.te assessment. The gray box in
Figure 1 rigniignts the screening and
assessment phase as well as the role
of the Regional Decision Team. The
significance of this is that the RDT,
with its cross-functional expertise, will
determine whether a site requires
Early Action, Long-term Action, or
both. Once this decision is made,
action can be taken while further
assessment—if required—is conduct-
ed. This will eliminate the start-stop-
\
PRELIMINARY
ASSESSMENT
SITE
INSPECTION
REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION
FEASIBILITY
STUDY
REMOVAL ASESSMENT
start aspects of current Superfund
assessments, and thus decrease the
time it takes to get to actual cleanup
of a site.
Figure 2 shows the old assessment
phases blending to create an inte-
grated SACM assessment. The old
boundaries for the Site Assessment
phase have become more fluid, to
allow more removal evaluation and
removal cleanup before officially start-
ing the Site Inspection. The start of
the Site Inspection triggers the "freez-
ing" of the Hazard Ranking System
(MRS) so that any further response
action will not affect the site's MRS
score. This policy was originally
designed to avoid the need for con-
stantly rescormg sites as more
removal work was completed during
the assessment phase.
SACM requires that all assessment
work is coordinated among programs
to assure information sharing and
integration. The Regional Decision
Team will ensure that data quality
objectives are consistent with removal
and remedial objectives and needs.
During the last two years we
designed our Long Term Contracting
Strategy, anticipating the need for a
program change like SACM. We
streamlined and combined the con-
tracting mechanism for removal and
remedial assessment to make the
program integration feasible. Our new
contract mechanism is called the
Superfund Technical. Assessment.
and Response Team (START), and its
chief feature is that it will promote the
one-door, single assessment
approach.
We have listened to our customers
and acted on their demand for
change in the Superfund program.
We are building our guidances and
plan for full implementation of SACM
in fiscal year 1994. With Superfund
reauthorization on the horizon, we all
have a stake in the future of the pro-
gram and the direction it will take.
That future is SACM. The principles
of SACM will be applied to everything
we do. It will enable us to get the job
done in the most effective and effi-
cient manner. SACM will give
Superfund strong footing as well as its
best foot forward as we enter the
reauthorization debate
Henry L. Longest, II is director of
the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's Of fete of Energency and
Remedial Response. He is responsi-
ble for implementing federally-fund-
ed emergency and long-term reme-
dial activity at hazardous waste sites
under the Superfund program. He
joined EPA m
T970. He
received the
Presidential
Distinguished
Executive Award
in 1982 and was
named EPA
Engineer of the
Year in 1983. *
30 MARCH/APRIL 1993
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS CONTROL
-------
-------
2962
Analysis and Perspective
EPA'S SUPERFUND ACCELERATED CLEANUP MODEL:
A PARADIGM FOR CERCLA REAUTHORIZATION
By Barnett Lawrence *
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's implementation of the Comprehensive Environmental, Re-
sponse, Compensation, and Liability Act' has been analyzed and criticized by Congress, industry, environmental
groups, a nd others. N"u merous studies have documented EPA's historical problems irith the pace of cleanups and
other aspects of the svperfund program**
EPA itself has exerted considerable effort analyzing its experience irith the sut-?rf'..".d program. In I9S9. under
Administrator William K. Reilly's direction, EPA released a candid assess^ner.: of "he superfund program in
u-hai is commonly called ihe 90-day study.'' This study announced a netr ionc-ter*i f.rateoy for super/and.
designed to control acute threats immediately, clean up the urorst sites Jirst, noniror end maintain sites over the
long term. emphasize enforcement to iriduce prirate party cleanup, seek neu- ?'<>•'-u? technologies, improve
efficiency of procrarr operations, and encourage full participation by oomr»:un::fe*
Tiro years later. EPA released the 30-day study- This study recommended s^ve-;" rp:ro»s for accelerating
superfund cleanups, including setting aggressire cleanup targets and stream'iriic :'t? c'ecnup process.
One af the initiatives thai emerged from the 30-day study's
recommendations for streamlining the cleanup process was
the Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model. SACM had its
genesis in EPA's O£ce of Emergency and Remedial Re-
sponse in late 1991. and Reilly approved the SACM initiative
in February 1992. EPA h=s since made substantial progress
n implementing SACM in the regions.
Superfund practitioners should be familiar with this new
model because, as stated by Don Clay, formerly EPA's
assistant administrator for solid waste and emergency re-
sponse. "SACM is the way [EPA] will be doing business in the
future."" Further. Richard Guimond, EPA's acting assistant
administrator for OSWER. recently identified SACM as one
of the superfund program's priorities for fiscal 1993.-
This article first brieSy outlines the existing superfund
cleanup process. It then discusses SACM's goals, describes the
SACM paradigm, analyzes the legal and policy issues raised
by SACM, and reviews EPA's pilot projects. The article
concludes with a discussion of how SACM may affect super-
fund reauthorization and whether SACM will remain a prior-
itv in the new administration.
Superfund Cleanup Process
The existing cleanup pipeline has evolved into a complicat-
ed and time-consuming process. Many years are required for
sites to move step-by-step through the process, which is
described in detail in the National Contingency Plan/
Sites are addressed through two separate EPA programs—
removal and remedial. Removal actions are generally short-
term actions to respond to emergencies or immediate
threats, such as fencing a site, removing leaking drums, or
containing sources of contamination.1 Remedial actions are
generally longer-term actions that are consistent with a
permanent remedy, such as ground water restoration.' The
NCP includes a different set of requirements for removal and
remedial actions." The requirements for remedial actions
are more complex and time-consuming. It is important to
note ihat there is some overlap in the statutory and regula-
tory definitions of removal ar.d remedial actions. As di:-
cussed below, this overlap is o:.e example of the flexibility in
the NCP that EPA needs"to irrplemest' SACM.
To oversimplify, ihe super;u.id process begins once EPA
becomes aware 01 2 sits. E?A will then perform a prelimi-
nary assessment to dete-rmii-e i: a threat exists. If the threat
is immediate, the site moves into the removal program,
under which a removal site evaluation is performed and. if
the NCP criteria are met. a removal action. If the threat is
not immediate. EPA performs a focused site investigation.
Again, if the focused sice investigation concludes that there is
an immediate threat, the s::e moves into the removal pro-
gram. If the focused site investigation indicates that a threat
exists but is not immediate, EPA performs an expanded site
investigation. The agency inen evaluates the site under its
hazard ranking system to determine whether the site should
be placed on the National Priorities List-
Once a site has been placed on the NPL- EPA or the
potentially responsible parties perform a formal study of site
conditions and cleanup options called the remedial investiga-
tion/feasibility study. EPA nest issues a record of decision,
which documents the agency's chosen remedy. EPA or the
PRPs then execute ihe remedial design and, finally, the
actual remedial action. EPA conducts enforcement and pub-
lic participation activities throughout the process.
SACM's Goals
SACM's primary goal is to accelerate this cumbersome
cleanup process, specifically to eliminate public health risks
at all sites within three to five years of site identification.
EPA intends SACM to achieve this goal within the existing
framework of CERCLA and the NCP.
A second important goal of SACM is to change the public's
negative perception of the superfund program. Through fis-
cal 1992, EPA had deleted only 44 sites from the NPL since
the inception of the superfund program in 1980. but had
conducted 2.349 removal actions.1 The public has focused on
EPA's relative lack of success in removing sites from the
NPL, while tending to gloss over the success of EPA's remov-
al and early remedial action programs in reducing risks at
3-12.93
Copyright 6 1993 by The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc.. Wasflmgroo. D.',
0013-92M/S3/SO+SX 00
-------
-------
CURRENT DEVELOPMENTS
2953
t
sites. SACM would thus redefine the primary measure of
success of the superfond program 10 be the elimination of
immediate health and environmental threats, instead of dele-
tion of sites from tbe NPL. : ;..-. v
Related to tbe goal of changing tbe public's perception of
the program is EPA s goal of putting itself in a good positiao
for CERCLA reawhorization. CERCLA is scheduled for rea*-
tfaorizatioo in 1934. and the concessional criticism is already
in full gear. Some in Congress have even threatened not to
reauthorize the program unless improvements are made.
While it is unlike]y that Congress will dismantle the program,
it will certainly consider proposals for radkally restroctnr-
mg superfund. EPA must therefore continue its efforts to
streamline tbe program to put itself in a good position for tbe
reauthorizarion debate. Further, whfle SACM"s pilot projects
must operate within tbe existing statutory framework. EPA
hopes that tbese projects will suggest ways to revise CER-
CLA and -Je NCP to further streamline the cleanup process.
SACM Paradigm
SACM s csstral concept is to transform the existizf se-
:uentiai cleanup process into a streamlined process where
actions cau proceed simultaneoosly based on individual site
conditions. EPA would thus be able :o move more quickly to
reduce cr eliminate risks at sites.
SACM srocld dramatically change tie internal orEsaiza-
:ion of EP.A's superfond program by eliminating the distinc-
:ion between renjoval and remedial ictioos. - All sites would
enter the stperfcad process iarocE3 one program, rsiber
;han through seoarate removal or r;n:edial prograrns. Any
action taken at a site under CERCLA must still fall into the
category of removal or remedial action as defined in
CERCLA and tbe NCP and most comply with the NCFs
requirements for those actions.'9 Thus, EPA would view tbe
removal aod remedial programs as separate legal authori-
ties, but not as separate programs. .
SACM includes four major components:.
> Consolidated site assessments; —*~. >"•
: > Regional decision teams;
- > Early actions to achieve rapid risk reduction: and
»• Long-term cleanups.
As indicated in the chart. EPA would proceed with enforce-
ment and community relations activities throughout the
SACMprocess-
Coosolidated site assessments: Site assessment under CER-
CLA is a lengthy process carried out by several EPA pro-
grams, other federal and state agencies, and private parties.
Many of these site assessments seek similar information, but
are performed by different EPA offices for different pur-
poses. For example, EPA's removal program performs re-
moval assessments; tbe site assessment program performs
preliminary assessments, site investigations, and hazard
ranking system scoring: and tbe remedial program performs
remedial investigations, risk assessments, and feasibility
studies. Many of these studies are performed sequentially and
often do not take into consideration the information produced
by previous studies.
Site assessment takes more time than any other step in the
cleanup process. SACM consolidates separate assessment
activities into a continuocs process. As many activities as
THE NEW STREAMLINED PROCESS
Public Nc~canon o< EarSy Ax'oo Stan
Earfy
Action
To Reduce Risk
(<5 Years)
PuWic Notification
^j Early Action |
*" Completed 1
|
Issue Oder/
Negotiate
lsst« Order/
Negotiate
AH
Sites
Start
PRP Search
Site
Screening
&
Assessment
NO
Acton
Long-
Term
Action
for
Media
Restoration
f>5 Years)
Delete
Long-Term
Cleanup
Completed
Enforcement Activities
Stat^Px*(ic PartkapatkxyCornfTHjntty Relations
3-12-93
Enwronmant Reporter
3013-3711/93,-KKJVOO
-------
-------
2564
ENVIRONMENT REPORTER
possible will be performed concurrently to reduce lag time.
'A believes that this consolidation could reduce site assess-
t by several years at many sites. EPA will bave to break
down institutional barriers within the supertax! program to
achieve this result. Expertise and data must be shared be-
tween offices, and mechanisms for hiring contractors must
be able to support the combined assessment effort
EPA is aow testing one way to streamline the site assess-
ment process—integrating the expanded site inspection with
the remedial investigation." The goal of the expanded site
investigation is to collect data to prepare the HRS scoring
package, which is csed to determine if a site will be listed on
the NFL The goal of the remedial investigation is to charac-
terize the nature and extent of risks at sites. Given that the
two investigations have the common goal of identifying the
dangers of hazardous waste and require similVr activities,
EPA decided that tie two steps can be conceptually integrat-
ed. EPA continues so study the integrated investigation con-
cept and has initialed several regional pilot projects.
Regional Decision Teams As the site assessment process
proceeds, a regional decision team decides what type of
action is required ~t the site. The RDT will be flexible; it will
rnske decisions as sue activities proceed, instead of keeping
th* steps in the cleanup process in "rigid and sequential
boxes." For example, the RDT may decide to perform an
early actkm cleaciip while site studies continue. In many
cases, these short-term cleanup actions may be sufficient to
kt-ep the site out o: the site listing process.
The RDT would "traffic cop" sues to an eariy action
cleanup or score s::es for long-term restoration actions. Some
s;:es will require roth early action and long-term cleanup.
:;c RDT could also decide ibat no federal action is approprv
:e. or that the s::e should be referred to the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act:" program or to some other
response authority.
The RDT could include experienced managers from tbe
removal, remedial, and enforcement programs, site and tisi
assessors, on-scene coordinators, remedial project managers.
community relations coordinators, regional counseL and
s:ate officials. The site management function of the OSC ar-d
RPM would eventually be combined. The RDT would require
training and commitment from EPA headquarters and re-
gional management to overcome institutional barriers and
heip blend the different cultures in the removal, remedial
asd enforcement programs.
Early Actions: SACM would feature early action cleanups
to remove quickly all immediate threats to the health aod
safety of the local population. These cleanups would general-
ly take less than three years, or at most five years, to
complete and include activities such as drum removaL fenc-
ing, alternate drinking water supply, and surface cleancp
associated with remedial actions. The new early action cate-
gory would thus be an expansion of EPA's removal progran-
Early actions would be taken under EPA's removal authority,
including emergency action, time-critical removals, and noc-
time-critical removals.1" Early actions would also be taken
under EPA's early or interim remedial authority.1'
Sites that the RDT designates for early action would be
placed on an early action list, which would be published
quarterly in the Federal Register. Sites would be listed on
the early action list once the decision to clean up is. made, and
would be delisted when the immediate risk to public health
and safety has been eliminated. The removal of sites from the
irly action list would be the superfund program's primary
easure of success.
Long-term Action: If the site assessment process estab-
lishes that a site needs long-term remediation, the RDT wouid
place the site on tbe long-sena remediation list. Sites requir-
ing ground water restoration or other long-term cleanup
(mining sites, extended iacineratkra projects, wetlands/es-
tuaries) would be placed on this list, which would also be
pcblisbed is the Federal Register.
EPA would emphasize to tbe public that sites placed on the
long-term remediation 1st require many years to clean up,
bat pose DO immediate threat to tbe population. The long-
term remediation Bst win not replace the NPL, but will
probably be a sobs« of tiae NPL. EPA intends the long-term
list to be an informational list of sites where long-term
actions are proceeding under SACM."
Selecting an early or Ions-term action: Tbe RDT must
consider <± variety of factors in deciding whether to take an
eariy or a long-tern action at a site. These factors include
bow tocg tre actioc is expected to take cost implications for
enforcement; state mvoivcroent; compliance with applicable,
relevant, aad appropriate requirements (ARARsj; public in-
volvement risk canasemenr; tbe available contracting
mechanises; and data quality objectives/'
Contfiance With CERCLA, NCP
EPA inlands SACM to operate within the existing frame-
work of CERCLA and OH: NCP- EPA has issued" a legal
opinion strong that the existing framework is flexible enough
to accommodate SACM. but that SACM does not provide
iEdepeodezt autbonry for EPA to take actions not authorized
by CERCLA or tbe NC?.- la a subsequent memorandum.
EPA urged regional persozsel implemenung SACM pilot
projects tc "take fall acvantage of the flexibility that the
NCP offers to sresziliEe tbe program to provide risk-based
ckanups a: tbe greatest smdber of sites." -
While EPA tnskes valii arpiments that CERCLA and the
NCP can b* interprrced to accommodate SACM. the statutory
and regulatory r^nretnajsts mLSt be stretched in ways that
Ccogress ard EPA cid nest originally intend. There are poten-
tial inefficiencies iz trying io superimpose a cew cleanup
process or=r the exsting frcziework. EPA stan must spend
some tin>e justifying ths.; actions taken under SACM do not
violate CERCLA £;d the NCP. For SACM to reach its full
potential for siiea~.liniRg ckanups and reducing inefficien-
cy, it must be base: on a more compatible legal framework.
Congress should ieep this in mind during CERCLA
reauthorize tioo.
The folkwing are some of tie legal issues that may arise as
EPA inipkznenis SACM.
Removal/remedial action distinction: CERCLA and the
XCP contain many provisoes that distinguish between re-
trtoval and remedial actions and impose different require-
ments for each type of actka.- SAO! would eliminate the
distinction betweer removal and remedial actions as sepa-
rate programs, but would continue to view them as separate
legal authorities. EPA has stated that any action taken under
SACM. including early aad fcog-term actions, must fall into
tfae category of removal or remedial action, and must con-
form with applicable NCP requirements.1'
CERCLA and tbe NCP give EPA considerable flexibility to
choose between removal or remedial authority in taking a
cleanup action. Tie definitions of removal and remedial
actions overlap cozsiderabty.15 allowing EPA the discretion
to imptemtnt tbe SACM paradigm.
EPA's kgal opinion statec that SACM will not change the
procedTires for all types of EPA response actions."1 EPA will
continue to use removal authority to respond to emergencies
aad time-critical snuations. EPA will also continue to use its
remedial authority for roost SACM long-term actions, where
ceanup is expect«S to tate more than five years. EPA
3-12-93
CopyrigtitC 1993 by The Bureau of National Alter*, re.. Washirqton. O.C.
-------
-------
CURRENT DEVELOPMENTS
2965
t
expects SACM to have its greatest impact on actions that fall
between (he clear cases of removal and remedial actions. In
these situations, the RDT will choose between uon-titne-
critical removal authority and early action remedial author-
ity. SACM calls for EPA to make greater use of noo-tirae-
critical removal actions, which can proceed more quickly
than remedial actions.
Limit on removals to $2 million or 12 months CERCLA
Section 104(cXl) limits fund-financed removal actions to $2
million or 12 months from the initial response to tie released
Section 104{cXl) provides exceptions to the limitations if
there is an emergency or EPA finds that continuation of tie
removal action is "consistent with the remedial action to be
taken."
Early action cleanups under SACM^may exceed the $2
million. 12 month limits, and would thus need to be justified
under one of the statutory exceptions. EPA has stated that it
will rely on the consistency exception for non-time critical
actions teat exceed these limits, especially at sites on the
proposed or final NPL.;"
Site studies required by NCP: The consolidation of the
various site studies called for in the NCP is one of SACM's key
r-.ethods for accelerating cleanups. The question arises
whether SACM's continuous site assessment process satisfies
::e NCP. EPA believes thai -fee NCP can be satisfied even if
EPA performs only one site assessment and issues one site
assessment report. However, the data obtained from the
consolidated assessment mus; satisfy the requirements of the
individual site studies, and :he assessment report must in-
clude "any findings required by the NCP for moving from one
pbase of a site assessment to another." *
NationaJ Priorities List: As acted above. SACM's long-term
remediation list w ill be informational and will not replace the
XPL. CERCLA Section 105
-------
-------
2966
ENVIRONMENT REPORTER
liability-based system. If SACM shows promise in streamlin-
ing the process and increasing public confidence in soperfand.
Congress is more likely to leave CERCLA's liability scheme
in place. Congress and EPA may instead turn their attention
to revising CERCLA and the KCP to better fit SACM. •
SACM is likely to remain a priority in OSWER under the
new administration. Pilot projects are well under way. Given
its momentum, SACATs future probably depends more on the
success of the pilot projects than on the policies of the new
EPA administrator or assistant administrator for solid waste
and emergency response. Regardless, any new EPA officials
would be glad to champion an initiative that promises to cut
years off of the time it takes to clean up a site.
Notes x
I.42USC9W1-W75.
2. See. e.g. U.S. Cocgress. OSce of Technology A
Coming dec*.. Superfund Prott^ms Can Be Salved (Oct. 1S39);
Rand Corporai.-on. Institute for Public Justice. Pub. ?j Tcs'-i Force Repon—Accelerating Svper-
func Cle^nufi c^ Ereiuating R:sk at Superfund SJ:«?s(Jaly 19.
1991 j. See al» U.S EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response. Sut-fj'und 3>J-Day Slucy Task Force Implemenmiun
PlaK—A.ceie-~:ing S-j.'xrfund Cleanups and Evaluating Risk
at Superfund i::*s (Oct. 1. 1991;.
5. Exercising Flexibility Throcgi the Superfund Acceisrejgd
LCleaDup Model" from DM Clay. Assistant AdminisaaMr for OSce
if Solid Waste and Emergency Response, to Regional Adniiss^a-
tors. et a>_. OSWER Directive 9203 I-03A (Oct 26. 19921
6. "Curreut National Superfuiw Program Priorities.' Richard
Guimond. acri-g assistant adminisaator for solid waste and emer-
gency response February 19S3.
7. 30 CFR 3«
8. CERCLA 5ecnoo 10j»23>. 42 USC 9601(23).
9. CERCLA Sectioo 10i!24>. 42 USC 9601(24).
10. For rerocTal actioci see. e.g. 40 CFR 300.410 and 300.415. For
remedial actios. see, e.g.. 40 CFR 300.420—300.435.
11.57 FR 47209 (Oct. 14, ISSt). In addjtron to forsally deletuig 44
sites from tbe NFL. 105 sites fall in EPA's ctcstrucoon or site
completion categories. Ttes. a total of 149 KPL fltes have been
cleaned up as of September 3C. 1992.
12. OSes of Emergency *id BemedSal Respcose, US. EPA,
Saperfuod Accekrtted CZeasa Model (SACM), O5WER Directive
9203.1-«1 {March 1992).
13. Guidance on implemeoatioo of tie Soperfrnd Accelerated
Geanop Model (SACM) onder CERCLA aal tbej»CP. from Don day.
Assistant ArtminrBrator for SoSi Waste aad EmergencyResponse, to
Waste Maaagement Division Directors, et at, OSWER Directive
V203.1-03(Jdy7.1992).
14. S. Stereo Chang, "ESL/R1 Integrated Site Assessment Process
Under tbe Supertax! Accelerated Clearap Mode." reprinted in
Proceedings of Hazardous -V zterials Contni Resources Institu-
te/Superfvnd '92, at p. 334.
15. OSWER Directive 92C3.1-J1, suprc note 12. s: 8.
16. 42 USC 6901-6?92k.
17. See 49 CFR 300 415.
18. See 40 CFR 3M.420-3W 435.
19. OSWER Directive 9283.!-'J3. swprc note 13. K 5.
20. Mark L Mjoness and Soazr Hitchcock. "Early Action and Long-
Tenn Action Co^er the Scr-irfund Accelerated Cleanup Model
(SACM)." reprinted ia Prooffexitgs of Hazardous >/acerioIs Con-
trol Resources Institute/ Sur^rfund '. !(-5ax2>. 1 likX2).
121(a). and40 CFR3W.400-S-:>M35.
24. OSWER Directive 9203 !-«. supr-z note 13. K 2.
25. CERCLA sections 10U23 ind (24(. « CFR3£«f 415i'di
26. OSWER Directive 92ft3-I-)3. suprc note 13.tr 5-9.
27. 42 USC 96(M(c»l). See ais 40 CFR »0.415(b»:i.
28. OSWER Directive, 9203.1-13, si.!*-; note 13. a: 6.
29. Id. at 3.
30. See, 2.C., Inside r.PA S-^rfund r.fport (Mirca 11.1922). at
3. An EPA oSciAl noird tha: PPJ's perfccm 60 perrajt of rersdia]
cleanups be: only 25-30 perrsc: of the removal dei^ups.
31. OSWE?. Directive 9203.3-13. sus-c rote 13. a: 9.
32. Id.
33. Mjoness and ffitcncoct si?ra cote 29. at 363
34. OSWER Directive 92&3.:-!I. suprc aote 12. a: 12.
35. Mjoeess and Hitchock- r--fa n«e :-). at 343.
36. Janrie- C. You±g, "Scr-erfund Accslera^d Cleanup Model
Regional Pilot Projects." repn^ad in Prxeedincs •}/ Hazarcous
Material Ctntrol Resources !-mitu:e S-tperfunc '92. p. 36T.
3-12-33
Copyright £ 1993 by TTw Bureau of National Affairs. Inc.. Wastvn^on. DC
O013-W11/93/KHS1.00
-------
-------
LOOKING AHEAD
propriaie to reach a point in a program where it's time for a new discussion to bring all of that knowledge back to the
table to figure om—-based on what we know now—whai have we done wrong, what can we do better," she said.
Saperfand is a program fiat is in need of dial son of discussion, she said, adding that she hopes all of the affected parties will
be at the table and the discnssion can be of a "non-advetsarial nature."
During Senaieconfirmadcaihesrir^ Ian month, Browner
gave the Scperfenrt program a. seven on a scale of one u> 10. In
a recent speech. Presidas Oinioo appeared to give Saperfund
& far less favorable grade, ran ing a ~a disaster." An cttomey
reviews esjxnsed by CEn and Brownerwuib2veu) be rec-
a discrepancy between Browner's sad Clinton's views of me
program. 1 don't see a big cSfiereoce of opinion. A seven out
of lOcenaialy isa'ta 10oBtoflO,"he said, addmg^Idoi't think
anyone would say Saperfaud is £ success story." He empha-
sized Browser's position that "everyone involved and every
issue involved has to be put on 6e table and looked at very
closely."
Daring die press briefing, Browner, who served as an aide
coacemstnat the adrainisiratkHi wffl have nndclysDoag ties to
prfeaded her own record in Florida,
saying the business community (hex would anesi that sbe was
interests. Browner is former director of the Florida Department
of Environmental Regulation.
Browner said states are *^a tremendous gold mine" in terms
of knowledge and creative «iutiimm*Titgi programs, suggest-
ing a greater rote for states m the management of resources for
^nyfongBrngn^jfl flCttVItlCS. ~HMMXr CTC tTFTTlPZyVmfl FCSOQTC6S fll
the local, state, regional, and national leveL The challenge now
is to coordinate chem"aridensare that "we're riot tripping over
fflrft nrti^r" fo managing ihnsp. rpsniirrgs, Maiy somces ^eoi-
late mat withafemer governor mtbe White Boose andaformer
state agency bead at fee helm at EPA, stazs wfll be given a
greater role in Sopednnd dedaonmakmg- States are expected
to push for a more active role in Snperfund during reamhoriza-
tion.
Browner said the nation is at a crossroads with respect to
enviroumenlal protection. Environmental, issues wiH no longer
be "on the margin" as they have been to ffr"^ she said.
Jt*1 jfr
Construction completions and enforcement top priority list
EPA GUIDANCE SETS CURRENT SUPERPJND PROGRAM PRIORITIES FOR REGIONS
A Fee. 2 memo to sD EPA regions says increasing programmatic demands, Snperfund's trending reauthotizanon
asd me *^ew administrciioc's need to be informed of oar present directions" have driven EPA to define and cornmuni-
caie Superfund's priorities. The eigiu priorities incraded in the directive are the consensus of officials in the Office of
Solid "W&S3 & Emergency Respoc.se £nc the Office of Enforcement
"We recogriiz^ tha: all Stiperfcr>d niarisgers sad staff have a ICK on their plate ertd caiuio: do everything that all of
Ozr cusuxsers want us to accorrpHst," the raemo says. However, th? delineation of Superfusd priorJEes is intended to
assist the regions in making tocgi: choices abou; -i-here to focus their "resourcss ana programmatic eSbns," the memo
ssys.
The nrst priorlry of Snperfoid i< to keep on n^ck the agency's coal of 200 cleanups by the end of fiscal year 1993
and 650 cleanups by the year 2000. ""We are counting on fee regions, working with states, to continooasly identify
opponunides for expediting cotscrisction corapleaoas.., This will help build the program's credibiHiy that is vital to
Superfund's loag-iann success," ±-e memo says.
4
As ce EPA less ways to accel^raie asd complex clezn-
uts, fee agency a: the same time sboclc test ways to encourage
poieoially responsible parries to cooduci invesrigaDons and
c=eareps earlier in the process, according 10 fee memo. Settle-
cents wiriPRPs forclezsnpacticG isprefersMe where they can
be achieved, however regiocs shock! be prepared to use uniiat-
e^adrrr-isiradveordegaadja<£cial actiocs. me msnosays-
"Whfle «e recognize *^at enforcement outputs m any given
yeararetheprodoaofavaiietyoffsaoxsuprecedingvears,h
zs essen^al tnsi yiji>MCimiv^ tnpniy umuuctive ^
~ not relax.
Accelerated dearmp is also fisted as a priority for Super-
compiezry of deanng np hzzardoos waste sites alocg with the
"complci Superficjd site stody" reqcrremcnts, the jxugiaiu has
become \-ulner2ble to criticism- In enter to correct This, "the
program must refocusiisatierja'oponafewinajcf outcomes that
the public will \-alue. We must ensure the desired ootcccne is
deUve^ on onvandrnteraisthepubUc wiD understand." The
memo points to the Superfund Accelerasd Qeaxaip Model
(S ACM), which is intended to achieve these goals, 2nd encour-
ages the regions "to work cooperatively" whfa headquarters
personnel to test the various facets of S ACM.
Oae of "ibe most pressing mailers" feeing Soperfund.
according to the memo is to ensure that responsible parties are
treated equitably. "Speedy and fair resolution of then-liability is
vital." fee memo says. For mat reason the agency onrentiy has
m place three initiatives to address me issue of enforcement
fijjnf*^ 'h**- d* """trtm jniriatfyf, thg nan vsActr trntigtrv^ tmA
the voluntary cleanup initiative. ,
SUPERFUND REPORT — February 24,1993
-------
-------
LOOKJNGAHEAD
Base closures and the effects on adjacent comrur.i.ies is
also tismd as 2 priority under Superfund, The agocy most
continue to assist the Department of Defense in assessing these
properties, accelerating actions wherever possible, »d ensar-
contingency pfan criteria, (he memo says,
According 10 me memo, the agency also needs w cocrimie
to implement ihe recommendations of tbe agency task force oo
die Alternative Remedial Contracting Strasgy (ARCS) con-
trace, "sod bcDd a future with reliable cosi-effecrivs coaracs
across die yu^'am through implementation of the Supcfimc
rqnpyrmg strategy fnnTTafTnrc rrmqmiltT.' jhaa
next several yees zs me ARCS cooracts reach capacity, the
agency wfll begnprocBn^g a new set of cleanup contracts (j«
related slory)-
success, pchbc arvolvenentaad fee use
of innovative KciiaolocJes are xbo lised zs priorities for
_S.-perfrTTvt "Sgieaetdgtmg gn j
acdviDes *ill not impw: ne pcbik's percepdoa cf ibe pro-
gram cnkss tbe public is *r3 mfoaed of EPA's progress and
irvoJvcd iz: yn» decffloos." sxon&Qg to the
And icrjovsive trggmere ecimak>g»es most be roa-
rm^iy t'iwv*.vflp- f*j 2S ^^ OOOOO 1Q ftti^**-^J^g StodlCS wheXC
trcztmcs « Miinuii-ji^jr-^ jfaooldoot be eliminascd because
of uncenzroaes in their Kribrtnfflce and cost, the gtndance
NEW FORUM AIMS TO UNIFY BUSINESS COMMUNrTTS SUPERFUND REFORM EFFORTS
Business and indusuy leaders met Feb. 4 in tae first of a scries of meecigs aimed z. anifymg tbe business
conimanity's position on Superfund refona as leEamorizaioo nears. The "Scperfend rcram*1 wffl ansmpt to consoli-
date the efforts of the vast number of indjstry-orissKd groups that ha% e ecstrgsd over r;e pss: several months to study
Superfand, stxircss say.
"If the besiaess communit\' isn't more togeoer tfun fc is now, they woc't make ay progrsss oc Caritol Hill."
says Harold RussII, \ic« president for govemmezns! affairs t-nii FS!C Gxporedoa ET.C fadiii5»r of ihs Supcrfisd
Forum.
The effon by industry to coordinate efforts u? change Superfuiid may c.j;n agjibjeai nioc«imEi from receci
staieaaeais by President Clinton in which the prcsiiea: has beec scoody cr^cal of ±-e -sy oe ^.-as^; cleanup prtKrara
is worfciDg (5%tf related story).
A number of industry' and business groups oc istir o=.j are ei± carveoms fe leaders and cmziriralin-es. The Superfund Forum
has beec creaisd to coordinate the activities of tbe various groups aati CD av?id a duplicaioQ o: efforts, £3 intfssrv
source ?.ith tie forum says. A major aim ^ill be u try to resolve differences aooog ne groopi in order to cocia S3 the
reaurhorizatian debais with one voice, tbe soince says.
"We're 2B agreed ISuperfund] needs to be ctenged." Russell saj-s. "Bn: there are v^ry dirsrent ideas" aboot what
is the solution, and this is where ihe business coczaicnity Deeds to unify its posiaoa, be says,
Also represented on the forum are the Coaliaoc on Superfoni the American Pecoieum Insatue. tbe Business
Roundtable, the National Paint & Coatings Associacoo. CK Nanocal EnvircnmenEJ Tr^st Find prefect, and tbe
Landfill SoloDOos Group. The group's next meeting is scheduled for Feb."-.
Rote of states in Superfund expected to be major issue
GOVERNORS TO DEVELOP SUPERFUND REAUTHOREATION POSfTlON
A oatioBal group of governors is developing anew policy to determine what positions it win take during the
Superfund rcanthorizatioa debate, with the role of sates in theSoperfoDd process appearing to be one of me major
issues, according to a source with tbe group.
The National Governors' Association (NGA) wffl offer optkns for staes to review to deennine positions KG A
wiQ take on Superfund issues, according to an NGA source. NGA plans wrhin a moot to have prepared a paper on a
range of options it wfll send out to its members, the source says.
continued on *aCpage
SUPERFUND REPORT — February 24,1993
-------
-------
t ., «.-!.:-
i X "f '
f
t
'• V- Jt
K
OFFICE OF.FKERAL FAaLfHES ENFORCEMENT.!© IMPLEMENT SACM FOR CLEANUPS.<
^P-^'s.Oflic^^Bsdaal FacOUie^JQafaroBatent under a daft strategic plan will begin incorporating the Supcrfund
^"^^!&(SAQ^
who described then!an*smmnKaTi^jiiS«fr»Tvmini'efntmnM At » Ian. -78 nonfcience,l-iri^.
: dtucoai'saateg^ Vof' ^^y^cleanmg ^'Tederal-sletTo^ %"T*" * * "*'
accomplish its mission, the 10-point plan win establish an
accountabnity fiamework, thereby creating the credibility "me
government pceds" to improve iB envtrnnrnehtaT irtariy£4rf^nt.*c
tai
d property on aU;of iB^closing andX
Oases and receive EPA or state conoinencefhat me1
sgeiKypt
xpediring
'
c development aadreuse of
' QFFR jjgfj^
The misaon ba^ aimed at obtaining public soppart tomake _ ,_pk3s to impTCTv-nt *^pt!arniined procedures".for transferring
"necessary,' Jegafly-^nandated, long-tenn investments in envi-' nsoediated and leased parcels, according to the draftl Under
roimienfal cleanup and coinpliance" nsnig' a variety of strata^. CERFAwhen the federal government wants to transfer prop-
gies, according to the' draft plan. Tf we're going 'to achieve guy gruj remedial actinn TJJ ngr^csary, i; must first ^mfmMrds"t
EPA sonrce,'who coald not say when the plan would be finaLv •. (SSAfis) in having a rawEWe deciaon making process.1^ &
Accordmg to Davidson, OFFE;will also.be asking the
Energy and Defense Departments lo sign .on to a pi*" whictrj > estd)lish 5S ABs 4& gnhahre public participation it cleanups;
would call for narional rJearmp goats later mis year. ahboughJa^and to advise bom: me regulators «nd regulated onieavinm£
me concept still jieeds to te\woricfidJriroQgn'ti^ag€«^
tn^^fnai system. Tne federal agencies have'exisunjz f^^""1" ^*n Kwv*1"—'n\ TV—jj.^—'—;j^—w—:..»-.'-no«T»II._T—:vA
.• agreejnents in i ~ '
t
belp'DOD inacceleracng ns data collection and cleanup deci- r^onto'u^ p^'include' enforcing the
aon making in'order to turn land over faster to the public for
-------
-------
tionJmrKfrhigVtwo^yeariima
'• pliaacelnitian've. bafldcig afederal enronrrmCTtal par
SOCh as throtJgfa'nnpmivM iJartrrmg ^nyj^pfjpnnT^^gn^gQj
In resoonse to hieavv criticism
DOE DEFOIDS^RMC'FIXEO-PRICE' CONCEPT FOR
5 amroach in implemMitttKr iheERMC
: * *_ . - ._ ^J^r-ff^f *» -^.. ^*-t . — ^* • •.*_._,»- »;.
^^. to HwxJDai^&vTOnmeaMfor^tiiedeaoop of
~ "
jpHmffioaEEU^coniractto a team fcdby Bechto?
S-j^reJaiS'-S^j^^e'v Sit' fej&s ^-sasw'i^S
«B.-l_iC^ --"- t"?«Ti-^'1-* *
:neipiDe.v mem goes JK
i'j i.1 .--&u*y_ --.-• .pwaTS^as
f *^g ^^. -i^teniaasThe Iwst'cleamq) mabdJ for,,.
V • C •;'; o»d^toI>a£Ey,itistliese**felnrefiMdHpria^
^^
to
thai the ERMC would be Eoquired
xx.ldidDolmean ltecxi^^|pK^^^§bwoK|a^|eais^|^p^^
ired on. mis basts : 1Ki^^^^^'wi^ '-:-. '^*
senator will closely follow and pomted to a September U.S1;"*,-'' A staffer wan Sea. David Pryor (D-AR) says meSenate -f W^X^
General, Accounting Office report which concluded that DOE :• ntbaveaproc«ssmpTaceforir^ rm*irtiiJ£ hearings wfakh would address m part me ERMC.^|^£^
• »now>niT7ffTs iocuA*•• *'.-. ~, - r *•• W-----T?---?---.-^
&-&. •. ;:.;$£?„ ,^^fc^^..-.%l-.-^:^.- rj'---?:"^*.-. ''V-,--'^.*?^>.ef^
^*|-. -vTA^- ^^^I^C^gaiiK^ilOiTSi. ^ac;U%A ' -•'-^^0,^^
t& l^^^^^^^^i^l^^^m^^^ -:f^B^^<^'^^S^i
^ Indemnification of tratSferebs afea of cohtentk?h
written-yg;- m^-^^^i^^^^m
i.S.i".i;_'^2_~i.\^i - ?r~ ;''?^!'H1VJ'"•-•-* . ^12?"^**?^ ^Bf-.'i
li^^fi^Pf^^M^URE CONFERENCE^DRESSESAWVTC:TO^
I,,« <***,-~«™<,-f—,-. <^tejregu^^^r^i^^^orjo^^ wavjfioeqp^
^ mjblhepabSc^^iii&dn^^
sii^
%«n;.'vx:^f'r"7~ ~*i" v^
^ineconicrcncc tooci
- . ?*4b*-!.:'*~*
cooCQcrent
*•»
r^lc
• - ,"-T,i.i-^••'«*»?f^w«M*°«i*i>v*:~ tt^r^ji:-*vttt»" i *«:j^i»i—*j i? •' T*-*««*'ii'-. • -x
icuniHUfo rev^-cattiraciotYqocom^^
wi^.«.*!i%?-j-ygy%v-^ vf' vr-ii-?v*»•- - • »:--v".-^_ ^•g*y.~y^. -?»-•*?.• ^^: •-•
afcaft d^octmaeias^wpereby a doamientcan then bp.madeftnal^xaaiiejrtlat
&eirresrjooses;andlnmDvS£fcofltiactmgpvor^" ' *—- " -"' - ^»-- =
Jij^^.I.^^.^-ii^^^jVr-srwv'iws-*':-'':.,.^',
* • -* - -> -^^^s^-1 • • W - ' >* B*^P- — -> I
1 caving tegBlalois and j
-SF"^
j CXCuS&JQl
• f •*-~K^r^*~. JB.«r%..»-^.i^'^ " ^-"•
man iPM-famjrttijr diaftSj
^j^yilfTil"^"^^ ]
tocooditions
»«'.>--"
PERFUND REPORT
^5^5:
^5
m&
-------
-------
1058
TOXICS LAW REPORTER
already on the National Priorities List for cleanup, and a
number of non-NPL sites require some degree of decon-
tamination, it said.
According to the memo, one of the most pressing
matters facing the superfund program is that of ensuring
that parties who have responsibility for cleanup are
treated equitably. As part of this enforcement fairness
initiative, the memo said EPA will develop a comprehen-
sive strategy to encourage and properly manage volun-
tary cleanup projects through a variety of regional
projects.
Continued scrutiny of superfund contracts also should
be a priority, the memo said. Staff from different pro-
gram areas should work together and communicate fre-
quently with their contracting support offices.
Regions were asked to work with EPA headquarters
to develop new methods for describing superfund suc-
cesses to the public.
Finally, the memo said, innovative treatment technol-
ogies should be routinely considered as an option in
engineering studies where treatment is appropriate, espe-
cially at federal facilities. The memo said technologies
should not be eliminated from consideration solely be-
cause of uncertainties in their performance and cost.
Response Actions
SUPERFUND RESPONSE ALERTS RELEASED
BY ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
The Environmental Protection Agency Feb. 2 released
Superfund Response Alerts on actions taken at the
following sites:
A&W Smelters Site, Mojave, Calif., EPA Region IX;
Action: Initial removal action of 543 drums of potential-
ly hazardous wastes and substances.
Ramona Groundwater Contamination Site, Ramona,
Kan., EPA Region VII; Action: Initiation of removal of
contaminants of private drinking water wells; Cost:
$45,000.
Bessemer Drum Site, Bessemer, Ala., EPA Region
IV; Action: Completion of removal of flammable mili-
tary surplus chemicals; Cost: $275,000.
For a complete text of the alerts, contact BNA Plus at
(800) 452-7773 or (202) 452-4323.
OUTSIDE THE COURTROOM
Superfund
EPA PROGRAM PRIORITIES SET FORTH
IN MEMORANDUM TO REGIONAL OFFICES
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Current National Superfund Program
Priorities
FROM: Richard J. Guimond, Acting Assistant
Administrator, Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency Response
Scott Fulton, Acting Assistant Admin-
istrator, Office of Enforcement
TO: Regional Administrators, Regions I-X
PURPOSE
This memorandum discusses current national Super-
fund Program Priorities for Fiscal Year 1993, detailing
what we must achieve and how we must achieve it.
BACKGROUND
Increasing programmatic demands at headquarters
and the regional offices, the pending reauthorization of
the Superfund program and the new Administration's
need to be informed of our present directions have made
it important that our current programmatic priorities be
defined and clearly communicated. Recent meetings
with Regional Waste Management Division Directors
nd Superfund Branch Chiefs have confirmed this need.
fter careful consideration, the Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency Response (OSWER) and the Office of
Enforcement (OE) have reached a consensus regarding
Superfund's major program priorities. This memoran-
dum provides guidance outlining those priorities, which
should govern our operations during the transition.
This guidance molds national and regional superfund
program activities into a unified, prioritized order. We
believe, as National Program Managers for superfund
and for enforcement that it is essential for regional and
headquarters staff and management to work together to
meet the priorities (or challenges) described below. A
concentrated cooperative effort will help us meet the
challenges we face.
1. CONSTRUCTION COMPLETIONS
EPA committed itself in FY 92 to more than doubling
(to a cumulative total of 130) the number of National
Priorities List (NPL) construction completions; tripling
this number (to a cumulative total of 200) by the end of
FY93; and to reaching at least 650 NPL construction
completions by the end of the decade (year 2000). This
commitment (which we exceeded substantially in FY92)
was vital to presenting our program progress accurately,
and is still in effect. We are counting on the regions,
working with states, to continuously identify opportuni-
ties for expediting construction completions and response
actions for timely site reporting. This will help build the
program's credibility that is vital to Superfund's long-
term success.
2-10-93
Copyright O 1993 by The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc., Washington. D.C.
08CT-7394/S3/W+.50
-------
-------
CURRENT REPORT
1059
2. ENFORCEMENT
Regions should continue to maximize PRP participa-
tion in the removal and remedial programs. As we test
out ways to accelerate and complete cleanup, we should
simultaneously test out ways to encourage PRPs to
conduct investigations and cleanups earlier in the
process.
Responsible parties have been performing an ever-
increasing proportion of response actions at superfund
sites. Creative and effective use of all relevant enforce-
ment tools is essential to delivering our construction
completions and accelerated cleanup priorities. Settle-
ments with responsible parties to perform response ac-
tions are preferable where they can be achieved, but
regions should be prepared to use unilateral administra-
tive orders (UAOs) and judicial actions, including ac-
tions for temporary and preliminary injunctive relief, in
appropriate situations, to compel PRPs to undertake
response actions.
Equally important is effective monitoring of PRP
compliance with existing Consent Decrees, Unilateral
Administrative Orders and Administrative Orders on
Consent, and taking appropriate enforcement responses
where there is failure or refusal to comply.
While we recognize that enforcement outputs in any
given year are the product of a variety of factors in
preceding years, it is essential that superfund's highly
productive enforcement program not relax. We will con-
tinue to evaluate regional enforcement performance on a
variety of grounds, including RD/RA negotiation com-
pletions, numbers of civil judicial referrals of RD/RA
settlements and cost-recovery actions, unilateral orders
in compliance, value of response actions, and numbers of
enforcement actions to compel compliance with existing
orders and decreases.
3. ACCELERATED CLEANUP
The technical complexity of the hazardous waste site
problem coupled with complex superfund site study and
cleanup requirements have left the superfund program
vulnerable to criticism. Therefore, the program must
refocus its attention on a few major outcomes that the
public will value. We must ensure the desired outcome
is delivered on time and in terms the public will under-
stand. For this reason, a new superfund paradigm, the
Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model (SACM), is un-
der field demonstration. Major characteristics of SACM
Include: (1) Integrated Site Assessment Function. (2)
Regional SACM Teams, (3) Increased Number of Ear-
ly Actions (immediate threats to public health and
safety will be eliminated first), (4) Long-term Remedi-
ation, and (5) Early Enforcement Actions. We encour-
age the regions to work cooperatively with EPA head-
quarters personnel to conduct pilot proposals that test
the various facets of SACM, use presumptive remedies,
implement soil cleanup standards, consider voluntary
cleanup, and preserve cost-recovery opportunities.
4. BASE CLOSURES
Under the Base Realignment and Closure Acts of
1988 and 1990, 113 military installations are scheduled
for closure or realignment. Of this total, 21 sites are on
the NPL, and there are a number of non-NPL sites
requiring some degree of decontamination.
State and local communities are very concerned about
the effect of closing installations on the local and region-
al economy. Faced with a potential loss of jobs and
revenues, they have a strong interest in expediting the
transfer of property. Many, fear that EPA will only
hinder the process rather than facilitate transfer and
economic redevelopment.
It has been EPA's experience that site remediation at
closing bases is more pressured than at non-closing
Department of Defense (DOD) facilities. In accord, the
agency must continue to assist DOD in assessing these
properties, accelerating actions wherever possible, and
ensuring that remedies selected at NPL sites meet super-
fund and National Contingency Plan (NCP) criteria.
We remain committed to working with DOD, state/local
government, and private interests in expediting cleanup
and supporting responsible transfers of federal property
to non-Federal parties for reuse and economic
development.
5. ENFORCEMENT FAIRNESS
Ensuring that parties who have responsibility for
cleanup are treated equitably is one of the superfund
program's most pressing needs. Speedy and fair resolu-
tion of their liability is vital- We have several initiatives
ongoing to address these issues; e.g., de minimis settle-
ments, the non-settlor initiative and the voluntary
cleanup initiative.
The de minimis initiative is designed to: (1) expedite
the resolution of the liability of small waste contributors,
and (2) complete settlements earlier in the process,
preferably before signing the Record of Decision
(ROD). Regions should seek opportunities for settling
with de minimis parties wherever possible. Guidance
was issued on June 2, 1992, suggesting procedures for
achieving early de minimis settlements; this will be
followed by guidance for settling with very small
contributors.
The non-settlor initiative includes timely enforcement
through UAO enforcement or cost recover}' including
seeking penalties and treble damages. For all parties
who come forward and commit to cleanup, we should
provide vigorous EPA pursuit of non-settlors to signal
our own good faith and commitment to fair and equita-
ble treatment.
Finally, our success in maximizing PRP participation
in cleanup has generated growing interest in "voluntary"
cleanup, e.g., PRPs indicating a strong desire to proceed
with remediation at sites which may not be on the
region's agenda for immediate attention. We will work
to develop a comprehensive strategy to encourage and
properly manage voluntary cleanup projects through a
variety of regional projects.
2-10-93
Toxics Law Reporter
0887-7394/93/SCK.50
-------
-------
1060
TOXICS LAW REPORTER
6. EFFECTIVE CONTRACT MANAGEMENT
Scrutiny of supcrfund contracts by parties within and
outside EPA indicates a need for an emphasis on good
contract management and made it not only a superfund
priority but also an agency-wide priority. We need to
continue to implement the recommendations of the
Agency Task Force on Alternative Remedial Contract-
ing Strategy (ARCS) contracts, and build a future with
reliable cost-effective contracts across the program
through implementation of the Superfund Long-Term
Contracting Strategy. Responsible, trained, and reliable
personnel should be used to oversee the procurement and
administration of these contracts. Senior management
involvement is essential for accountability. We need to
change the perception that superfund contracts are poor-
ly managed and to prove that funds are being responsi-
bly spent in the public interest.
Staff in all program areas must work together and
communicate frequently with their contracting support
offices. Contractors must realize that superfund pro-
gram management is serious in its efforts to ensure an
appropriate return on investment. Principles of good
contract management must permeate the day-to-day ac-
tivities of the program at al! levels.
7. COMMUNICATING SUCCESS/PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
A key component in revitalizing Superfund is a com-
mitment to convey progress and accomplishment at ev-
ery opportunity. Streamlining and accelerating super-
fund cleanup activities will not improve the public's
perception of the program unless the public is informed
of EPA's progress and is meaningfully involved in site
decisions. We must invigorate and enhance communica-
tions with people affected at superfund sites. The EPA is
committed not only to meeting the information needs of
local communities but also to involving the public in site
decisions. The focus should be to recognize citizen and
community concerns and communicate with them early,
often, and always. Although we cannot promise that
EPA wiil do everything the community asks, we can
promise to consider their major concerns and, where
appropriate, incorporate these concerns into the site
decision.
In addition, headquarters and regional staff must
work together to develop new methods for describing
superfund success. A number of projects already under-
way are designed to supplement superfund's traditional
communications tools, e.g., press releases and fact
sheets. The new projects include "Superfund Progress"
(a national quarterly report), "Superfund at Work"
(site-specific success stories), "Superfund Response
Alerts," and Citizens' Guides to Innovative Technol-
ogies. Our goal is to make information about superfund
readily available and easily understandable to the gener-
al public, as well as other concerned audiences.
8. INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES
OSWER and OE are seeking to further the use of
innovative treatment technologies to permanently
cleanup contaminated sites in the superfund, RCRA,
and Underground Storage Tank (UST) programs. Ac-
cording to a prior directive, "... we must invest the
necessary resources and take the risks now to develop the
technologies necessary to fulfill the long-term needs of
our hazardous waste clean-up programs." The OSWER
directive, which was signed June 10, 1991, calis for
technological leadership and a sense of responsible ur-
gency to prevent expenditures in pursuing less effective
or more costly remedies.
Innovative treatment technologies should be routinely
considered as an option in engineering studies where
treatment is appropriate. They should not be eliminated
from consideration solely because of uncertainties in
their performance and cost. These technologies may be
found to be cost-effective, despite the fact that their
costs are greater than conventional options after consid-
eration of potential benefits, including increased protec-
tion, superior performance, and/or greater community
acceptance. In addition, future sites will benefit by
information gained from the field experience.
Both OSWER and OE strongly support the use of
federal facilities for developing innovative technologies.
A good example of such a project is at McQellan Air
Force Base in Region IX where a Technology Demon-
stration Center is under development. Federal facilities
offer a number of benefits: sole responsible parties,
acknowledged liability, controlled sites, funding, and
willingness. This is an area of great opportunity to
develop technologies that reduce the cost and time of
cleanup.
SUMMARY
We recognize that all superfund managers and staff
have a lot on their plate and cannot do everything that
all of our customers want us to accomplish. We hope
that this delineation of the major OSWER/OE Super-
fund priorities will assist you as you make tough choices
about where to focus your resources and programmatic
efforts.
f
BNA PLUS, the custom research and document retrieval service of The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc., is offering an
annual subscription service for opinions of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. A $335 full-service
subscription provides copies of all of the court's opinions each week via first-class mail. A $200 custom service
subscription each week provides copies of decisions in any one of the following subject areas: patents and trademarks,
federal contracts, government employment, international trade, and monetary claims against the United States. For
more information or to subscribe, call BNA PLUS at (800) 452-7773 nationwide or (202) 452-4323 in Washington, D.C.
2-10-93
Copyright C 1993 by The Bureau of National Affairs. Inc.. Washington. O.C.
0887-7394/93/SO+.SO
-------
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Off ice of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
Publication 9203.1-021
February 1993
Superf und Accelerated
Cleanup Bulletin
Presumptive Remedies for Municipal Landfill
Sites
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
Office of Waste Programs Enforcement
Intermittent Bulletin
Volume 2 Number 1
The Presumptive Remedy Selection Initiative
Knee Superfund's inception in 1980, the removal and remedial programs have found that certain categories of sites have
similar characteristics, such as the types of contaminants present, past industrial use, or the environmental media that are
affected. Based on a wealth of information acquired from evaluating and cleaning up these sites, Superfund is undertaking
an initiative to develop presumptive remedies that are appropriate for specific types of sites, contaminants, or both. This
initiative b part of a larger program, known as the Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model (SACM), which is designed to
speed all aspects of the Superfund clean-up process.
The objective of the presumptive remedies initiative is to use clean-up techniques shown to be effective in the past at similar
sites in the future. The useof presumptive remedies will streamline removal actions, site studies, and clean-up actions, thereby
improving consistency, reducing costs, and increasing the speed with which hazardous waste sites are remediated.
Purpose
The Superfund Municipal Landfill Expert Team has com-
pleted four site visits under the Municipal Landfill Pilot
Project.1 The pilot project implements a 1991 streamlining
manual, "Conducting Remedial Investigations/Feasibil-
ity Studies for CERCLA Municipal Landfill Sites" (hereaf-
ter referred to as "the manual'). This bulletin presents key
findings from the pilots completed to date, particularly
with respect to the level of detail that was appropriate for
establishing risk, and therefore a basis for reme-
dial action, at two of the sites.
Background
^cce\eratecf
The preamble to the National Con-
tingency Plan (NCP) identifies
munkipallandfillsasatypeofsite
where treatment of the waste may
be impracticable due to the size
and heterogeneity of the contents.
Because of this, containment will
often be the appropriate response
action for the source area of mu-
nicipal landfill sites. Such containment remedies are likely
to include a landfill cap; ground-water treatment or con-
trol; leachare collection and treatment; and landfill gas
collection and treatment, as appropriate.
The municipal landfill manual states that baseline risk
assessments at municipal landfill sites may be streamlined
or limited in order to initiate early remedial action on the
most obvious landfill problems (e.g., ground water/
leachate, landfill contents, and landfill gas). One method
for establishing risk using a streamlined approach is to
compare contaminant concentration levels (if available) to
standards that are potential chemical-specific applicable
or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs) for the
action. The manual states that where established standards
for one or more contaminants in a given medium
aredearty exceeded, remedial action is gen-
erally warranted.2 The manual further
states that ultimately it is necessary to
demonstrate that the final remedy
addresses all pathways and con-
taminantsof concern, not just those
that triggered the remedial action.
Fasfer.., C/ea/?er...Safer
Pilot Project Findings
The experience of the expert team
supports the usefulness of a lim-
ited riskassessmenttoinitiateearly
action at two of the pilot sites. Specifically, for the source
area of these two sites (i.e., the discrete landfill area), a
quantitative ^sk assessment that considered all chemicals,
their potential additive effects, etc., was not necessary.
See 'Supertetd Accelerated Cleanup Bulletin. Presumptive Remedies for Municipal Landfill Sites." Publication 920B.1-02L Volume 1, Number 1, Aprs!
1*>2. '
See abo OSWER Directive 9355.0-30. -Role of the Baseline Risk Assessment in Superfund Remedy Selection Decisions.' April 22,1991. which itates that
if MCLs or ncn-zero MCLCs are exceeded, (remedial] action generally ss warranted.
-------
either to establish a basis for action or to establish clean-up
levels. For these two sites, the justification for early reme-
dial action was based on existing ground-water data.
Ground-water data are not available for the other two sites,
Sites wife Ground-water Data
For the source areas of the two sites with existing ground-
water data, the baste for action was ground-water contami-
nation at levels exceeding non-zero MCLGs or MCLs;
therefore, a complete quantitative risk assessment was not
necessary to establish risk (and therefore a basis for action)
at these sites. Furthermore, a quantitative risk assessment
was not needed to evaluate whether the containment rem-
edy addressed all pathways and contaminants of concern
associated with the source. Rather, all potential migration
pathways wereidentified (using the conceptual site model)
and compared to those addressed by the containment
remedy as follows:
• direct contact threat and surface water run-off ad-
dressed by capping;
• exposure to contaminated ground water (including
any contaminated ground water moving off-site)
addressed by ground-water treatment/control (in-
cluding assessment of current exposure); and
• exposure to landfill gas addressed by gas collection
and treatment, as appropriate.
This comparison revealed that the containment remedy
addressed all pathways associated with the sources at
these sites.
Finally, a quantitative risk assessment was not required to
determine clean-up levels for the sourf-o arpaft since the
type of cap will be determined by closure ARARs, and
ground-water clean-up levels may be based on MCLs, non-
zero MCLGs, or more-stringent, promulgated, state levels.
NOTE In some cases, a risk assessment may be requ ired to
determine the riskassocia ted with contaminants in landfill
gas. Landfill gas collection will frequently be a necessary
component of the remedy to insure cap integrity. There
rnay be an additional need for treatment of the collected
gas based upon the contaminants present In some cases,
state ARARs may identify clean-up levels for such con-
taminants, and in some cases health-based levels will be
appropriate. This issue will be addressed in further detail
in future guidance.
Sites with No Existing Ground-water Data
Ground-water data are not yet available for two of the pilot
sites; for these sites, the following tiered approach was
recommended. Once ground-water data are obtained, a
clear basis for action may be established, and the remedy
selection may be streamlined as described for the two sites
with available ground-water data. If contaminants are not
identified above MCLs or non-zero MCLGs, however,
additional pathways, such as surface contamination and
landfill gas, will be characterized next, and a focused
quantitative risk assessment conducted to establish a basis
for remedial action.
Areas of Contaminant Migration
One of the expert team's key findings is mat almost every
municipal landfill site has some unique characteristic that
may require additional study. Unique characteristics en-
countered during the pilot visits include leachate dis-
charge to a wetland at one site and signi ficant surface water
run-off due to drainage problems at another. These path-
ways will require characterization and conventional risk
assessment to determine whether remedial action is war-
ranted beyond the source area, and if so, the type of action
that is appropriate.
Pilot Study Findings and Conclusions
The expert team's conclusions from the four pilots, then,
are that:
(1) a quantitative risk assessment was not warranted
for the source areas of the two pilot sites
ground-water data were available and conta
nants exceeded chemical-specific standards; ju.
fication for action was the exceedance of the stan-
dards;
Further, streamlining the risk assessment elimi-
nated the need for sampling and analysis of these
frounr arpa? to support the calculation of current
or future risk.
(2) a focused risk assessment generally will be neces-
sary for areas other than the landfill source itself
(such as areas where contaminants have migrated
from the source) to determine the need for addi-
tional remedial action beyond areas normally ad-
dressed by the cap; and
i
(3) a fbrtsed risk assessment generally will be neces-
sary to determine the need for remedial action at
sitesjvhere ground-water concentrations do not
exceed MCLs or non-zero MCLGs, unless other
conditions provide a clear justification (e.g. un-
stable slopes).
These conclusions are directly applicable to die four pilot
sites only; however, based on these findings, the municipal
landfill expert team is developing an Agency directive that
will provide additional guidance on conducting baseline
risk assessments at municipal landfill sites. For additi
information on the directive or the municipal landfill
project, please call Andrea McLaughlin at 703-603-8
-------
CHANGING SUPERFUND
Despite Superfund's apparent failure,
the program has been buoyed by cleanup
contractors, environmentalists, and other
groups profiting from a big Superfund
program, Jeffreys said. It has beca perpetu-
ated "because the special interests got a
bold of it.... The folks who ere doing
cleanups arc making hundreds of millions
of dollars. No one would pay them 10 do
this in a rational world so they have to have
these government programs."
Liability scheme "unconsfltutionar
Jeffreys disagrees with the premise
that the liability scheme should be kept
intact because, if nothing else, it is at least
equally unfair to all parties. People need to
get away from such thinking and say 'why
don't we By doing something right?'" he
said.
Many say the current liability scheme
is valid because it forces industry into
environmentally sound practices. Jeffreys
finds fault with mis argument, as welL
"There actually is a perverse political in-
centive co keep [strict, join: and several and
retroactive liability]. ... It really has
terrified corporations to such a degree that
they have started cleaning up their act."
But Jeffreys disagrees thai this is a reason
to keep Soperfund alive, "We have
changed the corporate mentality; we
should declare victory and go borne," be
said."The current liability scheme... is so
onerous and so punitive that everyone is
terrified of getting thrown into (his horrible
pit. That is actually apolitical incentive to
keep it in the eyes of some people. I think
it's a reason to toss it out."
Jeffreys said the far reach of Super-
fund liability needs to be reexamincd. cit-
ing panics that suddenly face liability for
apparently lawful activities such as send-
ing trash to a site or hiring haulers to
transport their waste. "When a, law is so
ambiguous thai you don't know whether
you're breaking it or not, then it's not the
fault of the people; it's As fault cf ths
people who wrote it and who expect you to
try and comply with a law mat's irrational.
And Superfund has become completely
irrational."
On expectations for the incoming
administration end Superfund, Jeffreys
said he hopes Gore aid President-elect Bill
Clinton wffl acknowledge mat Superfund
is broken and needs to be fixed. "If Al Gore
says it's time we reform Superfund, no one
can accuse him of being « sellout to corpo-
rate America; no one can accuse him of
being an insincere anti-environmentalist,**
Jeffreys said. "I would hope Clinton is
coming in with some new attitudes, some
new ideas ---- We really need Clinton and
Gore 10 step forward and say it's not work-
ing, it's time for a change — and not just
tinkering around the edges. We have to go
back and reconsider the principles. Amer-
ica has certain priorities and they do not
include a federal ptugiaiu for Superfund
sites."
Proposal calls for citizen representation on regional decision teams
EPA NEEDS TO INCREASE PUBUC INVOLVEMENT !N SACM PROCESS, EDITORIAL SAYS
EPA's attempts to involve the public in Superfand cleanups come far too late in the cleanup process, and do not
include the public in decisionmaking, according to an editorial last month in a Chicago newsletter aimed at informing
citizens aboat environmental laws. To change EPA's attitude of informing rather than involving the public, the agency
should allow for public representation on the regional decision teams being formed under the agency's Superfund
Accelerated Cleanup Model (SACM) to review site assessments, the editorial says.
The newsletter, which devoted its fall issue to Superfund topics, has been sent to the Illinois congressional
delegation and Chicago-area politicians. The editorial also makes two other suggestions for overhauling the Superfund
program: speed cleanups by replacing the strict, joint and several liability scheme with fund-led cleanups supported by
a higher tax on the petroleum and chemical industry, and create a common standard of risk to be applied to all sites.
The newsletter is pioduced by The Chicago Legal Clinic, which sponsors the country's only environmental legal
program designed to aid the urban poor.
The agency "needs to make citizen involvement a meaningful part of the process, not just a publicity saint," the
editorial says. The public now is involved "long after all the decisions are made." Bowden Quinn, editor of The
Chicago Environment, said in an interview. "EPA talks a lot about public involvement, but it's just not happening," he
said. In a separate article. Quinn points out that citizen participation seems to be missing from the SACM agenda,
citing as an example an EPA summary of 23 pilot projects that does not mention citizen involvement.
Quinn said citizens find that the process is so complicated, it takes two years out of their lives to understand the
law and then they are continuously trying to catch up with what is going on at the site. One citizen at a site says that
"responsible parties rely on the process to wear people down," according to the editorial. The time and money needed
to learn the law also contribute to hampering citizens' efforts at tracking sites, according to the editorial.
The editorial calls on EPA to take up one of the citizen's suggestions by including a representative from both an
environmental group and the community in an advisory role on its regional decision team. The teams are being
established across all regions. The decisionmakers would benefit by receiving more input from citizens and hearing
their feedback sooner, Quinn said. The teams are designed to guide the site assessment process to determine the types
of data that need to be collected and to attempt to define whether opportunities for early action are present, according
to the agency. Under EPA's current plan, the teams are composed of a senior regional management official, and other
regional staff including members from the removal, remediation, site assessment, enforcement, community relations
and technical support staff areas, and in some cases a state representative, according to an EPA official. _ .
Quinn advocates some form of compensation for the citizens serving on the RDTs. Also, environmental groups
SUPERFUND REPORT — January 13.1993
7
-------
-------
CHANGING SUPERFUND
should be represented on the teams "to counterbalance the tremendous influence that {potentially responsible parties]
are able to wield." An EPA official says it is unlikely the RDTs wfll mclnde representatives from the community
because they are not the decisionmakers, "Just because someone is not sizing at the RDT meeting does not mean they
will not be involved in the Superfund process." the official says. He says the agency is trying to involve the public
more in other ways, such as encouraging citizens to apply for Technical Assistance Grants, launching earlier commu-
nity relations efforts by poshing for more frequent site visits by EPA staff "to let people know what's going on." He
adds the agency recognizes the problem and "we think those are better mechanisms to deal with the problem.'*
The editorial also argues that although the idea to require polluters K) pay for cleanups is good, trying to get
payment for cleanups up front "has led to long delays, huge litigation costs and ckanups of dubious quality." He says
the decision to search out polluters should follow a separate Back. The find cooM obtain as funds from a higher tax on
the chemical and petroleum industry, with those companies producing the most dangerous chemicals paying more,
which would serve as an incentive to cut down on the production of highly hazardous chemicals, according to Quran.
During the reauthorization debate, EPA wifl "be open to any and afl proposals to correct the liabflity scheme," the
EPA official says. However, until a better method comes along, me agency does not want ID rejea the curreac liafafliry
system, he says, pointing to the success the enforcement program has bad wira strict, joint and several liabOky.
Finally the editorial says EPA needs to establish a strict standard to detennine the level of risk » human heahh
posed by a site because there are differences from state to state in Applicable, Relevant, & Appropriate Reqoremexas,
or ARARs. The editorial further argues that PRPs "who are wflfing to pay fora cleanup may be allowed toned less
stringent standards man those EPA applies to recalcitrant panics." The standard varies for example in determining
what level of risk of cancer a cleanup must meet before the site is deemed clean. EPA allows for a range from one in
10,000 to one in 1,000,000 to be used in establishing cancer risks at sacs.
On the suggestion, the EPA official says that the agency bas not been abfe to determine "a single number that
addresses all situations" and afl those threats a Snperfand site rjoses. The fiexitde range aUowsibe agency ID incorpo-
rate site-specific conditions and hazards in assessing risks, he says.
Environmental services company says /
PROPOSAL FOR SPEEDING CLEANUPS CAN FORWARD GOALS OF SACM
A former EPA official now with an environmental services company says the agency needs to move away from
trying to design "total solutions" at Superfund sites and adopt an incremental approach to reducing risk. The current
system works according to a "false assumption" that complex sites can be sufficiently understood based on investiga-
tions geared toward total site remediation, according to the company.
Canonic Environmental. Inc. has presented its proposal, tilted Accelerating Superfund from the Remcduzion
Contractors' Perspective, to EPA headquarters and regional officials over the past several months, according to
Frederic Eidsness, government relations director at Canonic sad a former assistant adminisirator in EPA's water
office.
Canonic1 s approach would help EPA forward the goals of its Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model (SACMX
which is aimed at streamlining the site study phase of cleanups, and concentrate on early risk removal, Eidsoess says,
The approach would also foster the development and use of innovative ckanup technologies, Canonic says.
The Canonic proposal calls for an observational a^yiuadi
to cleanup using what it calls Sequential Risk Mitigation, in
which the cleanup process is broken into steps, «*•* one aimed
at incrementally lowering the risk 21 a site.
Under this method, the site is not separated into operable
units as in the current EPA approach. Ramer, according to me
proposal, "each remediation action is judged, selected or impfe-
merued in terms of its impact on the total site znd its ability (or
lack thereof) to reduce the overall health risk of the site." Tie
focus would be on determining pathways to h^m^n exposce.
with the early steps of cleanup addressing only actual or nesr-
tenn pathways. Indirect pathways would be considered duriag
the process of establishing long-term goals.
The new approach to removing risk would affect how sac
investigations 'and feasibility studies arc conducted. These
studies would be geared toward producing data required for rie
evaluation of technologies "applicable only to the next level of
8
lemediatkn," according to the proposal. "Each sage [of a
cleanup] is preceded by investigation and selection of the most
appropriae remedial action technology to adrievs the target
*y»aMi risk at the next level, wiih lessons learned &mvg nn-
plaaentaxxi of the previous remedial action considered," fee
proposal says.
Under the Sequential Risk Mitigation (SRM) model, en-
sile and adjacent Sand uses should be incorporated into **"">
cleanup goals, the proposal states.
The ^preach •would foster the development of innovative
wording to me proposal. Under the SRM approach a ,;/i: _' V
tecfcaoksgy'sappBcation can be made wiih arjezrcr term, mere ''^C'iV ^U^
reaSsticgoal.Canoniesaj's.thuJsigmficaritlyloweringtfaensk'^vr.^"^ :*
DZDOV2&VC
UHOC? toff O9CPCXX&
system of spring on 10 a "total solution" cleanup
plete knowledge of a site and unproven technologies^'^
SUPERFUND REPORT—
-------
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
Publication 9203.1-051
December 1992
Early Action and Long-Term Action
Under SACM — Interim Guidance
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
Office of Waste Programs Enforcement
Office of Enforcement
Intermittent Bulletin
Volume 1 Number 2
The purpose of the Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model (SACM) is to make Superfund cleanups more timely and efficient.
This will be accomplished through more focus en the front end of the process and better integration of all Superfund program
components. The approach involves:
A connnuous process for assessing site-specific conditions and the need for action;
Cross-program coordination of response planning;
Prompt risk reduction through early action (removal or remedial);
Appropriate cieanup of long-term environmental problems;
Early public notification and pamcipatioru and
Early initiation of enforcement activities
SACM is a process change that should be consicered for all Superfund activities- Implementation of this policy will be
consistent with the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) and the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). Overall Superfund priorities remain the same: deal
with the worst problems first; aggressively pursue enforcement; and involve the public and relevant State agencies at all
appropriate stages et the work.
Response Goals
The primary goals oc an early action are to achieve prompt
nsk reduction and increase me efficiency of theoverali site
response. The main goalof a long-termaction is to attain an
effective, final site deanup.
Prompt and Effective Risk Redaction
Theoniy response authorities under CERCLA are removal
and remedial. Any Superfund clean-up action that is taken
must meet the requirements of one authority or the other.
SACM encourages Regions to think creatively about the
way these authorities may be used under the NCP to
achieve prompt risk reduction (early action) or to conduct
more complex, time-consuming remediations (long-term
action)- Takd, for example, a site where sub-
stantial soil contamination threatens a
dnnking water aquifer. Traditionally,
no response action might have been
taken until the study of and plan-
rung for all the site work was
complete. Under SACM, the Re-
gion should consider taking an
early action to eliminate the soil
problem through a non-time-
cnncal removal or an early re-
medial response,asappropnate.
Of course, if the soil poses a sig-
nificant threat (e.g, human di-
Faster,.. C/ea/?er... Safer
rect contact), an emergency or time-critical removal may be
warranted. SACM is anticipated to result in an increase of
early risk reduction activities at both National Priorities
Ust (NPL) and "NPL-caliber" sites.
A Regional Decision Team (RDT) is responsible for deter-
mining/ recommending the approach that will be taken at
a site. The RDT should not be involved in response deci-
sions for most emergency and some of the more time-
critical removals, as these actions will be taken within the
normal removal implementation process. However, the
RDT should stay apprised of any emergency responses to
factor information into future response plans. A primary
consideration wiD always be whatenforcement options are
available. An emphasis on early actions will not jeopardize
the program's commitment to enforcement first. The over-
'plan must also ensure good State coordina-
tion and suitable community involvement.
^1? All response actions must meet the statu-
TO tory and regulatory requirements estab-
^>^ lished in CERCLA and the NCP. In
situations where a ume-critical re-
sponse is warranted, established re-
moval mechanisms will continue to
be used. In less urgent situations,
non-time-critical removal actions or
early remedial actons mav be used
to accomplish early nsk reduction
Long-term actions using remedial
authority are rr.^s: appropriate
-------
for sites requiring complex source control or surface
or groundwater remediation.
Early Actions
Early actions are responses performed under removal or
remedial authori ty to eliminate or reduce human health or
environmental threats from the release, or threatof release,
of hazardous substances, pollutants,or contaminants. These
risk reduction activities can be conducted as emergency or
time-critical removals, where quick response is necessary,
or as non-tirne-cntical removals or early remedial actions,
in less urgent situations. These actions generally will take
less than five years and will not always achieve complete
site cleanup- The early action must meet all of the statutory
and regulatory requirements of whichever authority is
used (e.g., time and dollar limitations for removal actions
and State assurances for remedial actions) and should
generally not be started before the possibilities for enforce-
ment are pursued, depending on the urgency of the situa-
tion. In some cases, more than one early action may be
conducted during the course of work mitigating the threat
at a site.
Time-critical actions will be taken when a removal site
evaluation indicates that a response is appropriate and
must be initiated within six months. Even when there is
little time to get the response organized. Regions are al-
ways expected to consider enforcement options and to
work with State and local officials in conducting the re-
sponse. When a removal site evaluation indicates the need
for an early response and a planning period of at least six
months exists prior to the on-site initiation of the removal
activities, a non-tirne-cntical removal action is an option. A
major change as a result of SACM will be that the number
of non-time-critical removal actions (i.e., those where there
is at least six months to plan) will likely increase because of
the greater emphasis being given to early risk reduction. In
order to ensure consistent use of rton-time-critical author-
ity. Regions must consult with Headquarters on poten-
tially responsible party (PRPHead and Fund-lead non-
time-critical removals costing over $5 million.
The NCP establishes some special requirements for non-
bme-critica] removals, including the need to prepare an
EhgineeringEvaluation/Cost Analysis (EE/CA). (See NCP
Section 300.415(m)(4) for additional requirements for non-
time-critical removals.) An EE/CA is a study to identify
and assess response alternatives. It is similar to, but less
comprehensive than, what is done during the Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) phases of a reme-
dial action. The EE/CA must go through a public notifica-
tion and comment period to ensure all interested parties
have an opportunity to have input to the proposed re-
sponse. EPA is developing guidance on how to conduct a
non-time-critical removal action.
Sometimes it may be more appropriate to undertake early
actions with remedial authoriry. This may be likely for
National Priorities List (NPL) sites already far down the
remedial pipeline, enforcement lead sites where a consent
decree may be appropriate, sites outside the scope (techni-
cal or financial) or authority of a removal action, or sites
where State cost share, operation and maintenance orother
assurances may be important considerations. These
dited remedial actions still require a Record of Decisi"
(ROD). The work can be done through a variety erf con-
tracts discussed below under Response Selection Factors.
The ROT should ensure (hat an early action will be consis-
tent with any long-term action that may eventually be
required. This means that; especially for non-time-aitical
removals and early remedial actions, opportunities for
treatment and pennanenceof remedy must be fully evalu-
ated. Furthermore, potential differences that may exist
between early action and long-term action data quality
objectives and risk assessment goals must be reconciled at
the outset. This can only happen if there is an emphasis
placed on good program coordination, particularly among
the participating Site Assessment Manager (SAM), On-
Scene Coordinator (OSQ, Remedial Project Manager
(RPM), risk assessor, and enforcement/legal staff.
Long-Term Actions
Long-term response actions will usually be taken when
there are conditions requiring extensive site characteriza-
tion, where there are high costs, or where it will take more
than approximately five years to complete the work. The
majority of current NPL sites have some long-term re-
sponse component Most groundwater remediation ef-
forts, many surface water remediation efforts, and most
large-scale soil remediation efforts would be expected to
takemexcessof five years tocompleteor have complex!
that preclude early action approaches, alone, from"
used. In addition, remedies that require extensive opera
tion and maintenance activities may fall into the long-term
response category.
Identification of a remedial action as a long-term response
does not mean that all of the work can or will be deferred.
In many cases, even where there is no immediate threat a
quick start to the kmg-term response will be necessary to
prevent site conditions from deteriorating (e.g., contain-
ment of a groundwater plume). In such circumstances, an
early action is appropriate if the site meets the N'CP re-
quirements for a removal action or if an early remedial
action can be initiated.
Response Selection Factors
Under SACM, the RDT has considerable flexibility for
selecting/ recuum taxiing the most appropriate approach
for a site. Many factors will enter into its deliberations. The
following is provided as a general overview of the differ-
ences between early and long-term actions.
Response Duration—A Region should be able to plan
for. implement, and completes" early action in less than
fiveyears. Projects which will take more than five years
should generally be done as long-term responses using
remedial authority. If an action can be done quickly, but
there are extensive operation and maintenance require-
ments to ensure the reliability of the response {regard
less of the cost of the O&M), then early or long-tern
action under remedial authority should be considered
It is removal program policy that protracted and costiy
long-term post-removal site control is more appropn-
-------
ately conducted by the affected State, local unit of gov-
ernment, or Potentially Responsible Party (PRP). In
some cases, it may be done by the Superfund remedial
program through a ROD (For additional information
on this removal policy see OSWER Directive 9360.2-02,
Policy on Management ofPost-Ranaoal Site Control. De-
cember 3,1990).
Cost—Since either removal or remedial authority may
be used, there is no maximum dollar cap on the cost o"f
an early action. Regions must always follow the existing
rules for justifying and obtaining exemptions for re-
moval actions estimated to cost over $2 million or ex-
ceed one year in duration- Also, Regions must consult
with Headquarars prior to taking an early action which
will require funding beyond what the Region has in its
allowance. Regions are also strongly urged to discuss
with Headquarters any situations which present par-
ticularly difficult issues or may be controversial with a
State or other interested parties.
Enforcement — The "Enforcement First" policy will
continue to be aggressively pursued under 5 ACM Re-
gions must take appropriate enforcement steps consis-
tent with removal and remedial policy and guidance.
This includes, but is not limited to, conducting PRP
searches, issuing notice letters, and negotiating with
PRPs to conduct an action through the use of admims-
trative orders (unilateral or consent) or consent decrees
The lead time available for non-time-cnncal removal
actions should allow for comprehensive PRP searches
and subsequent negotiations. For each site, an adminis-
trative record file must be established and made avail-
able to the pubbc according to the scheduk in the NCP
Protection of Human Health and Environment — It is
critical that removal actions conducted atnon-NPL sites
take into consideration the potential for future NPL
listing to ensure consistent goals are achieved, where
practicable. In cases where a non-tune-critical removal
action will be the only or last action taken to dean up an
NTL or NPL-caliber site, the alternatives should be
evonuited on their ability to achieve clean-up levels
consistent with the remedial program and be protective
of public health and the environment
ARARs Compliance — Under the NCP, applicable or
relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs) must
be met during removal actions to the extent practicable
considering the exigencies of the situation. ARARs
should be identified and factored into the non-time-
critical removal process. Careful consideration of ARARs
isa key to ensuring that early actions are consistent with
possible long-term actions. (For additional information
on ARARs compliance during removal acnons, see the
NCP section 300.415 (i) and Superfund Rfmcval Proce-
dures. Guidance on the Consuferarior: of AR.4fo Dunr.;
Removal Actions, EPA/S4Q/P-91 /Oil, September 1991).
State Involvement — An early action must include
appropriate State involvement. This means there needs
to be continuing meaningful communicaoon between a
Region and each State in order to ensure the highest
priority sites are betng handled and there is no unneces-
sary duplication of effort. State ARARs must be met or
waived for remedial actions and met to the extent prac-
ticable for removal actions. For non-time-critical re-
moval actions costing over $2 million. Regions should
request State participation in the response action (e.g.,
funding, in-kind services). Although a State cost share is
not required under CERCLA section 104 (c) (3) for a
removal action, theabsenceof a State's financial partici-
pation may limit the capacity of EPA to fully fund
certain large dollar value non-time-critical removal ac-
tions. When a State does not participate in the conduct
and financial support of a Fund-lead non-time-critical
removal action, the ROT must evaluate whether the
urgency is great enough to justify the loss of the State
contribution. (Until such time as the authority for ap-
proving $2 million waivers at non-NPL sites is del-
egated to the Regions, Headquarters will have to be
involved in this decision on a site-by-site basis.) Until a
final policy is developed. Headquarters will generally
support projects costing less than S3 million, as long as
there is a good justification, even if a State is unable to
participate. Headquarters also will consider projects
costing over $5 million, but there will have to be a
compelling case for undertaking the work in theabsence
of a State contribution. Response actions taken under
remedial authority must comply with established pro-
cedures for State involvement, including securing State
assurances for Fund-financed remedial actions. States
may apply for a cooperative agreement to conduct non*
time-critical removal actions (See40 CFR Part35 Subpart
O, Cooperative Agreements and Superfund State Con-
tracts for Superfund Response Actions).
Public Involvement—Early and frequent involvement
of the public is pivotal to the success of expediting
cleanups under SACM. All applicable community rela-
tions requirements in the NCP must be met at both
removal and remedial actions. Site managers should
make sure the public has an opportunity for meaningful
input and that concents are considered. As community
interest and awareness increase, it may be appropriate
to conduct additional community relations activities
beyond those required in the NCP. For example, field
personnel (OSCs, RPMs, SAMs, Community Relations
Specialists) could make themselves available to the pub-
lic, or meetings could be held in the community, during
times outside those that are typical (e.g., prior to the
initiation of or at the conclusion of on-site work).
I:/
Risk Management — Since removal and remedial ac-
tion levels and clean-up levels may differ, when making
risk management decisions for early actions it is impor-
tant that potential long-term response actions be consid-
ered. For emergency and time-critical removal actions.
Regional response personnel may utilize their Agency
for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR)
representative to obtain public health advice on poten-
tial action and clean-up levels in the form of a Public
Health Advisory or a Health Consultation. In planning
for non-time-critical removal actions, the Regional risk
assessor should be consulted for similar advice. It is
important that the RDT take into consideration the
potential for NPL listing and subsequent remedial ac-
tions in order to achieve consistent risk goals, where
-------
practical. For example, when performing a source re-
moval torrutigatea direct contact threat ata site that also
has a ground water threat, it may be prudent to consider
removal of additional soil contaminants consistent with
projected groundwater clean-up goals. This could elimi-
nate the need for additional source control actions dur-
ing future response actions. Furthermore, it could re-
duce the ongoing release of contaminants to ground
water, thereby reducing the time required to pump and
treat ground water.
Contracting Mechanism — Available contracting ve-
hicles and capacities will affect the strategy for conduct-
ing bom early and long-term actions. Contract mecha-
nisms potentially available are site-specific contracts
(including the Pre-Qualified Offerers ProcurementStrat-
egy (PQOPS) contracts for incineration and solidifica-
tion), the Emergency and Rapid Response Services
(ERRS) contracts, the Alternative Remedial Contract
Strategy (ARCS) contracts, the Technical Enforcement
Services (TES) contracts, or accelerated contracting
mechanisms accessible from the US. Army Corps of
Engineers or the US. Bureau
of Reclamation. The time and
resources necessary to pro-
cure and administer these
contracts, and the individual
contract capacities, where
applicable, are factors that
must be considered when
evaluating response options.
A separate guidance short
sheet is currently being de-
veloped on how to access the
various contracts listed above.
time allows, the RDT with support of the designated .
manager should consider all of the response options aval
able. State and community concerns, and the need for
future action before a response is initiated-The table below
gives a conceptual outline of activities generally consid-
ered to be either early actions aid/or long-term actions;
however, it is not an exhaustive, definitive categorization.
NOTICE: The policies set out in this fact sheet are not final
Agency action, but are intended solely as guidance. They
are not intended, nor can they be relied upon, to create any
rights enforceable by any party in litigation with the United
States. EPA officials should follow the guidance provided
in this fact sheet, or may act at variance with the guidance,
based on an analysts of site-specific circumstances. The
Agency also reserves the right to change this guidance at
any time without public notice.
Early Action
Either
Access Restrictions
Source Removals/
Containment
Surface Structures and
Debris
Data Quality Objectives —
When performing site assess-
ment activities, appropriate
data quality objectives should
be used for decisions in sup-
port of removal and/or remedial actions. Historically,
sampling investigations performed •>. support of re-
moval actions and remedial actions have had dissimilar
Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/OjC) require-
ments and have focused on different media (i.e., wastes,
ground water, soil, etc.). As an element of SACM imple-
mentation, the RDT should ensure that sampling activi-
ties are coordinated between removal and remedial
actions. Site assessors may be able to take advantage of
lower costs and quicker turn-around times if an ad-
equate number of samples are also collected that will
meet other anticipated data uses. Sample collection and
analysis activities performed during removal actions
should be coordinated such that die data generated will
also support NPL listing and remedial actions, as appro-
priate.
Selecting a Response
A primary function of the RDT is to weigh what is known
about a site and recommend /select those actions which
address the threats in a timelv and efficient manner. When
Source Remediation
Capping/Containment
Permanent/Temporary
Relocation
NAPL Source
Extraction
Ground Water Plume
Containment/Cleanup
Alternate Water Supply
Property Acquisition
Long-Term Action
Extensive Source
Remediation
Restoration:
Groundwater
Surface Water
Early Action and Long-Term Action Under SACM
— Interim Guidance
This paper isone of five fact sheets published by EPA
under publication number 9203.1-051 (Volume 1,
Numbers 1-55 to describe the Superfund Accelerated
Cleanup Mocle] (SACM) and should be reviewed in
conjunction with the other SACM fact sheets. Com-
ments on this document should be directed to Mark
Mjoness of the Emergency Response Division (703)
603-8770.
There are two other important sources of informa-
tion: 'SACM concept paper" (8/5/92) and Guidance
on implementation of the Superfund Accelerated Cleanup
ModelUnderCERCLAandtheNCP [OSWER Directive
No. 9203.1-03 (7/7/92)]. General SACM information
can be obtained by calling the Superfund Document
Center (202) 260-9760.
-,'.•, fefv
-------
5-EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Soiid Waste and
Emergency Response
Publication 9203.1 -05!
December 1992
Status of Key SACM Program
Management Issues — Interim
Guidance
Crfkre of Emergency and Remedial Response
of WasJe Programs Enforcement
of Enforcement
Intermittent Bulletin
Volume 1 Number 1
The purposed the Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model (SACM) is to make Superiund cleanups more timely and efficient.
Thij- will be accomplished through more focus on the front end of the process and better integration of all Superfund program
components The approach involves:
A :onbruous process for assessing itte-specric conditions and the need for actcn.
Cross-program coordmaoen c: response planning;
Prompt nsk reduction through eariy acton (removal or remedial :•;
Appropriate clearup of long-term environmental problems,
Early public notirlcarion and participation, arxj
Eariv iruaaoon of enforcement activities.
SACM t> a process change thai should be considered for all Superfund activities Implementation of this policy will be
coniistant wish the Naaonal Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (XCP) and the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensatioa and Liability Act (CERCLA). Overall Superfund priorities remain the same: deal
with the worst problems first; aggressively pursue enforcement; and involve the public and relevant State agencies at all
appropriate sages of the work.
Sums of Key SACM Program Management Issues -
Interim Guidance
SACM raises a number of management-related issues
which require reconsideration of the current ways
Headquarters and Regions do business in budget
planning and execution, reporting accomplishments,
measuring performance, contracting, training, distribu-
tion of responsibility, and communications. This SACM
Program Management Update will describe activjaes
underway, planned, and recently completed to refocus
Supemmd's program management systems to support
SACM implementation.
Regional Target (SCAP/STARS)
Flexibility
/
CO
*?
Toallovt greater Regional flexibility
in implementing Superfund site
cleanups, SACM will require
changes in the program's targets
and measures under the Superfund
Comprehensive Accomplishments
PIan!SCAP)and the EPA Strategic
Targeted Activities for Resul rs Svs-
terr; -.STARS) FY93 program mea-
sures and targets were developed too earix- to incorporate
kev erects o?SACM. To prevent ;he FY?? STARS SCAP
measures from impecLng the implementaticn of 5ACM,
the Office of Polio.- Planning and Evaluation (OPPE) ap-
proved an Office of Soiid Waste and Emergency Response
(OSWER) request to aQow the program maximum flexibil-
ity to grant target relief.
Granting FY93 target relief requires the Regions to pro-
vide, on a case-by-case basis, a good resource-based ratio-
nale which dearly shows work commensurate with the
targeted measure. For example, the Office of Waste Pro-
grams Enforcement (OWPE1 has proposed to grant SC AP/
STARS target relief for Remedial Design/Remedial Action
{RD/RA) settlement whe.e the Region implements a non-
time-critical removal with an estimated clean-up
value of greater than S2 million. The Office of
Emergency and Remedial Response
(OERR) has proposed to grant target
C£~ reliefforremedialactionstartswhere
^X the Region conducts a large (>S2
million) non-time-critical removal
instead.
fiaster... C/eaner... Safer
Headquarters and the Regions
havestarteddevelopingnew FY94
SCAP,'ST.\RS measures. These
new measures will reflect the pro-
gram changes brought by SACM,
and will provide the Regions greater flexibility to clean up
"NTL
-------
for review in January 1993. This package will be a basis for
discussion during the Program Management meeting in
February 1993. The intention is to complete a comprehen-
sive revisionof 5TARS/SCAP targets and measures so that
SACM implementation is fully supported while reducing
the total number of Regional targets.
National SACM Evaluation Measures
Baseline national criteria need to be established to analyze
and evaluate the success of SACM in improving the time-
liness and cost-effectiveness of Superfund cleanup actions.
Existing Superfund time duration trend measures will be
reevaluated to ensure they effectively document the
program's baseline and capture incremental changes. De-
velopment of Superfund nsk reduction measures is critical
to the program's ability to report achievements of early
action and long-term site cleanups. Existing Superfund
environmental indicators will be the starting point for
measuring risk reduction consistently for both early ac-
tions and long-term responses. These measures will allow
us to identify the extent to which SACM projects and
overall program changes linked to SACM implementation
are measuring up to the overall objectives of SACM. These
measures may also identify areas in which the SACM
approach can be refined as full implementation proceeds
in 1994.
In addition, there is a need to reach agreement on overall
measures of program performance that will communicate
meaningful program results to Superfund's customers.
Ongoing communication initiatives are being reexamined
to consider any refinements that are called for with the
SACM program changes.
Workload Model
The workload models were frozen in FY91 and FY92, and
are frozen for FY93. With SACM, there is a need to deter-
mine the future relationship between FTE workload /pric-
ing factors and future program goals. To date. Headquar-
ters' efforts have focused on generating a consensus on
revising/reopening the Superfund workload models.
The Regions provided inputon whether the models should
be reopened. Six Regions favored reopening/revising the
models, two proposed that a new, less resource intensive
mechanism for distributing FTE be pursued, and two
opposed reopening/revising the models. The Regions also
made two key recommendations: the models should not be
reopened until FY95, and the family of Superfund models
(program, enforcement, and Federal facilities) should be
integrated.
In preparation for the February 1993 Program Manage-
mentmeeting, Headquarters plans todraftanapproach for
addressing the model changes based on the Regional and
Headquarters correspondence to date. This proposal will
be the point of departure for a break-out/discussion ses-
sion during the meeting. The goal is to close the Program
Management meeting with a joint approach to revising the
Superruno workload models.
In addition, as was identified during the initial SACM
planning meetings, it is critical that Regions evaluate their
existing workforce skill mixes and identify cross-training
and workforce development activities that are needed to
effectively implement SACM.
Budget Flexibility
Beginning with the FY92 budget Superfund monies have
been apportioned between "Cleanup,"' "Enforcement,"
and "Support," with control subtotals for each category,
and a narrow definition of cleanup. Regions need more
flexibility in resource utilization than the budget process
has provided to streamline and accelerate the cleanup of
Superfund sites under SACM. One of the most critical
areas involves the cleanup/support budget category. For
FY94 OERR recast the Superfund Response budget, taking
into account Saon, in a way thatconsiderably broadens the
definition of cleanup.
Though the broader definition of cleanup was developed
for the FY94 budget submission, it has been implemented
in the FY93 enacted budget. A new advice of allowance
(AOA) category has been added to the Cleanup category.
The new AOA is site characterization; it includes all site
assessment and remedial analysis (e.g., aerial photo, hy-
dro-geo work) funding, and creates more Regional fund-
ing flexibility in these categories. This change significantly
bolsters the Agency's ability to support the funding needs
of the integrated assessments called for under SACM.
Greater flexibility among the various response activities is
also needed. As an example, a Region that has planned a
-------
remedial action at a given site and identifies an opportu-
nity to more quickly reduce risks via an early action must
have access to the hinds required to implement this action.
As such, the program has set aside S50 million of the
remedial action budget to encourage increased risk reduc-
tion at NPL sites through early action activities. The FY92
removal budget was successfully increased to support
SACM early action projects. .A3 new opportunities for
flexibility present themselves we will continue to work
with the OSWER senior budget officer, comptroller, and
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to further in-
crease budget flexibility.
Program Priorities
Implementation of SACM requires that overall Superfund
program priorities be reexamined. The Superfund Program
Management Manual and Agency Operating Guidanczaie the
key documents that lay out these integrated program
priorities. The FY93 Program Management Manual was re-
vised to incorporate FY93 SACM implementation activi-
ties into overall program priorities.
SACM has modified the way we think of the Superfund
universe. Traditionally, sites were distinguished primarily
by whether or not they were listed on the National Prion-
hes last (NPL). EPA typically conducts only emergency
and time-critical responsesat non-NPL sites. EPA does not
intend to alter significantly its traditional approach to
addressing non-NPL sites not expected to qualify for list-
ing
In contrast, the program will seek to invest resources
earlier in N:PL-caliber sites to conduct integrated assess-
ments and early actions. For sites currently on the NPL,
EPA intends to take ad vantage of opportunities to conduct
early actions and accelerate long-term responses. Thus, it
may be useful to think of the Superfund universe under
SACM as consisting of (1) non-NTL sites which EPA screens
and takes needed emergency / time-critical actions; (2) NPL
caliber sites where EPA conducts integrated assessments
and early actions; and, (3) NPL sites where EPA conducts
the full range of Superfund responses.
Analysis is underway to assess what actions will be needed
to achieve the Superfund program's long-term goal of 650
NTL construction completions by the year 2000 This analy-
sis should help to determine the ability of EPA and State
agencies to invest more resources into SACM integrated
assessments and early actions at NPL-oliber sites without
jeopardizing the NPL construction completion goal. Dis-
cussions during the February 1993 Program Management
meeting will clarify program priorities and provide more
specificity in appropriate resource investments and
disinvestments to support SACM's implementation.
Federal Facilities
The Office of Federal Facilities. Enforcement (OFFE) sup-
ports the focus on accelerated cleanup Or ?E, in conjunc-
tion with the Regions, has developed a draft guidance
coveringsite assessment, impact of NPL listings, presump-
tive remedies, eariy actions vs. long-term actions, effect on
existing Federal facility agreements, and Regional Deci-
sion Teams. The draft guidance is due out for final com-
ment during the latter part of December and is expected to
be final by February 1993.
OFFE has been working with the Superfund Revitalization
Office (SRO) to communicate the Federal Facilities Accel-
erated Cleanup for Superfund (FFACS) policy and its
Superfund impacts to the other Federal and State agencies.
OFFE will also be assessing the impacts of FFACS on
SCAP/STARS targets and measures, workload model,
and other program management issues
Contracts
The Long-Term Contracting Strategy forSuperfund t'LTCS)
was corrpteted in September 1990 'implementation of the
Strategy is ongoing. The Strategy analyzed the long-term
contract heeds of the Superfund Program and designed a
portfolio bjf Superfund contracts to meet those needs over
the next ten years.
Many of the underlying principles of SACM (e.g., increas-
ing early action responses) were anticipated in activities
under the LTCS (e.g., creating Emergence and Rapid Re-
sponse Services (ERRS) contracts, combining site assess-
ment and response technical assistance functions under a
single Superfund Technical Assessment and Response
Team (START) contract, etc.)- Placement cf new contracts
has begun and will continue over the next several years.
The LTCS itself and the scheduling o: n*v» procurements
easily lend themselves to the phase-in o: >ACM
-------
Communicating Program Accomplishments
Considerable effort has been undertaken to communicate
the goals/objectives, plans, and expectations for imple-
menting SACM to other Federal and State agencies, other
EPA Offices, critical external groups including Congress,
environmental and trade groups, and others. We need to
seek and incorporate feedback from these groups into our
implementation efforts, and regularly communicate me
program's progress to this audience.
NOTICE: The policies set out in this fact sheet are not final
Agency action/ but are intended solely as guidance. They
are not intended, nor can they be relied upon, to create any
rights enforceable by any party in litigation with the United
States. EPA officials should follow the guidance provided
in this fact sheet, or may act at variance with the guidance,
based on an analysis of site-specific circumstances. The
Agency also reserves the right to change this guidance at
any tune without public notice-
Status of Key SACM Program Management Issues
- Interim Guidance
This paper is one of five fact sheets published by EPA
under publication number 9203.1-051 (Volume 1,
Numbers 1 -5) to describe the Superfund Accelerated
Cleanup Model (SACM) and should be reviewed in
conjunction with the other SACM fact sheets. Re-
gions are encouraged to contact the following indi-
viduals tor information on program management
issues: DaveEvans(7C3)603-8885inOERR;Tai-ming
Chang (703) 603-S965 in OWPE (SCAP/STARS and
comractsirDavid Charrtberfin (202) 26041 ISinOWPE
(workload mode! and budget); or Rene Wynn (202)
260-3025 in OFFE for further clarification, sugges-
tions or comments.
There are two other important sources of informa-
tion: "SACM concept paper" (8/5/92) and Guidance
on Imolfir^ntntion of the Superfund Accelerated Cleanup
MaddUnJirCERClAandthsNCP [OSWER Directive
No. 9203.1-03 (7/7/92)]. General SACM information
can be obtained by calling the Superfund Document
Center (202) 260-9760.
-------
SErYV
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
Publication 9203.1-051
December 1992
Enforcement Under SACM
— Interim Guidance
Office of Emergency and Remecial Response
Office of Waste Pnxpams Enforcement
Office of Enforcement
Intermittent Bulletin
Volume 1 Numbers
The purpose of the Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model (SACM) is to make Superfund cleanups more timely and efficient.
This will be accomplished through more focus on the front end of the process and better integration of all Superfund program
components. The approach involves:
A continuous process for assessing site-specific conditions and the need for action;
Cross-program coordination of response planning;
Prompt risk reduction through early action (removal or remedial);
Appropriate cleanup of long-term environmental problems;
Early public notification and participation; and
Early initiation of enforcement activities.
SACM is a process change that should be considered for all Superfund activities. Implementation of this policy will be
consistent with the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) and the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). Overall Superfund priorities remain the same: deal
with the worst, problems first; aggressively pursue enforcement; and involve the public and relevant State agencies at all
appropriate stages of the work.
Overview
All actions taken under SACM must be consistent with
CERCLA and the NCP, and each response selection must
be adequately documented by an administrative record.
EP A's enforcement first policy will continue under SACM.
Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs) are performing ap-
proximately 70 percent of the new work at NPL sites, and
EPA remains committed to maximizing PRP involvement
vv 1 icn applying the principles of SACM. Success-
ful enforcement under SACM will require
careful consideration of the nature and
timing of PRP participation in particu-
lar.
if
Major enforcement areas affected AJ
by SACM include; -w
co
• The timing and methodol-
ogy of PRP searches;
• The timing and content of
negotiations with PRPs;
• Notice letters;
• Consultations for early actions;
• State involvement in enforcement;
Faster... C/eaner... Safer
• De minimis settlements;
• The availability and adequacy of administrative
records; and
• Cost recovery and cost documentation.
This document highlights the need to maintain an enforce-
ment first stance and discusses appropriate approaches
for addressing the issues listed above.
Enforcement First
SACM does not change the
Superfnnd program's emphasis on
enforcement first Coordination
of site activities, including deci-
sions and recommendations made
by the Regional Decision Team
(RDT), should anticipate the ac-
tivities required for enforcement
and ensure that they are carried
out in a timely manner so that the
response lead can be passed to
PRPs as early as possible withoutdelaying work at the site
EPA expects' much of the early site assessment activities to
be Fund-lead. However, response lead changes can occur
at any of the following points in the process
1. During the site assessment activ ines.
-------
2- Prior to development of an Engineering Evaluation/
Cost Analysis (EE/CA);
3. Prior to a removal action;
4. Prior te a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
(RI/FS);
5 Prior to a Remedial Design/Remedial Action (RD/
RA),and
6 PriortoanRAcontraasolicitatioawhenrundingthe
RA would have significant implications for the Fund
and when no significant delay will occur.
EPA may rake back the response lead from a PR? when the
Agency deems a lead change would be appropriate to
maintain response integrity or to protect human health
and the environment.
The Region should identify the earliest point that the PRP
search should begin and when negotiations should occur
at each site.
PRP Searches: Timing and Methodology
Conducting adequate PRP searches can be crucial when
preparing for negotiations and other enforcement activi-
ties. EPA does not anticipate that SACM will lead to
changes in PRP searches for sites that require only emer-
gency or fame-critical removal actions- However, SACM's
integrated site assessment process may lead to changes in
PRP search methodology for non-time-critical removals
and remedial actions for several reasons. First, because an
Rl may begin with or dunng a Site investigation (SI),
giving PRPs an opportunity to participate in the RI /FS will
require that PRPs be identified earlier in the process than
they are traditionally identified- Second, because the inte-
grated site assessment is envisioned to require less time to
complete than under the current process, there may be less
time to develop liability information before a non-time-
critical removal or remedial design begins. In addition, the
greater emphasis on early risk reduction is expected to
increase the use of non-time-critical removals to address
some threats that previously were addressed with reme-
dial actions- This will mean that there may be less time
available before initiation of the response than in the past.
For ail of these reasons, there will be less time to conduct
the PRP search and an increased emphasis on Regions' PRP
search programs.
As a genera) rule, PRP search activities should begin as
ioon as possible after the Region decides that a response
action is likely to be required at the site. PRP searches for
some sites, such as multi-generator landfills, may require
substantial effort Early initiation of PRP search activities
may be valuable at these sites to ensure adequate time for
carrying out enforcementactivities such as issuing general
notice letters. Many other sites, however, may require no
action beyond the initial site assessment activities. Expe-
dited searches at these sites probably would be unneces-
sary and not cost-effective in most instances.
Once Regions have decided to begin PRP search activities,
they are encouraged to adopt a phased PRP search ap-
proach that focuses first on establishing liability for PRPs
about whom information is most readily available from
site assessment activities and other available sources and
then expands to address the remaining PRPs. If a core
group of PRPs is identified before a discrete phase of a
combined site assessment, negotiations may begin for the
conduct of data collection associated with the site assess-
ment activities (i.e., SI, RI, FS, etc.), even if the Region
believes that additional PRPs may be found later. (Keep i
mind that under the current policy, EPA has the "
responsibility for the site assessment activities - Preli
nary Assessment (PA), SI, and Expanded Site Investiga-
tion (ESI). This should continue under SACM. PRPs may
collect data, but final responsibility for interpreting that
data in reports and making site decisions remains with
EPA.) Similarly, negotiations for conducting a response
action (i.e-, RD/RA, removal, etc.) may be initiated with
known PRPs even if all PRPs have not been identified.
Once potential liability has been established for the core
group, the PRP search can be extended to the remaining
PRPs whose liability is more difficult or more time con-
suming to establish. Regions should share information
with known PRPs as soon as possible to facilitate PRP
organization.
In conducting PRP searches. Regions should coordinate
and share information with other parts of the program and
with States- Where the Regional office uncovers informa-
tion on PRPs as j>art of an emergency or time-c ri tical action,
the RDT sho ulqmake full use of the informa tion from these
activities to support later enforcement actions at the site.
Similarly, site assessment should include PRP search ac-
tivities such as the documentation of evidence that identi-
fies owners, operators, and witnesses; the collection of
drum label information; the identification of the location
and condition of generator records; and other activities
that may help establish liability or waste contribution. Site
assessment activities might include a more detailed or
targeted waste analysis to tie wastes to specific PRP:
Where available. Regions should make use of States' a
thonty to search for and notice PRPs Regions shou
yr
•
-------
consider writing a generic PRP search work assignment
that can be used for a number of searches, each of which is
initiated with a separate technical direction memorandum.
Coordination of the PRP search and other site activities will
require dosecommunication between the PRP search team
and the RDT.
Negotiations: Timing and Content
Generally, it is anticipated that by using the phased PRP
search approach and some of the additional techniques
listed above, there will be sufficient time before initiation
of non-time-criticaJ removals and early remedial actions to
allow those actions to be PRP-lead. For example, if the RDT
decides, based on the early results of a PRP search, to
initiate a Fund-lead EE/CA to support a non-time-critical
removal action, the Region can continue PRP search activi-
ties during me EE/CA. Upon completion of the EE/CA,
the RDT can decide, based on the supplemented PRP
search, whether to seek PRP participation in the non-time-
critical removal action. There may be even more time for
the PRP search if it begins during an emergency or time-
critical removal action, or during the SI.
With the exception of non-time critical removals, it may be
appropriate in some cases to conduct additional PRP search
activities before initiating a response action at a site if the
Region believes that a more thorough PRP search will
increase the likelihood of settlement (for example, by iden-
tifying more PRPs). Any delays in work should be brief.
Establishing liability against additional PRPs may have
other benefits such as similar treatment of all PRPs, re-
duced risk of contentious cost recovery actions, and con-
servation of the Fund.
The Region should identify logical points during the site
assessment process when negotiations with PRPs should
be considered. Some of the major criteria for this decision
include:
1. PRPs:
a. theavailabilityofviablepartiesforwhichRegions
have liability evidence;
b. the degree to which the identified PRPs appear
willing to settle; and
c. the ability of PRPs to conduct response activities
2. Site conditions and work to be performed:
a the risk posed by the site and the need to move
forward with the response quickly;
b the probable sequence and nature of cleanup ac-
tivities scheduled for the site; and
c the action to be negotiated.
3. Cost:
a. if the activity to be negotiated is a removal costing
more than $2 million, enforcement will minimize
the need forwaivers under CERCLA Section 104{c);
and
b. State matching funds for remedial actions at NPL
sites are not required if PRPs conduct remedial
actions under, for example, a consent decree or
unilateral administrative order.
The following examples show some stages in the process
where negotiations may be appropriate, and the possible
scope of the negotiations:
1. Theinitialassessmentindicatesthatthereisahazard-
ous substance release at the site and there is a high
probability that the site may be listed on the NPL. In
addition, some removal action is needed. In this case,
the Region could negotiate with PRPs to perform the
site assessment data collection activities —including
any necessary sampling— and the EE/CA or RI/FS.
The Region could also include performance of the
EPA-selectedremovalactioninthenegotiations. Keep
in mind that although PRPs may conduct sampling
ana data collection, EPA retains responsibility for
decision making.
2. The initial assessment indicates that a non-time-criti-
cal removal action should be taken. The Region could
negotiate an order with the PRPs for the EE/CA, and
in some cases could include the eventual non-time-
critical removal action in the order.
3. Theinitialassessmentshowsthatadditionalsiteevaiu-
ation is needed to determine if the site will require
any action (early action or long-term action). In most
cases EPA should continue performing the site as-
sessment activities while continuing the PRP search.
Negotiations should occur after a determination is
made] that a time-critical removal, an EE/CA, or an
RI/F£ is needed.
i
Under all of these scenarios EPA retains the responsibil-
ity to perform the risk assessment for removal and reme-
dial actions, to prepare Hazard Ranking System scoring
packages, and to make all response selection decisions.
Notice Letters
CERCLA and current EPA guidance encourage the use of
special notice letters (or issuance of waivers) for Rl/FSs
and RD/RAs. When Regions anticipate conducting a com-
-------
bined SI/RI/FS. they should use special notice letters if
they believe thar such ie=2rs couid facilitate a settlement.
Regions also should use special notice letters for non-nme-
ditical removals when they believe that such letters could
facilitate a settlement.
A special notice letter iruzates a nvoratorium on response
activity and enforcement Such mcratona generally las 190-
'.20 days (if EPA receives a good faith offer from the PRPs
••vithin the firs: ?0 days :»f the rreratonum). Therefore,
when Regions expect trat rfiey will be issuing special
notice letters, the letters Kx>uld be sent out far enough in
advance of the plannec activities so that work is not
Significantly deaved. Cerain investigator.' and planning
activities set fcnh m Seraon 104-b) of C±RCLA should
occur during the negotiazon moratona.
Consultations far Early Actions
in irnpiementineSACM. careful site and case selection is
imporant. When identifving appropriate sites for non-
Eme-critical removal actions. Regions may wish to consult
with Keadquanars.
Regions must fcilow the existing rules for justifying and
obtainingexemrcons for removal actions estimated tocost
over 52 million or exceed one year in duration. Also,
Regions OTUStccnsultwith Headquarters prior to taking an
early action when will require funding beyond what the
Region has in its allowance.
When a State does not participate in the conduct and
nnancial support of a Fund-lead non-time-critical removal
action, the ROT must evaluate whether the urgency- and
need are great enough to justify the loss of the State
contribution. {Until such tune as the authority for appro v-
ing $2 million waivers at non-NFL sites is delegated to the
Regions. Headquarters will have to be involved in this
decision on a sste-by-si* basis.) Until a final policy is
developed. Headquarters will generally support projects
costing less than 55 million, as long as there is a good
justification, even if a State is unable to participate. Head-
quarters also will consider projects costing over 55 million,
but there will have to be a compelling case for undertaking
the work m the absence cf a State contribution.
In order to ensure consistent use of non-time-criticaJ au-
rhontv. Regions must cor_sult with Headquarters on PRP-
:T Func-tead ncn-cme-cr.tical removals costing over $5
If an early acoor under 5ACM presents particularly diffi-
cult liiues or n~jv be controversial with States, PRPs,
communities or other interested parties, the Regions are
strongly encouraged to consult with the appropriate Re-
gional coordinator at Headquarters. Regional staff respon-
sible for public involvement may be consulted to assist in
gauging the level of public interest
State Involvement in Enforcement
State capabilities and authorities differ. Each Region should
work with each of its States to develop a general strategy
for enforcement and the manner in which the State will be
involved. Actions planned under State enforcement-lead
must be under documents enforceable under State law and
overseen by the States. Sites may be designated as State-
lead if the Region agrees and the State has the capability
and authority under State law to undertake the action.
States should be kept informed of negotiations concerning
site assessment activities and early actions to the same
extent that they are notified and kept informed currently
under CERCLA Section 121(f) and the NCP.
Late-identified PRPs
When the decision is made to take either a Fund-lead or
PRP-Iead action, and the Region expects that additional
PRPs will be identified subsequent to initiation of the
action, the Region should take steps to provide some type
of constructive notice to PRPs who may be found at a later
date (that is, "late identified'' PRPs). For example. Regions
could send letters providing information about a site to
prospective PRPs. Regions might also place an announce-
ment of site activity or of availability of the administrative
record file in a major local newspaper and the Federal
Register. (A Federal Register notice generally would be more
effective than newspapers for reaching PRPs located out-
side the area of the site and the newspaper circulation
area.)
De Minimis Settlements
w
SACM is expected to produce more site information earlier
than in die pasty allowing Regions to develop de mininus
settlements earlier. In some cases. Regions will pursue
PRP-lead early actions before developing the waste-in lists
and volumetric rankings normally .leeded for de minimis
settlements, making de minirnL. settlements at that time
less likely. In such cases, de minimis settlements may stUl
be developed prior to a subsequent early action decision
{Action Memorandum, Record Of Decision» when the
required information becomes available. Regions should
follow EPA guidance on early de minimis settlemen;
(includingOSWER Directive Number 9834.7- iQand stri
to develop such settlements as early in the process
possible.
ild _
W
-------
The Department of Justice
SACM does not change the delegations under CERCLA.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) should be consulted for
enforcement strategy planning when judicial enforcement
of an administrative order is likely, consent decrees are
plamed, and certain de minimis and cost recovery activi-
ties are contemplated (e.g., DOJ must concur on de minirnis
and cost recovery settlements where the total response
costs for a site exceed $500,000).
Administrative Records
The administrative record, required under CERCLA, con-
tains the documents that form the basis for the selection of
a response action and serves as the basis for judicial review
of EPA's response action. High quality administrative
records are necessary to ensure the defensibility of re-
sponse decisions made under the expedited procedures of
SACM and are particularly important for SACM projects
that may set precedents. Regions must establish an admin-
istrative record for each response action in accordance
withCERCLA, the NCP, andOSWERadntinistrative record
guidance (OSWER Directive Mumber98333A-l). All deci-
sions concerning the selection of the appropriate response
action should be documented in the administrative record
file in accordance with EPA guidance. In particular, the
administrative record should includedocumentabon show-
ing that the action taken is not inconsistent with the NCP.
CERCLA also requires mat EPA provide the public (in-
cluding PRPs) with an opportunity to participate in the
development of the administrative record. According to
the NCP Subpart I, the administrative record file for a non-
rime-critical removal must be available for pub Ik inspec-
tion when the EE/CA is made available for public com-
ment. Fortune-critical removals, the administrative record
file must be made available within 60 days after the start of
on-site removal activity. The administrative record file for
the selection of a remedial action must first be made
available when the RI/FS begins. When the Region is
conductinga«>rnbir^SI/Rl/FS,theadrnirustrative record
file must be made available at the point when work char-
acteristic of an RI/FS begins. In order for the record to be
ready for public inspection when the RI/FS begins, Re-
gions should begin compiling the administrative record
file when the RDT decides a combined SI/R1/FS is needed
Cost Recovery and Cost Documentation
SACM may increase the number of cost recovery actions
subject to the removal stature of limitations (SOL> because
moresites maybe addressed withnon-tirne-oiticaJ remov-
als than in the past. The SOL for removals is three years
from a removal completion, unless a remedial action is
initiated within three years of the completed removal.
Early remedial actions would fall under the remedial SOL
which is six years after initiation of physical on-site con-
struction of the remedial action.
Documentation of cost and work performed needs to be
compiled whenever cost recovery actions are taken. EPA's
past costs should be sought in ail negotiations with PRPs
for response work at SACM sites. The cost recovery rule is
expected toassist in defining documentation requirements.
NOTICE: The policies set out in this fact sheet are not final
Agency action! but are intended solely as guidance. They
are not intended, nor can they be relied upon, to create any
rights enforceable by any party in litiga tion with the Uni ted
States. EPA officials should follow me guidance provided
in this fact sheet or may act at variance with the guidance,
based on an analysis of site-specific circumstances. The
Agency also reserves the right to change this guidance at
any time without public notice-
Enforcement Under the Superfund Accelerated
Cleanup'Model (SACM) - Interim Guidance
This paper is one of five fact sheets published by EPA
under publication number 9203.1-051 (Volume 1,
Numbers 1-5) to describe the Superfund Accelerated
Cleanup/Model (SACM) and should be reviewed in
conjunction with the other SACM fact sheets Com-
ments on this document should be directed to Maria
Bywater of the Office of Waste Programs Enforce-
ment (703) 603-8929-
There are two other important source* of informa-
tion: 'SACM concept paper" (5/5/92 • and Guidance
en IrrylemmzirsncffeSuper-^rJ.A::-'^:'**.?! 2'^anup
*Aodt\ UnderCERCLAard tks'SC? [CS'.VER Directive
No.9203.1-03(7/7/92)]. General 5.ACM information
can be obtained by falling the Superrund Document
Center (202) 260-9760.
-------
1
-------
&EFK
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
Publication 9203.1-O5I
December 1992
Assessing Sites Under
SACM — Interim Guidance
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
Office of Waste Pro-ams Enforcement
Office of Enforcement
Intermittent Buliefa
Volume 1 Number 4
The purpose of the Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Mode! (SACM) is to make Superfund cleanups more tuneiy and efficient
This will be accomplished through more focus en the front end of the process and better integration of all Superfund program
components. The approach involves:
A continuous process for assessing site-specific conditions and the need for action;
Cross-program coordination of response planning;
Prompt risk reduction through early action (removal or remedial).
Appropriate cleanup of long-term environmental problems;
Early public notification and participation; ao.l
Early initiation of enforcement activities.
SACM is a process change that should be considered for all Superfund activities. Implementation of this policy will be
consistent with the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) and the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CEKCLA)- Overall Superfund priorities remain the same: deal
with the worst problems first aggressively pursue enforcement and involve the public and relevant State agencies at all
appropriate stages of the work.
SACM Assessment
Assessing sites under SACM involves
the following principles:
» The process integrates tradi-
tional site assessment func-
tions to allow continuous as-
sessment for high priority
sites that proceeds until all
necessary data are collected
to screen sites or support any
needed response actions.
SACM goals inchidecDmbm-
ing activities to support both ieu>ov
-------
it is clear no CERClA response action will be taken, the
assessment is completed by documentors; the basis of the
decision r.rough ei SEA. designation. If further data indi-
cate that the site is akely to have a Hazard Ranking System
(HRS) sects of 285 cr more, EPA (or die Sate, under a
cooperative agreement) may initiate a Remedial Investiga-
tion (RI) Additiccal data' needed to prepare the HRS
package can be coiiected while the Rl is underway. RI data
can be used BO support removal action derisions and HRS
scores, as well as remedial action decisions- The Region
must indude doc-jrentatcn required by fie N'CP for
moving ntsm one phase of assessment tz> ancther-
The Regvcnai DecK-on Tear-. RDT) is ar. integral part of ±
removal, remedial, and St=:e agency personnel is critical.
and foster.n£;tha: rocrdirason is a role of the RDT. At the
point where asseisrsent irrormaticr. 15 Adequate for dec-
sion-maKng, the RDT convenes to consider options for
sites. The RDT can then ci^ct or recommend a* response
action (e.§. ame critical removal), decide to collect addi-
tional data, develop an enforcement strategy, and recom-
mend placing the ate on the NPL
The States nave ahvays played a criacai role in site assess-
ment, performing most of the Preliminary Assessments
(PA) and many of the Site Investigations (SI)- EPA expects
that role eo continue under 5ACM. The EPA Regions and
theStateswiB coordinate todeveloptwo-waycommunica-
tion concerning Federal and State response actions. EPA
Regions are responsible for working out the appropriate
arrangement with each of their States.
Coordination of assessment and enforcement activities is
also critical- When it ts feas'rrie, the site assessment reports
should identify owr.exs, operators, and witnesses, with the
appropriate documentation. Likewise, they should de-
scribe generator records and other useful information,
such as drum labels. The decision to start a Potentially
Responsible Party (?RP) search requires a balancing of
resources. Although mam- sites (i.e., those designated
SEA ) wili not need PRP searches, rapid action under SACM
may require that ?RP searches begm early in the process
for some sites. As a general rule. PRP search activities
should begm as soon as possible after the decision is made
that a response acoon is liksly to be required at the site.
Expenercehas shown that early and frequentcommunica-
aon with local cornmuruoes canenhancesiteresponse.and
this will be pamcuiarly true under SACM Where appro-
priate. £?A and r>» Stas shouic take the initiative in
comjT.ercur^ corrrr.unirv revolvement early in the as>e<5-
ment process. The Ager.^- is deveiepmg guidance for
commurury invoh-esr»ent scnvities at the assessment stace
of the process.
Consistent with the XCP, listing sites on the NPL will
continue to be a prerequisite to spending remedial action
funds to dean up sites. The HRS will continue to be the
primary basis for selecting sites for the NPL. SACM does
not change the role of the HRS and NPL, and in general
SACM should not significantly affect the number of sites
that EPA will place on the NPL
Expediting Cleanup Through SACM Assessment
SACM promotes performing risk assessment and RI activi-
ties earlier in the assessment process for a site where data
indicate remedial action will be needed. Once a decision
has been made to conduct the RI in conjunction with HRS
data collection, integrated assessment data collection and
sampling efforts continue to;
• Obtain documentation for the HXS; and
• Characterize site sources, extent of contamination.
and risks to determine appropriate cleanup actions
Consistent data collection approaches and approp
data quality objecti ^es that serve me needs of early actior!
long-term action, and NPL listing wili promote efnciencv
in Superfund. A single team should collect samples and
select analytical methods to serve multiple pro gram needs.
A coordinated site mobilization eliminates duplication of
tasks and reduces sampling and analyses, saving both time
and money.
The scoping and planning of the Rl should begin as soon as
EPA determines that the site will most likely require reme-
dial action. The RDT may decide to begin an RI at any time
during the assessment process. Once RI activities begin,
assessment activities continue conrurrentty to collect suf-
ficient information to determine the site score for possible
listing on the NPL WhileasitemightbedesignatedasSEA
during that process, the RDT should select sites for earry
RIs only whpn»it appears die site will meet rhecnteria for
the NPL Rerpbval actions can, of course, be taken at any-
time in the assessment process, and the RDT should con-
sider an early action at any site selected for an early RI.
One key to the success of the SACM approach is to select
the appropriate sites for starting the RI prior to HRS
scoring- It is important to avoid committing high levels of
resources to sites that may not be eligible for the N'PL. Some
site conditions, in particular where human exposure or
contamination of a sensitive environment has been found,
clearly indicate that the HRS score will be above 23 5
that a response action will be needed (see Figure 1)
"NTPL-cauber" sites will be a focus of integrated as
ments and earlv actions.
-------
Even where a site appears to warrant an early RI. there is
some possibility that the site will not score high enough to
be placed on the NPL EPA recognizes this and is willing
to proceed with the RI early in the assessment process to
FIGURE 1:
Examples of NPL-caliber Sites
• Public drinking water supplies are contaminated
with a hazardous substance.
• Private wells are contaminated with a hazardous
substance above a health-based benchmark.
• Soils on school dayeare center, or residential proper-
ties arecontaminatedby a hazardous substance above
background levels
* Ahazardoussubstartceisdetectedabovebackground
in an offsite air release in a populated area.
• A highly toxic substance known to bioaccumulate
(e.g., PCBs, mercury, dioxin, PAHs) is discharged
into surface waters.
» Sensitive environments (e-g., critical habitats for en-
dangered species) are contaminated with a hazard-
ous substance above background levels.
encourage faster response actions at the majority of cases.
Moreover, sites with the- conditions described above will
often meet the criteria ten removal actions anyway, and the
RI will provide valuable information for any response that
is ultimately selected.
In addition to the risk related conditions, the RDT should
consider the following when evaluating whether an RI
should be initiated at a site:
• Sonv sites n^ybeexduded from Superfund consid-
eration under policy, regulatory, or legislative re-
strictions- For instance, EPA policy is to defer from
the NPL those facilities subject to corrective action
authorities of the Resource Conservation and Recov-
ery Act (RCRAMsee 54 FR 41000, October 4,1989)
• At sites where receptors have been exposed to haz-
ardous substances, but the source or sources are
unknown, the decision to perform an early RI may
depend on the nature of the potential sources. For
example, if a RCRA facility is a potential source, an
early RI should generally not be performed based on
the RCRA deferral pobcy. However, in most other
cases, an early RI may contribute to identifying the
source or sources of contamination.
The PRP search and other enforcement actions should
indicate whether ensuing site response will be Fund*
or PRP-tead, under the policy that enforcement first is
the preferred strategy. While the above serve as gen-
eral guidelines, the RDT will need to evaluate indi-
vidual cases to determine whether to proceed with an
early RI and whether enforcement or the Fund offers
the more appropriate course of action-
NCrnCE: The policies set out in this fact sheet are not
final Agency action, but are intended solely as guid-
ance. They are not intended, nor can they be relied
upon, to create any rights enforceable by any party in
litigation with the United States. EPA officials should
follow the guidance provided in this fact sheet, or may
act at variance with the guidance, based on an analysis
of site-specific circumstances The Agency also re-
serves the right to change this guidance at any time
without public notice.
Assessing Sites Under SACM — Interim Guidance
j ij
This paper is oneof five fact sheets published by EPA
under publication number 9203.1-051 (Volume 1,
Numbers 1-5) to describe the Superfund Accelerated
Cleanup Model
-------
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
So&J Waste and
Emergency Response
Publication 9203.1-051
December 1992
SACM Regional Decision
Teams — Interim Guidance
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
Office of Waste Programs Enforcement
Office of Enforcement ;-
Interrruttent Bulletin
Volume 1 Number 5
The purpose of the Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model (SACM) is to make Superfund cleanups more timely and efficient.
This will be accomplished through more focus on the front end of the process and better integration of all Superfund program
components The approach involves:
A continuous process for assessing site-specific conditions and the need for action;
Cross-program coordination of response planning;
Prompt risk reduction through early action (removal or remedial).
Appropriate cleanup of long-term environmental problems;
Early public notification and participation; and
Early initiation of enforcement activities.
SACM is a process change that should be considered for all Superfund activities. Implementation of this policy will be
consistent with the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) and the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). Overall Superfund priorities remain the same: deal
with the worst problems first, aggressively pursue enforcement; and involve the public and relevant State agencies at all
appropriate stages of the work.
Regional Decision Team Goal
The goal of the Regional Decision Team
(RDT) is effective coordination, com-
murucation, and integration of pro-
gram authority, expertise, re-
sources, and tools to solve prob-
lems that arise at Superfund sites.
Qes€ coordination of the site as-
sessment and response processes
and tnitiatior. of any appropriate
enforcement responses through the
RDT mechanism will enable the
Superfund Program toachieve risk
reduction and site response goals quickly and efficiently.
Faster... C/eaner...Sfffer
The RDT concept offers a new approach for determining
Superfund response actions. The RDT provides for broad
participation across all program dements while placing
emphasis on teamwork and Regional and staff empower-
ment for developing response strategies and solving site
problems The RDT also has the responsibility for ensuring
that response actions are fully conastent with the require-
mertts contained m CERCLA and the NCP. Regions have
flexibility in designing an RDT process that meets their
specific needs, recognizing that a specific formal structure
is njt as critical as the overall goal of program integration.
Accordingiy,Regions should design a process that,
at a rrunimurn, ensures effective communi-
_. cation across the removal, site assessment,
CV remedial, enforcement, and commu-
Ct?k nity involvement program elements,
and provides for the full and active
participation of the Office of Re-
gional Counsel. Further, Re-
gions should ensure that the RDT
works inconcert with the Region's
management structure, and with
those designated site managers
(e.g.. Site Assessment Managers
(SAMs), On-Scene Coordinators
(OSCs), Remedial Project Managers (RPMs), and/or indi-
vidual site management teams) that are responsible for
handling the site on a day-to-day basis In addition, the
Region should discuss and establish with the State a pro-
cess for State involvement during the SACM decision-
making process.
Each Region should develop guideline* tor the operation
of the RDT so that it will function as smoothly and effec-
tively as possible, while facilitating the involvement o:
representatives from various offices, bo* within and out-
side the Regional office. In addition, it will be impor-
tant for the Regional divisions to fully plan out what thev
hope to achieve with their RDT, and irunateearh dialogue
to esablish roles and responsibilities uuouphout the re-
-------
I
sponse process. The following list df possible start-up
actions should be considered by each Region:
1. Assign roles and responsibilities of selected mem-
bers;
2. Establish coordination process with the States;
3. Establish decision criteria for determining response
decisions, including response authority;
4 Identify the universe of Superfund sites within the
Region and the plan of action for integrated assess-
ment of such sites;
5. Developapproachfordesignationofresponsepriori-
ties;
6. Establish a process for quick initiation of potentially
responsible party (PRP) searchactivitiesand enforce-
ment efforts; and
7. Develop process for early coordination with Head-
quarters, and support agencies /organizations (e.g..
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
(ATSDR), Department of Justice (DOJ)) providing
technical/legal assistance to the RDT.
RDT Operations
The RDT is empowered by the Region to make those
decisions that are delegated to its level. This body serves as
a tool to ensure early and effective communication and
should provide input for the traditional line decision-
making authorities The RDT should provide policy and
strategic direction to designated site managers (SAM, OSC
and RPM), to ensure the integration of program authorities
(Fund-lead vs. PRP-lead, removal vs. remedial), resources,
and tools to solve site-specific problems. (The RDT is not
responsible for true emergencies, which the removal pro-
gram will continue to handle.) The RDT should convene
either routinely or on an as-needed basis, to receive status
reports and strategy options from the site manager(s),
establish response priorities, and provide both advice and
direction on appropriate response actions (e.g., scope and
sequence of projects). RDT involvement in a site response
should follow the process or recommend actions as de-
scribed below:
1. Early Assessment Stage:
Following receipt of initial site information (e.g.. Prelimi-
nary Assessment/Removal Assessment or Site Inspec-
tion), the RDT would convene to assess optional next steps
for all sites where a Site Evaluation Accomplished (SEA)
decision is not appropriate. Specific options available to
the RDT include:
• Recommend/Develop an Early Action Response
Plan
• Emergency/Time-Critical Removal Action—situa-
tions where prompt action is required to mitigate
nsk to human health or the environment. RDT
volvement initiating these actions may be limited
based on the time available; however, the RDT should
participate in evaluating the response after the action
has been taken and identifying the next steps re-
quired to complete the response, if any. Time-critical
actions, which must be initiated quickly to protect
human health and the environment, should be re-
served for situations where an action must be initi-
ated quickly to protect human health and the envi-
ronment.
• Non-Time-Critical Removal Action — less urgent
action intended to stabilize the site and/or eliminate
contamination. The RDT should assess the opportu-
nity for response and initiate the preparation of the
Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis (EE/CA)and
Action Memo with prior public comment (and for
Fund-financed removals, the required justification
for exemptions to exceed statutory removal time and
dollar limits)- Also, the RDT should determine
whether proposed actions are time-critical or non-
time-critical, or whether the site requires remedial
action (including expedited National Priorities List
(NPL) evaluation if Fund-financed remedial action is
expected).
• Early/Interim Remedial Action — actions at N'PL
sites intended to achieve site remediation and nsk
reduction. The RDT should initiatea Remedial Inves
-------
f
tigaton/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) leading to an early
or interim action Record of Decision (ROD).
• Direct The Acquisition of Additional Data
• The RDT may require that additional data be col-
lected priorto deciding on a course of action for a site.
If at any point in the process of collecting site infor-
mation, the site appears to be an NPL-caliber site, the
RDT should consider initiating RI activities, and,
where appropriate, early actions.
•» NPL Listing
• Where sufficient data exist to list a site and where
remedial response actions are envisioned, the listing
process should be concurrent with early response
action or expanded Ste Investigation/Remedial In-
vestigation (SI/RI) data collection. Fund-lead early
remedial actions can only be conducted after the site
is on the NPL.
* Enforcement Strategy
• Initiate early PRP search activities to aggressively
pursue enforcement first and define the role of PRPs
in response action and /or data collection. Negotia-
tions with PRPs should be conducted as appropriate
during the assessment process as well as for removal
or remedial response actions. The RDT will have
input on me selection of the appropriate enforcement
document (Administrative Order on Consent/Uni-
lateral Administrative Order (AOC/UAO), consent
decree, etc.) and main tairung coordination with Head-
quarters and DOJ, where appropriate, regarding the
enforcement strategy .
2. Advanced Assessment Stage:
As addinonal site information is received (e.g., after or
during either the early action, or the focused or expanded
SI/RI part of the integrated site assessment), the RDT
should assess next steps for sites warranting additional
response action Specific options would be similar to those
identified above. At this stage, response actions generally
would fail in the non-time-critical removal, early remedial
action category, or in the long-term action category. The
RDT should direct the initiation of the appropriate support
actions. Abo, the RDT should assess the relative priorities
of the proposed response actions and allocate resources
according!}', if delegated this authority If not. recommen-
dations should be made if additional resources are neces-
sary.
3. Public Partidpation/CotamttiritT Invoh
The success of SACM win depend to a large degree on
public acceptance of our actions at the site levrel Maintain-
ing a strong focus on the local community {our pnjKsry
"customer") will contribute immensely to this success- The
administrative record file, a primary vehicle for pubik
participation, must be made available to the public for
inspection according to the schedule set out in the NCP
Subpart I- This is a necessarv compottert for cos recovery -
The decisions that the RDT makes about the future of a Sts
will be important te the local communny. The RDT, there-
fore, should take community concerns into sccocnt when
making decisions or. a site response scategy The cornmu-
nity should be promptly inforrned once those decisions are
made. CoGTmunity relations planrung should be included
in the site response strategy as an equal eSetnent with
technical and legal considerations, irciuding due consid-
eration of CERCLA. and N'C? requirer-.ents.
Using nor.-time-criical removal actions, as compared to
time-critical renwvjl actions, will allow prior public CD-—-_
ment, and are encouraged where tme allow;
4. Follow-up:
The Regions should develop protocols defincr.g the roie of
the RDT in monitoring and evaluating ongoing response
and assessment actvities
Organization
As described above, the RDT is designed to ensure effcc-
bvecommunicationand coordination across theSuperfund
program. The RDT provides policy advice and strategic
direction to site mangers and sets priorities t) promote
efficient sts response. RDT generally consisss cf manage-
-------
£
ment level personnel, as opposed to 4hf make-up of site
management teams. The RDT generafly will develop re-
sponse strategies for sites (e.g., the decision to take a
"removal" versus a "remedial" action). Individuals autho-
rized to sign Action Memos or RODs may be on the RDT.
The RDT will not have responsibility for the day-to-day
site project management, which wiU'remain with OSCs/
RPMs and site-management teams-
Regions have flexibility in developing an organizational
structure for the RDT, and may deckle to develop multiple
RDTs. In Regions where all program elements report to a
single manager, (e-g.. Deputy Director for Superfand), the
RDT might consist of the line managers reporting to that
manager, along with a representative from the Office of
Regional Counsel. In Regions whereprogram responsibili-
ties are dispersed, a more formal arrangement would be
appropriate. In these instances, a typical model for start-up
might inc! _ ie the following senior level participants:
• Senior Manager
• Remedial Person
• Removal Person
• Site Assessment Person
• Cost Recovery Person
• Risk Assessor.'Biological Technical Assistance Group
(STAG) Representative
• Attorney from Office of Regional Counsel
• Community Involvement Coordinator
The Regions should involve the States as often as possible
in an appropriate manner. Typically, States would be
consulted in concert v -;th RDTdeltberations or in prepara-
tion tor an RDT meeting. The RDT also should meet
periodically or on an as needed basis, with support agen-
cies and organizations (i.e.. ATSDR. Corps of Engineers,
Office of Research and Development. BTAG, PRP search,
con tract management staff, DOJ,etC-) to receive ad\-iceand
input on response options or enforcement actions as ap-
propriate.
Headquarters Consultation
Regions must consult with Headquarters prior to taking an
action which will require funding beyond what the Region
has in its allowance. Regions must also consult before
committing to a PRP-lead or Fund-lead non-time-critical
actioncosting over $5 million. Regions must always folios*
the existing rules for justifying and obtaining exemptions
for removal actions estimated to cost over 52 million or
exceed one year duration. Regions are also strongly urged
to discuss with Headquarters any situations which present
particularly difficult issues or may be controversial wish
State or other interested parties .
NOTICE: The policies set out in this fact sheet are not final
Agency action, but are intended solely as guidance They
are not intended, nor can they be relied upon, to create any
rights enforceable by any party in litigation with the United
States. EPA officials should follow thegodance provided
in this fact sheet or may act at variance with the guidance.
based on an analysis of site-specific circumstances. The
Agency also reserves the right to change this guidance a:
any time without public notice.
SACM Regional Decision Teams - Interim
Guidance
This paper is one of five fact sheets published by EPA
under publication number 9203.1-051 (Volume 1,
Numbers 1-5) to describe tneSupernrrd Accelerated
Cleanup Model (SACM) and should be reviewed in
conjunction with the other SACM fact sheets Com-
ments on this document should be directed to Robin
Anderson of the Hazardous Site Control Division
(703) 603-8747.
There are two other important sources of informa-
tion; "SACM concept paper" (8/5/92) and C-^inncf
on Implementation of the Simerfund Ac^f.eratei Csznup
Model Under CERCL4 and tfie NCP [OSWER Direc-
tive No. 9203.1-03 (7/7/92)]. General SACM infor-
mation can be obtained by calling trie
Document Center (202) 260-9760.
-------
V
material. Oral arguments have been scheduled for Feb. 3,
993 and final briefs were submitted November 9.
CAPACITY ASSURANCE PLANS
State of New York: fa an effort to curb the "mismanage-
ment" of out-of-state waste New York in December filed suit
against EPA charging that the agency has failed to carry out its
mandatory duty to sanction and withhold Superfund money
from states that fail to comply with their capacity assurance
plans. EPA requires that each state develop a plan to assure the
availability of in-state or out-of-state treatment disposal for all
hazardous wastes that are expected to be generated within the
next 20 years. (State of New York v. William K. Reilly, U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of New York, No. 91 -
CV-1418, May 4,1991)
Oral arguments were held Sept. 1 in Albany. The judge,
ruling from the bench, dismissed a motion to dismiss filed by
EPA and allowed a New York state county and two towns to
intervene in the case. A decision in the case is expected later
this fall.
State of South Carolina: In its battle to cut back on out-of-
state waste entering the state, South Carolina in December 1991
charged EPA with failing to enforce legal sanctions when North
Carolina fell short of its capacity assurance plan. (South Caro-
lina v. William K. Reilly, U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia, No.91-3090) The court May 7 dismissed the case,
saying that South Carolina had not shown EPA had violated a
-discretionary duty" and that the state failed to allege that
A had violated Superfund by releasing fund money to non-
complying states. South Carolina has asked the court for
permission to amend the complaint, adding new charges
against EPA.
HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
Alcan Aluminum Corp.: Alcan has petitioned the 2nd
Circuit Court of Appeals to reconsider a decision by a lower
court which held Alcan responsible for over $5-million in
cleanup costs at a New York site. Alcan argues in its brief that
waste it arranged for disposal of is not considered hazardous
under the Superfund law because trace amounts of metals and
compounds found in the oil emulsion are below ambient and
naturally occurring levels. Alcan further says that if the court
upholds the lower court's ruling it must hold that Alcan's
emulsion and everything else in the universe is a hazardous
substance (U.S. v. Alcan Aluminum Corp., U.S. Court of Ap-
peals for the 2nd Circuit, No. 92-6158, 92-6160 July 1). The
U.S. filed a response brief Sept 22 asking the 2nd Circuit to
dismiss Alcan's appeal. The case has been heard by the
court, but no decision has been made.
COST RECOVERY
BROS Superfund site: Thirteen companies in March sued
the United States in connection with the Bridgeport Rental and
Oil Services site in Gloucester County, NJ, alleging that the
Defense Department is responsible for most of the contamina-
tion at the site. The government June 30 filed suit against seven
companies, four of which were plaintiffs in the earlier suit. The
companies in turn filed a motion to dismiss the U.S. suit,
arguing that the government's arguments are compulsory
counterclaims that should have been brought in its response to
the March suit. (Rollins v. U.S., No. 92-CV-1253 (JET); U.S. v.
Allied Signal, Inc. et al, U.S. District Court for the District of
New Jersey, 92-CV-2726 (JEI) (consolidated cases)). Court
said it would consolidate the two cases rather than order the
United States to file a counterclaim. Both cases remain
pending, with the March suit against the United States as the
lead case. After parties submitted proposed case manage-
ment orders, the court Nov. 24 signed the companies' pro-
posed order; discovery closes May 1, motions for summary
judgments are due in May. Defendants in Allied Signal case
have until Dec. 17 to answer government's complaint, which
was amended Nov. 30.
Looking Ahead
DRAFT SACM SHORTSHEETS MAP OUT PLAN FOR SUPERFUND CLEANUPS
A series of draft shortsheets outlining how the agency will implement the new Superfund Accelerated Cleanup
Model (SACM) have been circulated to EPA regions and state officials for comment, according to agency sources.
The sheets cover the areas of early and long-term actions, enforcement, site assessment, and regional decision teams
and are intended as guidance for the regions as to how the SACM model will be incorporated into these areas.
SACM, introduced earlier this year by the agency, is intended to make the Superfund program more efficient by
cutting years off of cleanup time and quickly reducing risks to the public and the environment (see Superfund Report
special report, Feb. 28,1992). The accelerated cleanup model incorporates five items: one-step screening and risk
assessment, regional decision teams to make site-specific cleanup decisions, early action to reduce immediate risk,
long-term cleanup to restore the environment, and enforcement, community relations, and public involvement through-
it the process.
According to a general shortsheet addressing SACM, the number of ongoing projects, the budget, program priori-
ties, contracts and communicating program accomplishments are areas which need to be considered. "Regions need
more flexibility in resource utilization than the current response budget process provides to streamline and accelerate
the cleanup of Superfund sites under SACM," according to the shortsheet. "We will work with the Comptroller and the
SUPERFUND REPORT — December 16,1992
17
-------
-------
Office of Management & Budget to further increase budget flexibility." The sheet also says that the implementation of
ACM will require that the agency re-examine the overall Superfund program priorities, and says that new cleanup
.tracts will be in place over the next two years, "lending themselves easily to the phase-in of SACM."
Issues such as contract ceiling capacities, applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs), and
future remedial actions should be considered in deciding on whether to proceed with a removal versus a remedial
action, according to the shortsheet addressing early and long-term actions. Regional decision teams will play an
important role in determining ways to respond to a site and some of the factors to be considered include: timing, cost,
enforcement, state and public involvement, and risk management
Under the area of enforcement, the methodology for potentially responsible parties searches will likely remain the
same, but SACM may require changes in the PRP search program for non-time critical and early remedial actions.
According to the sheet on enforcement, in some cases it "may be appropriate to briefly delay action at a site to finish
the PRP search if the regional decision team believes that a more thorough PRP search will increase the likelihood of
settlement." The sheet says that regions should consider writing a group PRP search work assignment for SACM
similar to the removal PRP search work assignment currently used.
Site assessment activities under SACM will evaluate sites by an initial screening assessment that combines
elements of the present removal assessments and remedial preliminary assessments, according to the shortsheet
addressing site assessment. "SACM provides an alternative approach to site assessment by basing the type of investi-
gation on the type of information required to make site decisions," the sheet says. Guidance for future assessments
based on SACM is being developed by EPA, the sheet says.
Region decision teams (RDTs) will provide for "broad participation across all program elements while placing
emphasis on teamwork and empowerment for developing response strategies and solving site problems," the sheet
addressing RDTs says. Regions can structure one or more RDTs depending on the workload and other needs, accord-
ing to the sheet And "where multiple teams are established, a mechanism to promote coordination and consistency
should be established," the sheet says.
r every S1 mHllor
UIMOND SEES OPPORTUNITIES FOR EMPLOYMENT IN SUPERFUND CLEANUPS
Superfund cleanups are not only good for the environment but can also create employment opportunities for the
American people, according to Rich Guimond, deputy assistant administrator for the Office of Solid Waste & Emer-
gency Response.
According to Guimond for every $1 million spent on cleanups, 25 jobs are created. Superfund "is making its
mark" in helping the nation recover from the recession, he said. Guimond spoke at the Hazardous Materials Control
Resources Institutes's Superfund '92 conference held in Washington, D.C. Dec. 1-3.
Clearly there is concern in today's world about employment, the economy and the environment, Guimond said.
"Superfund can play a significant role" in all of these areas and "provide a good fit for jobs and investment," he said.
Superfund creates opportunities for environmental cleanup and the agency hopes the program can be a leader in
creating opportunities for the American people as well, he said.
Guimond's figures are based on estimates by EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Guimond said that
when broken down the cleanup would allow for about 12 construction jobs and another 13 indirect jobs. In a subse-
quent telephone interview, Guimond said the figures are an estimate based on historical information of the number of
jobs that have been created. "There's a lot of good that Superfund can do to improve not only the environment but also
to jump-start the economy," he said. Last year the agency collected record amounts of money—close to $900-million
from PRPs to fund Superfund cleanups. "As the construction [of these jobs] comes on line, the economy can benefit
from that," he said.
One of the goals of the Superfund program over the coming years is to better assess and meet environmental
expectations of the American people, according to Guimond. The agency needs to "take a look at our customers and
their needs" and apply cleanups "which fit their specific needs and their specific backyards," he said. "We need to take
a harder look at what the public's needs are and meld with them."
Guimond said he sees the area of innovative technology as one in which Superfund can excel. EPA, the Depart-
ment of Defense and the Department of Energy are faced with many environmental problems and there is a need to
ontinue developing technologies to deal with those problems, he said. "Superfund, I hope, can be a leader in facilitat-
ig new technologies" and "in marketing that ingenuity in this country as well as overseas." Guimond said that after a
recent discussion with Commerce Department officials, he is concerned that Americans are too focused on U.S.
business and not business overseas. "American business can help improve health and the environment all over the
world and at the same time improve our economy as well."
18 SUPERFUND REPORT — December 16,1992
-------
-------
THE SUPERFUND ACCELERATED
CLEANUP MODEL:
Henry Longest
^^he Superfund Accelerated
I Cleanup Model (SACM), is the
I most significant change to the Su-
perfund program since its inception. It
will streamline the Superfund process
and provide risk-based cleanups at the
greatest possible number of sites.
The Superfund program has
operated within a complex system that
was designed in 1980 to accommodate
a new and complicated law. Since then,
it has ben altered to fit the changing
expectations of the public and the
government. The program has been
pulled in several directions to meet the
sometimes conflicting interests of
various groups; the results have satisfied
few. It has become clear that the most
important goal of the public—and of
anyone involved in the Superfund pro-
gram—is to promptly and appropriately
clean up sites to ensure safety for
people, and then to tackle bng-term
environmental restoration. SACM will
achieve this goal.
One integral part of SACM will
streamline site and risk assessment.
Currently, numerous separate studies
are conducted during the assessment
phase. With one-step site assessment,
collected data will be used to serve mul-
tiple purposes, significantly reducing the
time it takes to get to the cleanup phase.
A Regional Decision Team of Superfund
site managers, risk assessors, com-
munity relations personnel, and other
experts will monitor the studies and
determine whether a site requires Early
Action, Long-term Action, or both.
Early Actions will be undertaken at
sites that can be cleaned up within three
to five years These actions will include
removing hazardous materials, keeping
contaminants from moving off-site,
providing drinking water, and restricting
access to the site.
Most near-term threats to humans
and the environment will be mitigated
through Early Actions, but some will re-
quire Long-term Actions, which will in-
clude cleanups of mining sites, wetlands
and estuaries, and projects involving in-
cineration of contaminants or restoration
of groundwater quality. Although such
sites will require years to clean up, they
will pose no threat to people living near-
by, because any immediate risk will have
been addressed by the SACM program.
Since EPA Administrator William Reil-
ly approved SACM in February, many
questions have been brought to my at-
tention by interested parties. Many have
asked if SACM will work within the
statutes and regulations as Superfund
currently does. The answer is yes: we
have ensured that SACM will operate
within the Comprehensive Environmen-
tal Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (CERCLA) and the National
Contingency Plan (NCP). Another impor-
tant issue is that "enforcement first" will
remain an operating principle of the pro-
gram. Community relations and public
involvement will also be integral to the
process, and states will participate as
active partners in SACM. Finally, innova-
tive technologies as well as stand-
ardized remedies for similar sites will
offer continuing opportunities for the
hazardous waste remediation industry.
The National Priorities List (NPL) sites
will continue to be an important part of
the Superfund program. One difference
under SACM is that the success of the
Superfund program will not be
measured in NPL completions atone, but
rather in total risk reduction achieved
through Superfund Early Actions and
Long-term Actions at all Superfund sites.
Superfund has cleaned up ap-
proximately 1,700 sites since 1980, in-
cluding NPL and non-NPL sites, with
more than 1,000 more underway.
SACM is now being implemented
through pilot projects in the Regions. All
sites, new or old. will be potential oppor-
tunities to streamline the process
through SACM. Our 12 years of ex-
perience have given us the perspective
necessary to determine what will work. It
is an opportunity to maximize the ef-
ficiency afforded within the current law
before Superfund reauthorization.
SACM is the future of the program, and
it will be the way we will be doing busi-
ness for the years to come.
Henry L.
Longest, His direc-
tor of the U.S. En-
vironmental
Protection
Agency's Office of
Emergency and
Remedial
Response. He is
responsible for im-
p I e m e n t i n g
federally-funded emergency and long-
term remedial activity at hazardous
waste sites under the Superfund pro-
gram. He joined EPA in 1970 He
received the Presidential Distinguished
Executive Award in 1982 and was
named EPA Engineer of the Year in 1983.
14 NOVEMBEFVDECEMBER 1992
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS CONTROL
-------
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
Publication 9203.1-021
November 1992
The Superfund Accelerated
Cleanup Model (SACM)
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
Outreach and Special Projects Staff, OS-200
Intermittent Bulletin
Volume 1 Number 4
The U.S. EPA currently is developing and implement-
ing a streamlined way to clean up hazardous waste sites
known as the Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model,
or SACM. It is designed to make the Superfund Program
more efficient by cutting years off of cleanups and
quickly reducing risks to people and the environment.
SACM will focus Superfund on the very substantial risk
-eduction which is now achieved and achievable. Pro-
ction of people and the environment at all Superfund
tions will be the program's measure of success.
rfund will reduce risk from hazardous wastes
kJy, thoroughly, and appropriately.
The Superfund Program is responding to concerns raised
by all segments of the American public concerning the
pace and focus of hazardous waste cleanups. The pro-
gram was designed in 1980 to accommodate a new and
complicated law. Since then, EPA has learned through
experience what works.
The accelerated cleanup model incorporates five essen-
tial elements:
One-step site screening and risk assess-
ment
• Regional Decision Teams
"traffic cop" all sites
• Early Action to reduce im-
mediate risk
* Long-term cleanup to re-
store the environment
Enforcement, community
relations, and public in-
volvement throughout the process
ditionally, Superfund cleanups are performed after
g periods of site studies and assessments. The heart
of SACM, however, is an approach that fosters immedi-
ate action at a site, at the same time that necessary
Faster... C/eaner...Safer
studies are being conducted. Regional Decision Teams
of site managers, risk assessors, community relations
coordinators. Regional attorneys and other experts will
decide whether a site requires Early Action (taking less
than five years). Long-term Action, or a combination of
both.
Any short-term work required to correct immediate
public health or environmental threats will be done
while a site is studied. Besides removing hazardous
materials to prevent human contact, these Early Actions
include taking precautions to keep contaminants from
moving off site and restricting access to the site.
Many hazardous waste problems can be corrected —
and most public and environmental protection can be
achieved — by Early Actions, but some problems will
take longer to correct. Cleanups of mining sites, wet-
lands, and estuaries, as well as projects involving incin-
eration of contaminants or restoration of ground water,
will take more than the three to five years envisioned for
Early Actions — possibly decades.
EPA will continue to pursue potentially responsible
parties (PRPs) who may have caused or con-
tributed to the site contamination. Expe-
dited enforcement and procedures for
negotiating PRP involvement in
cleanups will secure their partici-
pation. EPA's Superfund per-
sonnel will continue to over-
see cleanup work performed
by PRPs. Public and State par-
ticipation and access to infor-
mation will be encouraged d u r-
ing all phases of Superfund
cleanups.
Efficient, effective, and geared for results, SACM will
direct more Superfund resources to actually cleaning u p
Superfund sites. By working to correct the worst prob-
lems at a large number of sites, Superfund will be able to
maximize its protection of people and the environment
from the effects of hazardous materials.
-------
t
t
-------
l&y ^•..•^^amUO^Ki
^ -- - .. .-••i..-. • ,• .- ..• ,s. . >. v--.... -.
-------
-------
•Nam* o< Contact P«r»on
' Betti VanEpps
-EFrX
environmental
w«nm
-------
-------
1.32.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
OCT 26 IS32
VERY IMPORTANT PLEASE DISTRIBUTE TO ALL STAFF
SESPOMSE
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Exercising Flexibly! it
Accelerated Cl'eaWp
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9203.1-03A
erfund
FROM:
TO:
-x-Don R. Clay
»Assistant 1
Addressees
The purpose of this memo is to reaffirm the Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response comnitment to support Regional
offices in soundly-based decision making while implementing the
Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model (SACM).
At the April SACM planning neeting, I offered Headquarters
support to the Regions in making decisions that will improve the
Superfund program through SACM. Our new Superfund model is being
implemented at a rapid pace, and I am pleased with the direction
it is taking. SACM is the way we will be doing business in the
future, and although it is exciting and promising, it also poses
certain challenges. Any time major changes are implenented,
decisions must be made and actions must be taken in order to
improve the efficiency of the program. Yet, we must also be
conscious of the legal boundaries of CERCLA and the NCP. In
order to ensure that SACM actions are fully supported, OSWER has
issued jointly with the Office of General Counsel Directive No.
9203.1-03, "Guidance on Implementation of the Superfund
Accelerated Cleanup Model (SACM) under CERCLA and the NCP11.
Using this directive, I urge Regional personnel to take full
advantage of the flexibility that the NCP offers to streamline
the program to provide risk-based cleanups at the greatest number
of sites; this could include development of consolidated site
assessments, the early start-up of RI/FS's at likely NPL sites,
and the increased use of removal authorities to more
expeditiously address sources of contamination. The Office of
Regional Counsel Regional Decision Team (RDT) representative will
be essential in identifying the flexibility within the NCP, and
ensuring that such flexibility is exercised in a manner that does
not pose unacceptable litigation risks. I also urge you to use
your discretion and sound judgement in program innovations. The
RDT meetings will be an appropriate forum to discuss these types
F--:ea~- -•••
Pacer
-------
-------
-2-
of issues since the team is made up of experts with cross-program
skills.
Further, revision of guidances is underway, and draft "short
sheets" have been sent for Regional comment. We have also met
with the Office of Inspector General (OIG) to fully apprise them
of SACM developments. We have informed the OIG that SACM
expedites the Superfund process using the flexibility within our
authority per the OSWER/OGC directive, without creating the
inconsistencies with the NCP that have been identified in
previous audits.
We must continue the communication between Regions and
Headquarters on the SACM issues. The benefits from this type of
dialogue were clearly seen at the National SACM Meeting held in
August. Keep in mind that we are all on the same team, working
towards the same goals. I stand ready to support you in taking
advantage of the flexibility in the regulations in order to make
soundly-based decisions to implement SACM.
Addressees:
Regional Administrators, Regions I-X
Director, Waste Management Division
Regions I, IV, V, VII
Director, Emergency and Remedial Response Division,
Region II
Director, Hazardous Waste Management Division
Regions III, VI, VIII, IX
Director, Hazardous Waste Division, Region X
Director, Environmental Service Division
Regions I, VI, VII
Regional Counsel, Regions I-X
cc:
Rich Guimond, OSWER
Bowdin Train, OSWER
Bill White, OE
Lisa Friedman, OGC
Henry Longest, OERR
Bruce Diamond, OWPE
Tim Fields, SRO
Walt Kovalick, TIO
-------
-------
bcc: Regional Removal Managers, Regions I-X
Regional Waste Management Branch Chiefs, Regions I-X
Larry StarfieId, OGC
Larry Reed, OERR, HSED
Tom Scheckells, OERR, OPM
Debbie Deitrich, OERR, ERD
Jerry Clifford, OERR, HSCD
-------
-------
•«»EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
Publication 9203.1-021
August 1992
Superfund Accelerated
Cleanup Bulletin
Presumptive Remedies
Superfund Revitalization Activity
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
Hazardous Site Control Division OS-220W
Intermittent Bulletin
Volume 1 Number 3
Since Superfund's inception in 1980, the removal and remedial programs have found that certain site categories have
similar characteristics, such as types of contaminants present, past industrial use, or environmental media affected.
Based on a wealth of information acquired from evaluating and cleaning up these sites, Superfund is undertaking an
initiative to develop presumptive remedies that are appropriate for specific site types and/or contaminants. This
initiative is part of a larger program, known as the Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model (SACM), which is designed
to speed all aspects of the Superfund clean-up process.
The objective of the presumptive remedies initiative is to use clean-up techniques shown to be effective in the past at
similar sites in the future. The use of presumptive remedies will streamline removal actions, site studies, ar.d clean-up
actions, thereby improving consistency, reducing costs, and increasing the speed with which hazardous waste sites are
remediated.
This bulletin outlines the Superfund efforts underway for developing presumptive remedies for various types of sites.
Presumptive Remedy Selection Initiatives
Superfund has selected four site type catego-
ries to test the presumptive remedy se-
lection approach. Each category was
selected based on the number of
potential sites, the amount of his-
torical information available, the
type of contaminants, and the
technologies selected in the past
for remediating these types of
sites.
mationbecomesavailable and more experience is gained
on the approach.
fwccelerafe^
Several approaches are being
evaluated for determining the
most effective method(s) for
implementing the presumptive remedy selection pro-
cess. The approaches consist of Regional training on the
implementation of a streamlining guidance document
for landfill sites, developing new guidance or policy to
streamline remedy selection at other categories of sites,
and establishing expert teams to help evaluate sites and
make decisions on appropriate clean-up methods.
Municipal Landfill, Wood Treater, Solvent, and Con-
taminated Ground Water Sites will be the first types of
sites where the presumptive remedy approach is tried at
B national level. Additional pilot efforts are being tried
at the Regional level on PCB, Coal Gasification, and
Grain Storage sites. It is anticipated that the number of
site types that lend themselves to the presumptive rem-
edy selection process will be expanded as more infor-
Fasfer... C/ea/?er...Safer
The following is a brief description of the
efforts to be carried out under each
site-type category.
Municipal Landfill Sites
The goal of this initiative is to
assist the Regions in imple-
menting the recently developed
guidance on Conducting Reme-
dial Investigations/Feasibility
Studies for CERCLA Municipal
Landfill Sites. The focus of the
guidance is to streamline site characterization, baseline
risk assessment, and selection of remedial alternatives
for Municipal Landfill (MLF) sites.
A team of experienced Remedial Project Managers
(RPMs) and experts on landfill construction have worked
with RPMs for municipal landfill sites in Regions 1, 4,
and 5. The team provided assistance in scoping a stream-
lined Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/
FS). These RPMs will become a resource for their Re-
gions, and will assist other RPMs in streamlining their
MLF sites.
Two additional pilots are planned for this summer. The
purpose of these pilots is to bring the remaining Regions
into the pilot project, so that every Region will have at
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
least one individual who is knowledgeable about the
streamlining methods identified in the manual. It is in-
tended that RPMs who participate in the pilot projects will
become members of an "Expert Team" for Municipal Land-
fills and will be available to assist other RPMs in designing
streamlined processes for their sites. (Contact: Andrea
McLaughlin 703-603-8793)
Wood Treatment Sites
The goal of this initiative is to speed up response actions at
wood treatment sites. This acceleration will be accom-
plished by narrowing the list of potential technologies
from which to choose a remedy, early in the remedy
selection process. Program experience, guidance and an
expert team will be used in concert to identify technologies
that may be applied to specific situations. This approach
will provide the flexibility required to accommodate site-
specific characteristics, while shortening the time required
to identify, select, and implement a remedy.
This initiative includes establishment of an expert team;
development of a presumptive remedy selection process,
using a selection outline and matrix; development of a
series of fact sheets; and performance of pilot studies and
ad hoc site support to implement the presumptive remedy
initiative at wood treatment sites. The expert team consists
of representatives from the EnvironmentalResponseTeam
(ERT), the Office of Research and Development (ORD),
On-Scene Coordinators (OSCs) and Remedial Project Man-
agers (RPMs) with extensive experience at wood treatment
sites. The presumptive remedy selection process will fol-
low a generic outline of site activities and rely upon a
technology selection matrix to determine appropriate rem-
edies according to technical criteria. The fact sheets will be
used to report on the progress of this initiative and to
distribute information on the presumptive remedy pro-
cess. Pilot studies and ad hoc site support will be used to
implement the initiative in the field as it is refined by the
expert team. (Contact: David Ouderkirk 202-260-5614)
Solvent Sites
The goal of this initiative is to expedite response actions at
sites contaminated with solvents by focusing on a limited
number of effective technologies early in the remedial
process. This initiative will develop guidance on standard-
izing remedy selection and will issue a series of fact sheets
on technology selection and site characterization strate-
gies, and clean-up criteria for solvent-contaminated soils
and sediments.
rrorri
)tS^
As with the other site types, this initiative will include the
establishment of an expert team of representatives from
ERT, ORD, and experienced OSCs and RPMs to ~~
evaluate sites and streamline the remedy selection proo
The initiative will involve conducting pilot studies to
implementation of the presumptive remedy approaches at
sites contaminated with solvents. Finally, the initiative will
develop a technical and policy directive on streamlining
the RI/FS process at these types of sites. (Contact: Shahid
Mahmud 703-630-8789)
Ground Water Sites
This initiative will consist of developing a Quick Reference
Fact Sheet that discusses the selection of a presumptive
remedy for sites with contaminated ground water. This is
especially relevant in light of the fact that over 75 percent
of sites currently listed on the National Priorities List
(NPL) exhibit ground-water contamination. The develop-
ment of presumptive remedies for ground-water contami-
nation sites will include the Agency's most recent policies
pertaining to sites that contain non-aqueous phase liquids
(NAPLs), both dense phase (DNAPLs) and light phase
(LNAPLs). In addition, EPA will evaluate publishing a
notice in the Federal Register that will contain a generic
evaluation of six of the nine evaluation criteria set forth for
the selection of remedial alternatives in the National Con-
tingency Plan (NCP) (excluding ARARs, and community
and state acceptance). The Federal Register Notice would
allow for public review and comment on the application of
the six generic analysis criteria for ground-water con "~'
nated sites. (Contact: Ken Lovelace 703-630-8787).
-------
r*
*a
1 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
01 7 1992
OSWER Directive No. 9203.1-03
SUBJECT: Guidance on Implementation of the Superfund Accelerated
' Cleanup Model,(SACK) undev CERCLA and the NCP
FROM: ^ Don R. Clay J.J- .;. '. _UV^^
. Assistant Adiiniitratoc for Solid Waste
—* *»«v«anev ReSDOnSS
and Emergency Response
Lisa K.
Associate Gene^re^; counsel
Solid Haste and Emergency
Response Division
TO:
Waste Management Division Directors
Regions I, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII
Emergency and Remedial Response Division Director
Region II
Hazardous Haste Management Division Directors
Regions III, IX
Hazardous Haste Division Director
Region X
superfund Branch Chiefs
Regions I-X
Superfund Branch Chiefs,
Office of Regional Counsel
Regions I-X
PURPOSE
MM^UiB&MKBB^Bl
•
To provide a more precise description of the Superfund
Accelerated Cleanup Model (SACM), in order to ensure its
consistent application in compliance with CERCLA and the National
<--mi-in««nev Plan (NCP).1
C0II«A»«.wtw vrr___
Contingency Plan (NCP).1
development
-------
BACKGROUND
In broad terms, the SACM model seeks to accoaplish four
objectives: establish a continuous process for the assessment of
site-specific conditions and the need for action; create cross-
program Regional Decision/Management Teaaa responsible for
initiating appropriate actions as information is developed about
a site; achieve prompt risk reduction through early actions
(removal or remedial); and ensure the appropriate cleanup of
long-term environmental problems. TBS overall goal of SACM is to
accelerate cleanups aad increase efficiency ia the superfuad
process within the framework of CXRCLA aad the MCP, while
ensuring that eleaaups continue to bo protective aad to allow for
appropriate public iavolvemeat.
Since the announcement of SACM, there has been considerable
interest and enthusiasm about the model. Active discussions
continue among Headquarters offices and the Regions, and views
have been solicited from the Corps of Engineers, the Department
of Justice, and States in an effort to further develop the
guiding principles of SACM. Now that the model has been outlined
conceptually, it is important to discuss the details of the
approach in order to ensure that all participants are workii
from a consistent starting point, and that the model is
out in compliance with CXRCLA and consistent with the HCP.
DISCUSSIOH
*nd th« Mc». SACK is intended to
help the Agency accomplish the goals of expedited cleanup and
increased efficiency in the Superfund process within the
framework of the current statute and MCP. The Agency believes
that there is adequate flexibility under the current law and
regulations to accomplish those) goals; however, SACM does nojfc
provide independent authority to carry out actions that are not
authorized by the CXRCLA and the NCP regulations.
For instance, tha use of the terms "early actions" and
"long-term actions" in SACM should not be read to mean that
actions may bo implemented under the SACM model that are other
than removal or remedial actions. Amy aotioa taJtea under CSRCLA
must fall iato tao category of a removal aotiom or a- remedial
action, sad tfeoa must conform to applicable WC9 requirements.
The categorisation in SACM of early removal actions and early
remedial actions as "early actions" is meent to better
communicate the timing and nature of actions designed to achieve
rapid reduction of risk, although not necessarily cleanup of all
contamination. (Given the large number of sites with contaminant
problems that may require long-term solutions, !*£*., sites
requiring groundwater restoration, it is anticipated that many
sites will have bj£fe eerly and long-term action components.)
int
*
-------
At the same time, however, the MC* affords the Agency
considerable discretion in many instances. For example, the
numerous data collection efforts contemplated by the NCP could be
performed as part of one large site assessment (as discussed
later in this Directive). CERCLA and the NCP also provide the
Agency with the flexibility to proceed with many types of cleanup
actions using either removal or remedial action authorities. See
CERCLA sections 101(23) and 101(24); and 40 CFR 300,415(d) (a
partial list of actions that may be carried out using removal
action authority).
In addition, some SACK pilots may involve specific
deviations from current Agency policies in order to test a new
approach to site evaluation or response (where this is the case,
such deviations should be properly justified and documented).
Experience from the SAdf pilot projects may also prompt changes
in national policies. (Further, SACK pilot projects may identify
regulatory or statutory requirements that would prevent the
Agency from pursuing a given approach; such information may be
referred to Headquarters for consideration as part of regulatory
reform, or for study by CERCLA reauthoriiation workgroups.)
site Ae«*««m^*» one of the major initiative* of SACK is to
break down institutional barriers within the Agency, and to
establish an operational scheme under which data are collected
and used to serve multiple purposes. For instance, samples taken
as part of an evaluation for possible removal action may often be
used to support, or begin, an evaluation of the need for remedial
action, site scoring using the Hasard Ranking System (US), or in
some cases, the remedial investigation (RZ). Although the MCP
regulations contemplate that the Agency will perform (as
warranted) a removal preliminary assessment (PA), a removal site
inspection (SZ), a remedial FA and SZ, and ultimately an RZ, some
or all of theme various studies can be consolidated in
appropriate cases under the SACK model, such that one site
assessment can be performed and one site assessment report
written. However, the) report shsmld iaelmde amy findings
required by the WC9 for moving from erne phase of site assessment
to another (suflU* *rom a remedial PA to a remedial SZ; am* 40 CFR
300.420(b)(4)(
By using data for multiple purposes, economies can be
achieved in terms of the amount of sampling needed, expertise and
learning can be shared among agency officials responsible for the
various tasks undertaken at a site, and the time between data
collection and action (if deemed necessary) can be shortened.
1 Mote that during the initial phases of the sits
assessment process, -it may be appropriate to issue a finding of
"Site evaluation Accomplished" (SEA), indicating that no further
action is planned for the site.
-------
Specifically, if and when sufficient supporting information!_
gathered during the combined site assessment, work could begin on
an early action, an HRS scoring package, or ultimately a long-
tera action. This consolidation could save years in the site
evaluation phase of the Superfund process.
on the MPL. The attempt to evaluate sites more
quickly, and to initiate response action earlier, may have some
impact on a sits's scoring and possible listing on the National
Priorities List (NPL).3 However, as discussed below, that impact
is subject to several significant limitations.
Under the current HRS, the physical removal of hazardous
substances from a site may reduce the site's HRS score, but only
if the action occurs prior to the remedial SI phase of the site
assessment.4 Where early response actions occur after initiation
of the remedial SI portion of the site assessment, the risk
reduction achieved by the early action would not be considered in
the HRS scoring process. (However, the site might be a candidate
for a "no further action" decision and then deletion, shortly
after being listed on the NPL.)
Moreover, because a ramge of waste quantity values generally
qualifies for the same waste quantity sub-score under the
physical removal muat be significant enough to lower the
quantity below that range of quantities in order to affect
final waste quantity and HIS scores). (The timely removal of all
hazardous substances would always result in an HIS score of
zero.)5
' Only sites listed on the NFL are eligible for
fiaaaoed remedial actions. 40 CFR 300.42S(b)(1). However,
removal actions, and response actions carried out by private
parties pursuant to ZPA enforcement authorities, may be conducted
at NPL or non-NPL site*. 40 CFR 300.425(b) (1) and (b)(4).
4 Sjft 55 Fed.Reg. at 5156S. The reaediai SZ point was
chosen aa the dividing line because it ia the point at which most
of the scoring data ia available, and because of the need to
provide finality in the listing process (e contrary policy would
create a burdensome need to continually recalculate HRS scores).
s Note that actions that do not affect the quantity of
waste at a site, such as providing alternative drinking water
supplies or enhancing containment of a waste pile, would not
affect the HRS score. £m* preamble to final HRS, 55 Fed.Reg.
51532, 51567-69 (Dec. 14, 1990), and HRS Section 2.4.2.2 (40 CFR
Part 300, App. A, sec. 2.4.2.2), for a more detailed discussio
of the effect removal actions may have on the HRS score.
-------
It should also be noted that most sites requiring action
undar CERCLA have been found to present long-term problems (such
as tha need for groundwater restoration) in addition to more
acute, short-term problems. Thus, at many sites, risk reduction
activities may address only a portion of the contamination
problem, and thus the KRS scoring process would often continue
even after the early actions.
As part of the SACM initiative, the Agency intends to
compile a list of long-term actions. However, that list is not
meant to replace the NPL; rather, it will simply be an
informational list of sites at which long-term actions are being
carried out using the concepts reflected in SACM, and will likely
repreeent a sub-set of all NPL sites.
Effact on Current Resnonsa Action Procedures. It is also
important to recognize how the SACM model fits within the
existing site response process. Although SACM encourages the
taking of early action where risk reduction may be accomplished
promptly, it is not expected that procedures would change for all
categories of CIKCLA response actions (although implementation of
the Model may result in expedited administrative practices at ell
sites).
For example, •»* will, eemtimme to moo removal aetiom
authorities to resmomd to emargemsy as* time erltioml sitmstiems,
•1CM 4ooo mot iatead to nlsmfe the mmmmer im vmiem these
•semsitive eetiems ere earriee emt. However, tho
determination em to whether a situation is "time-critical" (where
action must bo initiated in lose then mix months) em compared to
"non-time-critical" (whore more than six month* planning time is
available) will have an important impact on tho level of
analysis, timing of administrativa record development, and extent
of public participation that is required under tho MCP
regulations.* thus, especially in cloee casern, tho finding that
action is "timo-critlcal" should ba discussed with tho Office of
Regional counsel representative to tho Decision Teem, and should
be explained in the Action Memorandum.
At tho other end of the spectrum, the Agency will continue
to use remedial action authorities to respond to most
contamination problems that are expected to require more than
five years to complete (•long-term actions'*), such as groundwater
restoration projects, large wetland/estuary sites, and extensive
_ 40 CFR 300.4l5(b)(«> and
-------
mining aitee.7 It is also expected that remedial action
authorities would generally be necessary to carry out th«
permanent ralocation of individuals, and actions requiring
significant, long-term operation and maintenance activities.
The area where the greatest flexibility is available — and
where the fACM model is expected te have the greatest impact —
is for actions that fall between the clear eases ef removal aad
remedial actionst sites for vhieh a plaaaiag period ef at least
six months exists (non-tiae-critical situations), aad at vhich
rapid risk reduction is possible.
I.i non-time-critical situations, both non-time-critieal
removal authority, aad early aetiea remedi^ authority, eeuld
potentially he used to reduoe risk. In making a decision as to
vhich type of authority to use, the Regional Decision Team,
including a representative from the office of Regional Counsel,
should consider a number of issues regarding each type of
authority.
is expected that the
Under the SACK model, it
would make greater use of its
itical removal actions. The
,
authority to conduct non-t ,
of such actions promises to accelerate the cleanup process.
example, for Fund-financed actions, non-time-crltical removal
actions can proceed prior to listing on the MPL; and in the
enforcement context, they may ha accomplished through
administrative orders on consent (AOC'e) rather than more time-
consuming judicial consent decrees used for remedial actions;
lift OERCLA section 122(d) fl) (A) .
In deciding on too appropriateness of using non-time-
critical removal action authority at a site, the cost and
duration of the action should be evaluated. Zf a pm^iff'lffffl'lil
removal action is expected to exceed statutory limits of $2
aillion or one year, than an exemption must ha justified based
either on the emergency nature of the situation, or a finding
that continued removal action is 'consistent with the remedial
action to be takan* (CERCLA section 104(e)(l». In non-time-
critical situations where a removal action is expected to exceed
the time or dollar limitation, we generally expect to rely on the
consistency exemption. Sites at vhich remedial action is likely
to be takan (**£*., proposed or final MFL sites) will generally be
strong candidates for the consistency exemption; it may also be
appropriate to use this exemption at some non-NFL sites, but it
aust be justified on a site-by-site basis. £mft 55 Fed.Reg. 9666,
8694 (March a, 1990).
7 Again, to the extent that the Agency plans to take a
remedial action using Fund monies, the eite must first qualify
for listing on the KPL.
-------
r
Consideration of whether to take a non- time-critical removal
action at A cite should also include an evaluation of State coet
share issues. Although a State cost share is not required under
CERCLA section 104 (c) (3) for a removal action,1 the absence of a
state's financial participation may limit the capacity of EPA to
fully fund certain large dollar value non-time-critical removal
actions. The advisability of seeking voluntary participation
from the States in the funding of a non- time-critical removal
action in order to expedite the cleanup of a site (rather than
waiting to perform a remedial action) , must be reserved for site-
by-site discussions.
Similarly, where a proposed ruad-finaaoea removal action
would require the performance of post-removal action measures to
maintain the effectiveness of the action, a State's willingness
to perform post-removal site control should be evaluated. A
decision by a State not to provide for such post-removal controls
may limit EPA's capacity to proceed with Fund-financed removal
actions that require measures to maintain the completed action's
effectiveness. (At enforcement sites, the potentially
responsible parties (PRPs) may be required to perform necessary
post-removal, site control activities.)
The decision to use a non- time-critical removal authority
should also follow a review of the applicable requirements. A
noa-time-oritioal reswval aetiea mmst imelose am amAlysis of
altermativee is am emgimeerlmg eraluatiem/eest amslymis [M/CA],
ass tss mvMis mast as afferse4 met less tmsm Jt aalessar day* to
as required in the NCP (40 CPU 300.4l5(b) (4) and
».
It is also expected that for non-time-critical removal
actions, it will generally be practicable to attain ARAfts. The
NCP requires removal actions to attain ARABS "to the extent
* Mots that before a Fund-financed remedial action can be
taken at a facility that was operated by the State, a cost share
of at least 50 percent is required for all "response costs,"
including removal action costs. £**. CERCLA section
104(C)(3)(C)(ii).
9 "Post-removal site control" is discussed in the NCP at 40
CFR 300.4lS(k).
«l° Note thet this public comment period will be extended by
a minimum of 15 additional days upon timely request. 40 CF*
300.4l5(m)(4) (iii).
-------
8
practicable,* considering the scope and urgency of the
situation.11 Given the extended planning time available for non-
time-critical removal actions, we believe that it will generally
be "practicable," in terms of the urgency factor, for non-time-
critical removal actions to comply with ARARs. Whether or not
the attainment of an ARAR is beyond the scopa of a non-time-
critical removal action, is a site-spacific determination that
will depend, in part, on the nature of the removal action, and on
the nature of other actions to be taken at tha site." For
example, a removal action is more likely to ba limited in scope
where it is to be followed by additional site response actions
designed to further address the same problem. (The
impracticability of attaining an ARAR based on the scope of a
non-time-critical removal action should be discussed with the
Office of Regional Counsel's representative to the Decision
Team.)
Finally, in order to assure the public that tha non-time-
critical removal actions taken pursuant to tha SACK initiative
will be of high quality. Agency policy vill ba to implement a
prefaramaa far treatment ia those actions, and ta conduct a
baseline risk assessment, wmara appropriate, before selecting a
"• " ^1 response.
„„ SACK also encourage* tha increased
use of remedial action authorities to aehiava early risk
reduction* at aitaa. An early remedial action may ba -*•
final or interim remedial action. An early "final"
action involvaa tha final cleanup of an oparable unit or portion
of a site early in tha remediation proeaaa for tha entire site.
For inatanca, at a larga site with savaral contaminant sources,
an early final remedial action might ba takan to eliminate or
control ona of thoaa sources, thereby achieving significant risk
reductions.
An "interim" remedial action is generally intended to
address a threat in tha short term, while a permanent remedial
solution ia being developed. An example would ba tha
installation of a groundvater pumping system to contain a
contaminant plume while the feasibility of aquifer treatment is
being studied, or construction of a temporary landfill cap to
prevent direct contact with wastes, during tha remedial
a
11 40 CFR 300. 4X5 (i). The waivers described in 40 CFR
300.430(f)(l)(ii)(C) may also be conaidared during removal
actions.
IJ Sift NCP preamble discussion, at 35 Fad. Reg
(March 8, 1990).
8695-96
-------
e
investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) process." An early
interim remedial action can be taken during scoping or at other
points during the RI/FS process (however, remedial construction
activities cannot be provided using the Fund until the site has
been finally included on the NPL14). Less documentation is
required for the Record of Decision (ROD) for an interim remedial
action than for a ROD covering a final remedial action; however,
adequate documentation must be provided to justify the action.
(££& "Guide to Developing Superfund No Action, Interim Action,
and Contingency Remedy RODs," OSWER Public. No. 9355.3-02FS-3
(April 1991), at p. 4.)
Even if early risk reduction could be accomplished through a
non-time-critical removal action, it may nonetheless be
preferable to pursue an early remedial action in a number of
situations. For instance, EPA may decide to use its remedial
action authorities — and therefore to follow the more extensive
State and public participation procedures required for such
actions — at certain sites where there is high public or State
interest, even if there is some associated delay. It may also be
appropriate to use remedial action authorities to accomplish
early actions where' a site is already listed on the NPL and the
remedial process is well underway.
The SAOt goal of
accelerating cleanups is not intended to displace other important
goals, such as the Agency's general policy of pursuing
enforcement efforts first. However, in order to effectuate both
goals, it will be necessary to carry out certain enforcement
actions in an expedited manner.
For instance, PRP searches must be conducted during the
initial phases of the site assessment process in order to allow
the Agency to pursue an effective enforcement strategy for early
actions. The early identification of and notice to PRP* will
also serve to strengthen EPA's cost recovery cases in situations
where the action is financed by the Fund in the first instance.
(Of course, a full PUP search may be impracticable in emergency
and certain time-critical situations where, for instance, the
PRPs.are numerous or difficult to determine.)
in addition, the decision to proceed with an early action
using removal action authorities may trigger shorter statutory
deadlines for the filing of judicial cost recovery actions in
0 Of course, such actions could also be accomplished, in
appropriate cases, under removal action authorities.
14 Note that Fund monies may be used to pay for the RI/FS
and remedial design activities even prior to listing on the NPL.
40 CFR 300.425(b)(1).
-------
13
10
Thus, if the use of removal authorities is
some cases
increased under the SACM model, it nay be necessary to prepare
cost recovery cases earlier in the process.
CONCLUSION
It is important to ensure that response actions conducted as
part of the SACM model are consistent with CERCLA and the NCP.
This will strengthen the Agency's ability to recover its costs,
to defend the selected response actions on a site-specific basis,
and to retain full support for the SACM initiative from Congress
and the public.
Questions concerning the issues discussed in this Directive
should be addressed to Sherry Hawkins of the Office of Emergency
and Remedial Response (OERR) (202-260-2180), Sally Mansbach of
the CERCLA Enforcement Division (OHPE/CED) (703-308-8404), or
Larry StarfieId of the office of General Counsel (OGC) (202-260-
1598).
cc: Richard Guimond
Henry Longest, OERR
Bruce Diamond, OWE
Tim Fields, SRO
OERR Division Director*
Bill White, OE
Sylvia Lovrance, OSW
Halter Kovalick, TZO
James MaJtris, CEPPO
Sally Man*been, CED
Sherry Hawkins, OERR
Larry Starfield, OGC
is
see CERCLA section li3(g)(2)(A) and (B) .
-------
SUPERFUND ACCELERATED CLEANUP MODEL (SACM)
\\\ XX
SUPERFUND REVITALIZATION PUBLIC FORUM
WASHINGTON, D.C.
JUNE 24, 1992
-------
-------
SUPERFUND ACCELERATED CLEANUP MODEL (SACM!)
The Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model will make Superfund work more efficiently by
streamlining the process in order to produce quick yet thorough risk reduction at ail
hazardous waste releases and sites.
Action to Immediately Reduce Risk and Provide Longer Term Environmental
Restoration
o A one step site screening and risk assessment at the front end of the process
o Regional management teams to "traffic cop" all sites
1} Early Action to reduce immediate risk to public and
environment and/or
2) Long-term Cleanup to restore environment
o A combination of enforcement, \community relations and public involvement
throughout the entire process
Results
o Immediate risk reduction
o Faster results - more cleanups
o More money into actual cleanup
o More effective by eliminating duplicative assessment
-------
-------
PROGRAM CHANGES UNDER NEW SUPERFUND MODEL
WHAT?
o
o
HOW?
O
O
O
o
o
RESULT
Cutting Years Off Early Action Clean Ups
Shifting Program Priority to Near Term Risk Reduction, Deferring for
Longer Consideration Long Term Actions
Maximizing the Flexibility of the NCP
Compressing/Accelerating Assessment Process
Performing Parallel Rather than Sequential Response Steps
All Sites Come In One Door - Count risk reduction from ail sites
Optimizing Contractor Use - Conbined FIT/TAT
Getting More Work Completed/Acheiving More Risk Reduction
-------
-------
u
l-»
•^
c
a
-o
0>
o
3
33
(D
O
(ft
m
o
>
f>
5'
(A
2. w
3>
o o
^^^
(A
(A
ffi
(A
(A
(0
3
*•+
M
o
"If
5
(Q
TJ
33
"D
CO
-------
-------
o
O
3
(D
Q)
O
m
o
(D
3
0)
O
O
i
a
o
>
I
1
0)
o
3
Q.
(D
O
o
(9
a
sl"
o
c
CD
0)
O
o"
3
(/)
•
(A
C
Q.
J2
3
Q)
3
(D
Q,
Q)
(A
0)
(D
W
"O
(D
(D
Q.
(D
Q)
o
z
PI
en
H
PI
en
en
en
en
en
m
Z
H
-------
-------
§}
oc
w«
m E
o
a
•o
1
I
SL
•o
Q.
(D
2.
o
•o
fi?
Q.
fi)
O
(D
fi)
3
TI
5'
8
O (D
<9 3 0)
: (D 3
S* 30)
og
o 3
11
C (D
3 X
v<
-------
-------
•o c/>
2.c
3 °"
» 2.
•3§
n
o) -,
w :=•
as.
co ^
c 2.
o §. S"
(0 (D
O
3
•o
(D
(A
oc
w«
m £
§1
mo
3) i
20 |
2.
o
«+
o
(Q
O
O
0)
0)
o
a.
(D
O.
S
(D
m
0)
>
o
£L>
|
5"
D
CD
a
•
3
3
(D
Q.
5'
S"
-------
-------
CO
o
CD
CD
Q)
CO
O
3
O
O^
CD
O
3
o"
3
IT
CD
CD
Q.
O
O
CO
0-H
C IT
fl
03
O
o'
CO
CD
.Q
CD
(D
Q)
CO
O
o.
CD
Q)
3
CD
CO
CD
o
c
-
CD
O
3
CD
CD
O
5'
I I O
* e 4
?n
I »
CD <•*
*i.S
-i 3 CO
«T
co"
CD
a
3
-n
o
CD
CD
a.
s.
o"
3
3
CO
CO
CD
CO
I I
«* CD
O W
3 I
3 3
£-. CD
§ 5s
? fi>
2.
CD
CO
O
z
o
H
n
H
O
z
-------
-------
&EPA
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Superfund Revitalization Office, OS-100
Unrted States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
(OS-100)
Publication 9202.1-03FS
June 1992
Regional Pilots and
Applications of Superfund
Accelerated Cleanup
Model (SACM)
Quick Reference Fact Sheet
CURRENT STATUS OF REGIONAL PILOT PROGRAMS
Overall Status of Regional Pilots:
- 27 Regional Pilots have been approved, including 10 thai
address the new Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model (SACM).
- Pilots address about 60 sites, half of which are short-term
site assessments under SACM.
- Expect results from most pilots over the next 6 to 18 months.
Maior Categories of Pilots are:
- SACM: 10 pilots addressing 32 site assessments and 4 early
actions.
- "Presumptive Remedies"/Streamlined Remedy Selection: 3
pilots addressing 6 site types.
- Early Enforcement: 10 pilots addressing 13-16 sites (de
minimis, voluntary cleanups, PRP searches and incentives).
SACM PILOTS
The Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model (SACM), a new
paradigm governing Superfund site cleanup, will integrate com-
mon elements of the current site assessment, removal and reme-
erocesses. Under the new model, assessment activities will
Insolidated to support both short-term cleanup actions and
|-term remedial actions. Regional Decision Teams will decide
whether a response is required and the type of response. Early
actions will typically require less then 5 years to complete, and
would address all immediate threats to human health and the
environment. Long-term actions will be reserved for sites with
severe contamination, whose remediation is likely to exceed 5
years. Incentive funding has been approved for the following
Regional pilots that test the recently introduced SACM.
Region 1 expects to accelerate the Superfund process through
its START initiative. The down time prior to the start of the
remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) at NPL sites will
be used to develop technical strategies that will allow the RI/FS
work plan to be more specific, focus investigations towards more
promising remedial alternatives, and identify appropriate use of
early action removal authorities. Decision Teams will also be set
up to speed the assessment process at 10 more NPL sites in Region
1.
Similar pilots will be put in place in Regions 2 and 8 that aim
to combine and streamline the expanded site inspection (ES I) and
RI/FS, and complete the work by the time a site is proposed for the
NPL. For these pilots, the Regions will select high priority Fund-
lead sites (likely to score over 28.5 on the HRS). At the sites, a
•ARCS contractor will perform the ESI and RI/FS activities
simultaneously preparing the HRS package, eliminating
in the flow of the site cleanup and allowing the Regions to
achieve economiesof scale in the process. Early plume movement
identification at groundwater contamination sites will be one of
the potential benefits of this Region 2 pilot. Region 9 will
undertake an assessment of 30 sites to evaluate the feasibility of
combining SI and RI activities. This assessment will have the goal
of identifying various sampling activities and investigations that
will meet multiple program needs.
An interdisciplinary team in Region 3 will be used to develop
and implement an approach for evaluating NPL sites for early
actions. The team will develop a questionnaire to be used to screen
sites and criteria for determining which program authorities and
funding mechanisms can be used at candidate sites. Region 3 will
also undertake a thorough management review to identify oppor-
tunities for completions, and will establish a Site Completion
Coordinator who will implement strategies ranging from reducing
required actions to developing incentives for PRPs to reduce
project times,
A team approach for site screening and assessment will be
implemented in Region 5. This approach is expected to accelerate
the cleanup process by combining the sampling needs of the
various program elements.
Region 6expects to shorten the overall Superfund process for
both Fund- and RP-lead sites by combining the techniques now
being used in the Lightning ROD pilots with the integration
themes of SACM (such as an emphasis on Regional management
teams). Remedial actions will start in the year following site
identification on the NPL, and the National Zinc at Bartlesville
site will serve as a model in this process.
Region 10 expedited cleanup using removal authority at the
Yakima Plating site and two NPL sites. These cases require
surface contamination removal, but no groundwater restoration.
-------
EARLY ENFORCEMENT PILOTS
Region 1 willexploreanddemonstrateinnovativeapproaches
to structuring the Statement of Work (SOW) that accompanies
consent decrees at selected pilot sites over the next six to eight
month;;. Restructuring Jhe SOW may result in more timely PRP
remedies by providing incentives and disincentives in the RD/RA
negotiation process for completing cleanup ahead of schedule.
In the Laurel Park/Beacon Heights case, early enforcement
initiatives will be used to accelerate settlements with third party
municipal solid waste entities. Approximately 1,200 letters will
be sent and research conducted on about 800 parties.
In order to develop a single settlement proposal for negotia-
tions, Region 3 is planning a proactive settlement with 551 de
minimis parties at the Tonolli Corporation site. The Region will
send a letter with the waste-in list to the de minimis group
announcing a "kick off" meeting and encouraging the parties to
organize and establish a steering committee.
Reducing "dead time" between the ROD and theRD/RA part
of the pipeline is the purpose of enforcement strategy meetings to
be held in Region 3. With the resultsof these meetings, the Region
will enter negotiations having addressed the following:
- PRP search preparedness;
- incorporation of performance review standards into RODs;
- expanded use of removal authorities at NPL sites.
An "enforcement first" program is being implemented in
Region 4 at the Greenback Industries site and two other sites. The
Region combined-lSSJ and RI/FS activities into one PRP-lead
event, and is being performed simultaneously with the NPL listing
activities. The major benefit of this stiategy will be voluntary PRP
cleanup (under an administrative order on consent) with EPA
oversight. Region 4 is also starting a pilot at Aquatech on early de
minimis settlements concurrent with on-going removal and en-
forcement activities.
In Region 8, the PRP is willing to clean up the Kennecott
Mine site and address all other environmental issues in order to
continue operating the mine for the remaining years of its life. The
final product of the negotiations is anticipated to be an enforceable
consent decree in which Kennecott will perform the investigations
and all cleanup with oversight by EPA and the state.
Another pilot in Region 8 is planned for the Annie Creek site.
The Region intends to use both Superfund and Clean Water Act
authorities in a cross-media project to expedite cleanup at the site.
Based on a list of potential incentives for PRPs to settle
quickly and proceed to early RD and cleanup. Region 8 adminis-
trators and managers will coordinate with various EPA offices and
DOJ to apply these incentives at three to five pilot sites. The pilot
may result in identifying incentives that may be useful at similar
sites.
RD/RA activities at the Operating Industries, Inc. site in
Region 9 will be accelerated by pressing for an early settlement
with the 3,500 de minimis PRPs. The Region will notify the
parties of liability and negotiate remedy implementation by the
end of 1993, possibly setting precedents for size, monetary value,
and timeframe if a de minims settlement of this nature can be
achieved.
In Region 10, a pilot is planned to improve the quality and
timeliness of PRP searches to address the "perception of fairness"
issue in enforcement activities and settlements. The Region will
make available its- recommendations for streamlining the PRP
search process and addressing equity issues in the enforcem]
program.
PRESUMPTIVE REMEDY PILOTS
To streamline the cleanup process, Regions are piloting a new
approach to remedy selection. Grouping sites by characteristics,
such as contamination and geology, Regions will compile lists of
successful, or "presumptive", remedies. This new approach will
allow the standardization of cleanup goals, RODs, Statement of
Work (SOW) language, and risk assessment scenarios. These
"presumptive remedies" are being tested in several Regions at
pilot sites to evaluate their success.
S tandardized RODs may be used in Region 9 to accelerate the
cleanup at a site near Phoenix. Similar contamination and
geology at the northern (NIBW) and southern (SIBW) sections of
the Indian Bend Wash site provide a good setting for this pilot as
the RODs developed for the operable units (OUs) at the NIBW site
are almost directly applicable to the SIBW site. The Region plans
to use the RODs and alternatives analysis developed for soil and
groundwater VOC contamination at NIB W to quickly create new
RODs for the OUs at the SIBW site.
Reg ion 7 proposes to develop standard cleanup goals, remedy
types, ROD and SOW language, and risk assessment scenarios for
grain storage sites, PCB sites, and coal gasification sites. Pilot
sites will be selected for application of the standards and a j
will be developed to update the standards as science and res
tions change.
Region 6 is piloting a project that will shorten the RI/FS
timeframe by 75 percent at three sites. The Region will achieve
this reduction by drawing on previous experience with similar
sites to conduct a focused FS and standardize certain design
elements. This approach is being piloted at the Popile Inc., West
Memphis Landfill, and American Creosote sites.
OTHER PILOTS
Three regions have introduced innovative projects that aim to
improve the Superfund program in general.
An Outreach Specialist will be employed in Region 10 to
impart the accomplishments of Superfund to the public, the press,
Congress, and interested groups. The goals of the pilot are to
improve communications and to open an avenue to counter
criticism of the program.
Region 3 is focusing on improvements in the Contract Labo-
ratory Program. The Region is updating data protocols and
streamlining documentation, providing training to private sector
labs, and producing a guidance document for data audits. Region
8 is planninga pilot that will accelerate FY 93 completions. Using
referrals to state authorities, expedited FS for soil contamination,
greater use of removal authorities, and working with
PRPs. Region 8 anticipates accomplishing an additional 5 com
tions in FY 93. The pilot programs will be incorporated into
at the following sites: Williams Pipe Line, Denver RadiumT
Mystery Bridge, Broderick Wood, and Chemical Sales.
-2-
-------
.4
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office o<
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
Publication 9203.1-021
May 1992
Superfund Accelerated
Cleanup Bulletin
Presumptive Remedies for Wood Treatment
Facilities
Superfund Revrtalization Activity
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
Emergency Response Division OS-21C
Intermittent Bulletin
Volume t Number 2
The Presumptive Remedy Selection Initiative
*
Since Superfund's inception in 1980, the removal and remedial programs have found that certain categories of sites have
similar characteristics, such as the types of contaminants present, past industrial use, or the environmental media that are
affected. Based on a wealth of information acquired from evaluating and cleaning up these sites, Superfund is undertaking
an initiative to develop presumptive remedies that are appropriate for specific types of sites, contaminants, or both. This
initiative is part of a larger program, known as the Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model (SACM), which is designed to
speed all aspects of the Superfund clean-up process.
The objective of the presumptive remedies initiative is to use clean-up techniques shown to be effective in the past at similar
sites in the future. The use of presumptive remedies will streamline site studies and removal and remedial clean-up actions,
thereby improving consistency, reducing costs, and increasing the speed with which hazardous waste sites are remediated.
factors to be considered in selecting remedies.
The ma trix is being developed by the Office
of Emergency and Remedial Response's
<^A Environmental Response Team.
*2 ORD Guidance. Currently in
draft form, this document will
evaluate the effectiveness of vari-
ous technologies on the types of
wastes commonly round at wood-
treatment sites. The Technology
Selection Matrix will complement
this guidance.
why Wood Treatment Sites?
Our removal and remedial programs
have worked at almost 90 \\-ood-treat-
ment sites, many of them on the
National Priorities List (NPL),
gaining a great deal of data and
experience in the process. Three
primary typesof contaminants, in-
cluding dioxin, usually predomi-
nate at these sites. The facilities
tend to be similar. And EPA knows
a great deal about assessing such
sites, handling the contaminants,
and, ultimately, disposing of wood-treatment waste. The
Agency's Office of Research and Development (ORD) has
also extensively studied these sites. With all this accumu-
lated experience and information, Superfund is ready to
establish presumptive remedies that will standardize rem-
edv selection for contaminated wood-treatment sites.
What Are the Components of the Presumptive
Remedy Initiative?
wood-treatment presumptive remedy initiative has
components:
Technology Selection Matrix This will be a guide to
the clean-up technologies known to be appropriate
for wood-treatment sites cross-tabulated with the
Faster... C/eaner...Safer
Expert Teams. The Office of Emergency and Reme-
dial Response (OERR) will establish a team of wood-
treatment site experts who can help evaluate sites
and aid in making decisions on appropriate clean-up
methodologies.
Computer-Assisted Remedy Selection. Currently
under development is a computer program that will
provide appropriate remedy information based on
site characteristics. Although not a substitute for
expert decision-making, the program will lead users
through the remedy-selection process by narrowing
the scope of options, using site characteristics and
technology considerations.
Pilot Sites. OERR is looking for wood-treatment
sites where it can test its presumptive remedy initia-
tive.
-------
A
What Will This Initiative Accomplish?
EPA expects the presumptive remedy initiative to reduce
the time spent on RJ/F5s and to help better integrate the
removal and remedial programs-
By being better prepared when the assessment starts—i.e.,
knowing what contaminants to expect and the best ways to
deal with them—and by using a team of experts, we can
reduce the time spent on RI/FSs considerably. Currently,
individual sites may undergo similar, sequential assess-
ments from the removal program, the site assessment
program, the remedial program, and even the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) program. In
addition, the U.S. Public Health Service's Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), State and local
agencies, and even private parties may conduct their own
studies. A standardized sampling and assessment process
may reduce the consecutive studies required at these sites.
We expect to do comprehensive cleanup of hazardous
waste sites through Superfund's removal or remedial au-
thority. The team of experts contemplated by the pre-
sumptive remedy initiative will cross program lines, as
will their participation at individual sites. The presump-
tive remedies will be applicable regardless of which aspect
of Superhand is responsible for the site cleanup.
How Will This Initiative Affect Innovative
Technologies?
Innovative technologies will always be important to Su-
perfund, since they can reduce disposal quantities, and
save time and money. The team of experts will consider the
use of innovative technologies at specific sites. As experi-
ence is gained, we will incorporate appropriate innovative
technologies into the technology* matrix. They may also be
incorporated in the computer-assisted remedy selection
program.
What Is to Follow?
Similar presumptive remedy initiatives for other types of
sites, such as landfills and metal-plating facilities are cur-
rently before the presumptive remedy workgroup. The
typesofcontaminates to be addressed include PCBs,asbes-
tos, solvents, pesticides, metals, and dioxin.
Further information on the wood-treatmerr site initiative
is available from Harry Allen of the £n\--ronmental Re-
sponse Team at FTS 340-6740, or (201) 321-6740.
-------
•
UNITED STAltS £ NVIRONMIMT AI_ PRO I LOTION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 204GO
MAY 4 1992
ICE OF
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
'ocd Treatment
Publication of "Presumptive Remedies for
Facilities" Bulletin
'I '
Henry L. Longest II, Director
Office of Emergency and Remedial R
Director, Waste Management Division
Regions I, IV, V, VII
Director, Emergency and Remedial Response Division
Region II
Director, Hazardous Waste Management Division
Regions III, VI, VIII, IX
Director, Hazardous Waste Division
Region X
Director, Environmental Services Division
Regions I, VI, VII
PURPOSE
This is to transmit to you the premiere issue of the
"Presumptive Remedies for Wood Treatment Facilities" Bulletin, as
part of our effort to implement the Superfund Accelerated Cleanurs
Model (SACK).
BACKGROUND
The Superfund program has evaluated and cleaned up mar.y
sites since its inception in 1980. The removal and remedial
actions performed in this endeavor demonstrate that sites can be
categorized by similar characteristics, such as the types cf
contaminants present, past industrial use, or environmental media
that are affected. Based on our collective experience, we are
identifying "presumptive remedies" that are appropriate for
specific site categories.
OBJECTIVE
The objective of the presumptive remedies initiative is to
streamline site studies and clean-up actions to improve
consistency, reduce cost and increase the speed vith vhich
hazardous waste sites are addressed. Wood-treatnent sites were
selected as one of the categories of sites to which presuisptive
remedies may be quickly applied.
"*yC Pnted on Rfxyded Paper
-------
IMPLEMENTATION
0
The attached "Presumptive Remedies for Wood Treatment
Facilities" Bulletin is the first in a series of bulletins on
wood-treatment sites. The presumptive remedy approach will be
inplemented by Superfund Regional managers, Expert Teams and site
managers, with support from the Environmental Response Team and
Headquarters. The attached bulletin introduces the presumptive
remedy approach and describes five components to implement this
approach. Thesescomponents include, 1) A Technology Selection
Matrix, 2) ORD Guidance, 3) Expert Teams, 4) Computer-Assisted
Remedy Selection,? and 5} Pilot Sites. Similar presumptive remedy
initiatives for other types of sites, such as landfills and
metal-plating facilities are in development by the presumptive
remedy workgroup. Please contact Harry Allen of the
Environmental Response Team, at FTS 340-6740, or (201) 321-6740,
for further information on the wood-treatment site initiative.
Attachment
cc Don Clay, OSWER
Richard Guimond, OSWER
OERR Division Directors
Bruce Diamond, OWPE
Walt Kovalick, TIO
John Skinner, ORD
Ben Blaney, ORD
Superfund Branch Chiefs, Regions I-X
Removal Managers, Regions I-X
f
-------
UNITED STATtS E N'VIHONMtN I AL. PRO I Ld ION AGC'NiCY
WASHINGTON. D.C 204GO
MAY 4 1992
Of ' ICt Of
WASTL AND tMtRGENC V RESPONSE
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
Publication of "Presumptive Remedies for
Facilities" Bulletin
ood Treatment
Henry L. Longest II, Director
Office of Emergency and Remedial R
Director, Waste Management Division
Regions I, IV, V, VII
Director, Emergency and Remedial Response Division
Region II
Director, Hazardous Waste Management Division
Regions III, VI, VIII, IX
Director, Hazardous Waste Division
Region X
Director, Environmental Services Division
Regions I, VI, VII
PURPOSE
This is to transmit to you the premiere issue of the
"Presumptive Remedies for Wood Treatment Facilities" Bulletin, as
part of our effort to implement the Superfund Accelerated Cleanup
Model (SACM).
BACKGROUND
The Superfund program has evaluated and cleaned up many
sites since its inception in 1980. The removal and remedial
actions performed in this endeavor demonstrate that sites can be
categorized by similar characteristics, such as the types of
contaminants present, past industrial use, or environmental media
that are affected. Based on our collective experience, we are
identifying "presumptive remedies" that are appropriate for
specific site categories.
OBJECTIVE
The objective of the presumptive remedies initiative is to
streamline site studies and clean-up actions to improve
consistency, reduce cost and increase the speed with which
hazardous waste sites are addressed. Wood-treatment sites were
selected as one of the categories of sites to which presumptive
remedies may be quickly applied.
*iy Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
IMPLEMENTATION
The attached "Presumptive Remedies for Wood Treatment
Facilities" Bulletin is the first in a series of bulletins on
wood-treatment sites. The presumptive remedy approach will be
implemented by Superfund Regional managers, Expert Teams and site
managers, with support from the Environmental Response Team and
Headquarters. The attached bulletin introduces the presumptive
remedy approach and describes five components to implement this
approach. These components include, 1) A Technology Selection
Matrix, 2) ORD Guidance, 3) Expert Teams, 4) Computer-Assisted
Remedy Selection, and 5) Pilot Sites. Similar presumptive remedy
initiatives for other types of sites, such as landfills and
metal-plating facilities are in development by the presumptive
remedy workgroup, please contact Harry Allen of the
Environmental Response Team, at FTS 340-6740, or (201) 321-6740,
for further information on the wood-treatment site initiative.
Attachment
cc Don Clay, OSWER
Richard Guimond, OSWER
OERR Division Directors
Bruce Diamond, OWPE
wait Kovalick, TIO
John Skinner, ORD
Ben Blaney, ORD
Superfund Branch Chiefs, Regions I-X
Removal Managers, Regions I-X
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
Publication 9203.1-02!
May 1992
Superfund Accelerated
Cleanup Bulletin
Presumptive Remedies for Wood Treatment
Facilities
Superfund Revitalization Activity
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
Emergency Response Division OS-210
Intermittent Bulletin
Volume 1 Number 2
The Presumptive Remedy Selection Initiative
Since Superfund's inception in 1980, the removal and remedial programs have found that certain categories of sites have
similar characteristics, such as the types of contaminants present, past industrial use, or the environmental media that are
affected. Based on a wealth of information acquired from evaluating and cleaning up these sites, Superfund is undertaking
an initiative to develop presumptive remedies that are appropriate for specific types of sites, contaminants, or both. This
initiative is part of a larger program, known as the Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model (SACM), which is designed to
speed all aspects of the Superfund clean-up process.
The objective of the presumptive remedies initiative is to use clean-up techniques shown to be effective in the past at similar
sites in the future. The use of presumptive remedies will streamline site studies and removal and remedial clean-up actions,
thereby improving consistency, reducing costs, and increasing the speed with which hazardous waste sites are remediated.
y Wood Treatment Sites?
Our removal and remedial programs
have worked at almost 90 wood-treat-
ment sites, many of them on the
National Priorities List (NPL),
gaming a great deal of data and
experience in the process. Three
primary types of contaminants, in-
cluding dioxin, usually predomi-
nate at these sites. The facilities
tend to be similar. And EPA knows
a great deal about assessing such
sites, handling the contaminants,
and, ultimately, disposing of wood-treatment waste. The
Agency's Office of Research and Development (ORD) has
also extensively studied these sites. With all this accumu-
lated experience and information, Superfund is ready to
establish presumptive remedies that will standardize rem-
edv selection for contaminated wood-treatment sites.
What Are the Components of the Presumptive
Remedy Initiative?
wood-treatment presumptive remedy initiative has
components:
Technology Selection Matrix. This will be a guide to
the clean-up technologies known to be appropriate
for wood-treatment sites cross-tabulated with the
Faster... C/eaner..,Safer
factors to be considered in selecting remedies.
The matrix is being developed by the Off ice
of Emergency and Remedial Response's
!& Environmental Response Team.
^ ORD Guidance. Currently in
draft form, this document will
evaluate the effectiveness of vari-
ous technologies on the types of
wastes commonly found at wood-
treatment sites. The Technology
Selection Matrix will complement
this guidance.
Expert Teams. The Office of Emergency and Reme-
dial Response (OERR) will establish a team of wood-
treatment site experts who can help evaluate sites
and aid in making decisions on appropriate clean-up
methodologies.
Computer-Assisted Remedy Selection. Currently
under development is a computer program that will
provide appropriate remedy information based on
site characteristics. Although not a substitute for
expert decision-making, the program will lead users
through the remedy-selection process by narrowing
the scope of options, using site characteristics and
technology considerations.
Pilot Sites. OERR is looking for wood-treatment
sites where it can test its presumptive remedy initia-
tive.
-------
What Will This Initiative Accomplish?
EPA expects the presumptive remedy initiative to reduce
the time spent on RI/FSs and to help better integrate the
removal and remedial programs.
By being better prepared when the assessment starts—i.e.,
knowing what contaminants to expect and the best ways to
deal with them—and by using a team of experts, we can
reduce the time spent on RI/FSs considerably. Currently,
individual sites may undergo similar, sequential assess-
ments from the removal program, the site assessment
program, the remedial program, and even the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) program. In
addition, the U.S. Public Health Service's Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), State and local
agencies, and even private parties may conduct their own
studies. A standardized sampling and assessment process
may reduce the consecutive studies required at these sites.
We expect to do comprehensive cleanup of hazardous
waste sites through Superfund's removal or remedial au-
thority. The team of experts contemplated by the pre-
sumptive remedy initiative will cross program lines, as
will their participation at individual sites. The presump-
tive remedies will be applicable regardless of which aspect
of Superfund is responsible for the site cleanup.
How Will This Initiative Affect Innovative
Technologies?
Innovative technologies will always be important to Su-
perfund, since they can reduce disposal quantities, and
save time and money. The team of experts will consider the
use of innovative technologies at specific sites. As experi-
ence is gained, we will incorporate appropriate innovative
technologies into the technology matrix. They may also be
incorporated in the computer-assisted remedy selection
program.
What Is to Follow?
Similar presumptive remedy initiatives for other types of
sites, such as landfills and metal-plating facilities are cur-
rently before the presumptive remedy workgroup. The
types of contaminates to be addressed include PCBs, asbes-
tos, solvents, pesticides, metals, and dioxin.
Further information on the wood-treatment site initiative
is available from Harry Allen of the Environmental Re-
sponse Team at FTS 340-6740, or (201) 321-6740.
-------
I
j U ^ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
v* WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
/
APR 7 1992
PUBLICATION NO. 9203.1-01
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
IMPORTANT - ALL READ
BECAUSE THIS MEMORANDUM IS SO IMPORTANT, I AM DIRECTING
DESK-TO-DESK DELIVERY TO EVERY SUPERFUND EMPLOYEE
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model (SACM)
FROM: Don R. Clay 4
Assistant Adm
TO: All Superfund Staff, Managers, Regions, and HQs
As most of you know, the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, has been
working on a new model for streamlining and accelerating the
Superfund program. Plans for full development of the Superfund
Accelerated Cleanup Model (SACM) began after the Administrator's
approval on February 27.
The concept, borne of staff creativity and Total Quality
Management, has been designed to make Superfund work better, and
deliver results the public will value: 1) quick reduction of
acute risks at all Superfund sites (removal and remedial) and 2)
restoration of the environment over the long term. The new model
consists of:
o A one step site screening and risk assessment at the
front end of the process
o Regional management teams to "traffic cop" all sites
to:
1) Early Action to reduce immediate risk to people and
the environment and/or
2) Long-term Cleanup to restore environment; and
o A combination of enforcement, community relations and
„ public involvement throughout the entire process.
33 HEADQUARTERS LIBRARY
LU ENV.;.\. 'MENFAi. PROTECTION AGENCY
-^ WASHIKGiGN. D.C. 20460
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
-2-
The promise of implementing SACK is that we can achieve
immediate risk reduction at a larger number of sites, do the work
more efficiently, move more money into actual cleanup, and work
more effectively by eliminating duplicative assessment steps.
Representatives from Headquarters and the Regions will meet
in mid-April to brainstorm, resolve issues, and develop solutions
and real-time plans to implement SACM.
This concept has been presented to diverse and sizable
audiences, and while it has produced many comments and questions,
it has been well-received and has generated a good deal of
enthusiasm and support.
Since this will be the future of the program, I urge you
to familiarize yourself with the SACM conceptual write-up and
briefing package attached. I also urge the development of dialog
on SACM implementation at all levels and across all functions in
the Superfund program, both in Headquarters and the Regions.
I will keep you informed of updates and changes that may occur.
Attachments
-------
SUPERFUND ACCELERATED
CLEANUP MODEL (SACM!)
THE NEW SUPERFUND PARADIGM
Introduction
The present Superfund program operates within a complex and, at times circuitous
pattern that was designed ten years ago to accommodate a new and complicated law,
then tinkered with as the program lurched from its infancy. The result has been a
somewhat "jerry built" structure, altered to fit everyone's perceived needs and a host of
conflicting expectations, but basically satisfying few. Early implementation focused on
numerous intricate administrative and legal requirements. However, recent budget
emphasis has dramatically shifted towards construction; policy emphasis has moved from
Fund to enforcement. Various committees and workgroups continue to suggest ways to
speed up the process. Congress will soon consider many ideas for restructuring under
Reauthorization.
Amidst this evolution, however, a few facts are unlikely to change - the public does
not understand our present process or grasp the full scope of our work. It wants faster
cleanups, and believes that enough money has been given to Superfund to get the job
done. The bottom line is that we can expect neither a lowering of expectations, nor a
rise in resources. These factors have crystallized into a new focus on radically speeding
up and streamlining the program.
OERR/OSWER 3/1/92
-------
-2-
Backeround
The current system for Superfund cleanups is based on two discrete programs -
remedial and removal. The remedial component is a series of steps to define and
address long term cleanup sites on the National Priorities List (NFL). Separate and
apart are the activities of the removal program. These sites enter our system through a
different "door," usually the States (through the National Response Center) seeking our
help at a specific release. Some are spontaneous "screaming emergencies," others are
prioritized for short term action as money becomes available. While the removal
program generally does not address ground water, many of the other risks and response
actions associated with the two programs are similar. Yet, there are enormous
differences between remedial and removal actions regarding the depth of investigation,
and cost and time expended to complete a cleanup.
In summary, the innate complexity of our process and our heretofore unsuccessful
attempts to portray progress have left the Superfund program highly vulnerable to
criticism. Therefore, we must focus attention on a few major outcomes that the public
will value. - We must make sure we deliver these outcomes and do it in terms the
public will understand. For this reason, the new Superfund paradigm must be:
simple and flexible ~ to allow fastest
possible, worst first, risk reduction;
-------
-3-
o free of administrative contrivances that
divide and diffuse the totality of reduced
risk at remedial and removal sites;
o realistically achievable in that we make
realistic cleanup commitments and deliver
them on time; and
o focused on rapid protection of people and the
environment and disconnected from the single
and unattainable goal of returning all
groundwater to pristine condition.
f
The New Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model
Under this paradigm all sites on which Superfund takes any kind of cleanup action
are Superfund sites. The distinctions between "remedial" and "removal" are eliminated.
Rather than viewing these two entities as separate programs, they are viewed as separate
legal authorities with different, but complimentary, application at Superfund sites.
Rather than entering the program through one of two doors marked "remedial" or
"removal", all sites enter through one marked "Superfund". All site assessment takes
place in one program, combining, as appropriate, elements of present removal
-------
assessments, PA/SIs, RI/FSs, and risk assessments. During the assessment process, a
Regional Decision Team institutes short term activities that address ail threats to the
health and safety of the existing population. These actions include cleanup activities
generally taking no more than three or, at the most, five years - a reasonable time frame
based on the program's demonstrated ability to identify and address immediate risks to
people and the environment within three to five years. '
These activities are published in the Federal Register (for public information
purposes only, not as a rulemaking) on an Early Action List. It is crucial to note here,
that though these actions 'are "short term" and quickly implemented, they could eliminate
the majority of human risk from Superfund sites. Enforcement activities would
commence with immediate PRP notification, expedited orders/negotiation, and
opportunity for voluntary cleanup. Because the vast majority of risk reduction occurs in
this part of the program, most of EPA's public participation/information activities are
focused here. Community relations and opportunities for Technical Assistance Grants
(TAGs) continue as they do today. The State role is confirmed in its present
configuration; further, they can continue with their own State-funded programs, resulting
in a net increase of cleaned-up sites nationwide.
The Regional Decision Team can also determine if and when long term remediation
(e.g., ground water restoration) is appropriate. Sites would then be placed on the Long
-------
-5-
Term Remediation List (formerly known as the NFL), and cleaned up over many years.
Regional Decision Teams could also decide that no Federal action was appropriate or
that the site should be deferred to RCRA or other response authority.
The major parameters of this concept are outlined below.
1. Single Site Assessment Function. There are a number of redundancies
in the beginning of the program as it is structured today. Hazardous waste
sites can receive numerous similar, but sequential, assessments before any
kind of cleanup begins. Sites are evaluated by the removal program
(removal assessments), the site assessment program (PAs, Sis, Expanded
;
Sis, and Hazard Ranking System (HRS) scoring), the remedial program
(RIs, baseline risk assessments, and FSs), and even the RCRA program.
ATSDR, State, local, and private party assessments may also occur. Many,
if not most of these assessments start from scratch, - they do not
necessarily take into consideration the information and data generated by
the studies that preceded them. This happens not only because of the
obvious financial incentives to the contractor community and the human
inclination to distrust the work of others, but because each part of the
program is gathering data to respond to its particular perceived need. The
site-assessment program wants to know if it will score on the HRS; the
-------
coco
-------
-6-
removal program wants to know if the site is going to blow up; the
remedial program wants to know the extent of the ground water plume, the
size of the cap, etc.
Large amounts of time and money are expended on the process of
executing separate contracts, mobilizing sampling teams, designing
sampling strategies, modifying health and safety plans, etc., as each pan
of the program goes out to "feel a different part of the elephant."
Assessment, in all of its forms, now absorbs far more time than any other
part of the process. The public believes that the program has been
cleaning up sites for ten years with little result. It does not know that
f
much of this time has been spent in various parts of the assessment
process. Whole steps in this redundant process must be combined if the
goal of expediting cleanup is to be achieved. The FIT/TAT contract
mechanism could support this combined assessment effort and thereby
assist in blending the remedial/removal "cultures."
In some Regions, there will be no reason for a two-staged screening
function (PA followed by SI) since there will be no backlog of sites to be
screened. Discovered sites could be screened once and, if serious, go
-------
-7-
directly to RI level data collection and risk assessment. Appropriate short
term cleanup activity, combined with public participation/outreach, and
expedited enforcement action (i.e., FRF search, information gathering, and
notification) could begin immediately. ..These changes in the assessment
process could save several years, since the level and type of risk posed by
the site would be understood and often eliminated prior to listing.
Placing all site assessment activities in one area would require the
development of new protocols but they would serve many needs. Rigid
QA/QC procedures would assure the integrity and multiple-usability of the
data developed.
2. Regional Decision/Management Teams. Regions often know the most
likely course of action to remediate a site well before the decision process
allows them to act. In future years that capacity certainly will expand. The
Region Decision Teams would "traffic cop" sites onto the Early Action List
and/or score long term restoration actions such as ground water sites for
inclusion on the Long Term Remediation List. In addition, standards for
both remediation levels and technologies are likely to have been developed
and accepted. This move toward standardization will both speed up the
decision making process and allow increased flexibility in the staging or
-------
-8-
timing of various activities. The chief benefits are the ability to:
o make early action decisions while studies continue;
o carry out relatively short term cleanup steps that
may in many cases be all that is necessary without '
triggering the site listing process;
o stay flexible while various activities are going
on, rather than keeping functions in rigid and
sequential boxes;
o effectively utilize the decision making expertise
in the Regions, delegating where appropriate
(e.g., standard remedy selection), to the project
manager level to speed cleanups; and
o realize time and cost economies.
Regional Decision/Management Teams would require the skills of the most
experienced managers (Fund and Enforcement), site and risk assessors, on-scene
-------
.9-
coordinators (OSC), remedial project managers (RPM), Community Relations
coordinators and State officials, as appropriate. The OSC and RPM individual
site management function would eventually become combined, which would
further increase the efficiency of the process. Enforcement orders and
negotiations would be conducted within strict deadlines. Cleanup could be
performed by PRPs and appropriately overseen by the Agency. Training and
commitment on the part of Supertund Headquarters and Regional management
can help overcome different cultures that now exist and use the combined
expertise in the remedial, removal, and enforcement programs to achieve the
common goal of risk' reduction.
3. Earlv Actions. Risks at NPL sites fall into a number of categories, but most
commonly are associated with the direct contact with wastes or contaminated soil,
or drinking contaminated water from ground water sources. Source control steps
taken early in the remedial process, such as drum removal, soil cleanup and
access restraints, as well as alternate drinking water provision, frequently provide
substantial risk reduction to existing populations. Actions taken under removal
authorities are designed to address just such risks.
Early Actions would be an expansion of current removal activities. In fact,
we have already interpreted and expanded removal authority to allow continuing
-------
-10
cleanup actions at NPL sites if consistent with remedial actions (e.g., Radium
Chemical, White Chemical, Avtex, Publicker). True emergency situations such as
train derailments would continue to be handled as they are today. Surface
cleanup associated with remedial actions, (i.e. actions other than long term ground
water pump and treat or extensive site restoration technologies such as large
mining site cleanups, wetlands/estuaries remediation, or extended incineration
projects), would be carried out through the Early Action phase of the program.
This would include such activities as:
o waste and soil removal,
o preventing access,
;
o capping landfills,
o moving people,
o providing alternate drinking water sources.
Most important, all immediate threats to public health and safety would be
addressed in this part of the process. While standardized cleanups for similar
sites would expedite many cleanups, innovative technology would be used
whenever it is faster, more efficient, more acceptable to the public, less expensive,
or less environmentally impactive. Both standardized and innovative treatment
technologies offer opportunities for cost efficiencies.
-------
-11-
The public could be notified of activities at these Superfund sites through a
quarterly Federal Register notice - the Early Action List. Sites would be listed
when the decision to cleanup was made, then documented and delisted when the
work was completed. Public input would be achieved through all the mechanisms
(possibly including TAGs) that are now used by the program's community
relations professionals. Most important, Superfund progress would be measured
against .a]l of its risk reduction activities and most of those activities would be
completed rapidly. Under the New Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model, the
Agency would commit itself first and foremost to substantially reducing or
eliminating threats to public health and the environment within a specified time
frame and that time frame would be short. This commitment would be EPA's
primary measure of success.
4. Long Term Remediation. Sites requiring ground water restoration or long
term remediation (e.g., mining sites, extended incineration projects,
wetlands/estuaries) would be published in the Federal Register on the Long Term
Remediation List. They would not be placed there until the need for such
remediation activities was clearly established by the site assessment function.
Many sites would already have been addressed under the Early Action phase,
eliminating the need to evaluate many of the issues that hold up RODs today.
Enforcement opportunities would be vigorously pursued using the full arsenal of
-------
-12-
Enforcement tools to obtain PRP participation. Community Relations would be
performed and public participation fostered. Innovative technologies and
standardized cleanups would be used, as appropriate. Of greatest benefit, the
public would understand that the actions placed on this list would require many
years, if not decades, to clean up, but would pose no immediate threat at all to
existing populations. Removing the ground water restoration question to a
separate part of the decision making process would also allow for a more
reasonable evaluation of the benefits and costs of such restoration. Public policy
makers could then more reasonably decide which ground water resources warrant
priority action given limited funding.
Implementation
This concept has been developed in Headquarters and discussed with several
Regions. The next step is to hypothetically run some sites through the proposed process
and see if there are any unforeseen "stoppers." After receiving Agency management
approval, as well as DOJ endorsement, appropriate White House, OMB and
Congressional contacts would be briefed. The next step would be tested on a pilot basis
in one or two Regions. Various Regional pilots are being reviewed for utility in the
execution of the process. The timing is very opportune considering the congruence of
current recommendations for improving and streamlining Superfund.
-------
-13-
Conclusion
A program guaranteeing prioritized public health protection at all sites, without
programmatic distinction, within five years of site identification, and having, as a separate
activity, the long and difficult job of environmental media restoration, has a better
chance of being understood, appreciated, and, therefore, publicly supported.
Counting the totality of risk reduction rather than focusing on NPL site deletions, is
a simple, uncontrived, and true expression of the work of the program. It fulfills several
/
of our most basic needs in building public confidence. First and most important, it
focuses the program on the very substantial risk reduction that is now achieved, and
achievable. Second, it focusses on the distinction between sites with the risk reduced to
safe levels because of completed surface cleanup and those sites presenting no
immediate threat, but requiring decades to complete. And third, it supplies what the
public expects, and has every reason to expect from a program called "Superfund" - the
achievement of appropriate cleanup at large numbers of sites.
-------
-------
§
1
Q.
I - 1
W
i-J
PQ
o
w
ffi
H
H
<
EC
O
o
Q.
•c
0)
a.
I
o
w m
*- 0)
0)
"o
£
0)
£
CO
CO
CO
a>
o
o
e oc
§cc
WO
c
JO
Q.
-------
CD
W
u
O
D
2
13
w
en
N
2
w
U
PJ
CO
t
CO
§
i
o
OC
I
w
|
I
i
1
1
-------
OLUTION
CD
W
K
H
CD
H
•<
X
£
1^^
cc
UJ
UJ
m
^
DC
O
Q
Z
3
•^
LL
QC
UJ
Q.
3
0)
UJ
^>
0)
"5
1
2
0.
»
Jtf
0
"5
o
•
•
E
fe
6)
c
l_
0)
o
?
ronmei
c
0)
estore
cc
•
CO
O)
o
Q.
0)
1
CO
£
CO
^
^K
O
S
•o
CO
CO
CO
0)
•o
0)
to
c
1
\n
•
2
To
«p
w
o
•o
CO
o.
X
Ul
•
•
Q
3
c
CO
0)
0
o
c
<&
<&
"S
c
3
U-
•
§
I
SflC
UJ
-o
§
(t
CM
-------
c«
H
^^
O
D
O
Q
O
ffi
CD
CO
CO
CD
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
D)
CD
CD
O
10
0>
'25
a
a>
"8
CD
CO
0)
"55
"co
"a
o
o
CO
CO
CO
CD
CD
E
CD
O)
CO
CO
CO
o
0)
DC
CO
TJ
0)
0)
I
o
i- OJ
CO
0)
."ss
'•B
CD
E
CD
o
D
•o
CD
C
.2
T5
co
£
CO
0)
c
o
c
CU
0)
a
T3
C
CO
v*
CO
c
o
Q.
75
ce
§UJ
S i
CO
0)
CO
o
"
O
Q.
3
CO
"o
E
CD
T
O)
C
o
>»
"E
3
E
o
0
CD
CD
O
£
^
CO
CO
CD
0
O
O
jC
u>
i
UJ ^
-------
H
2
w
CD
CD
W
CD
W
H
CD
•o
"8
(0
Q. -.5
~ O
CO
(0
£
o
•o
0)
0)
c
O
E
CO
CO
o
CO
CO
CQ
•o
0)
CO
0)
55
0)
3
O
"5
"•5
0)
0)
75
o
0)
CO
•o
c
0)
"5
TJ
0)
E
E
CO
t
5
"8
.o
73
o
o
c
T5
CO
CO
CD
C
0)
0)
o
O)
o
0)
I
o
o o
J2 c
< LU
D
Q.
•o
CO
o
CO
o
E
o
o
-------
H
H
O
z
o
3
w
Q)
Q>
O
O
C
O
o
T3
0)
CO
0 >
Eo
2 >
CO 0)
§s
EW
8! c/f
11
CO
LU
O
O)
^^
O
«*-
o
"co
o
0)
c
o
E
E
0
o
CO
0)
"co
.££
0) >» o
0)
o
CO
X
0) 3
?E
£E
E °
s°
O)^T
co c
C Q)
ii
= CO
CO
o.- .2 *s
it o
co<
•o
CO
o
•MM
JMS
1—
o
CO
_o
o
o
0)
CO
CO
Q.
c
CO
7>
"S
CO
•o
CO
I
1
s
fi.
Ig
|ui
iSw
0) O
_o
£
Q.
.o
Q)
s
•o
Q.
-------
T3
0)
0)
z
o
H
u
Pti
£
CO
TJ
CO
(0
0)
E.
1
(0
o>
0)
"S .
'II
^•i ^R
!l
<"55
o
•o
c
CO
(0
r
2
"5
c
3
O
0)
.a
0)
co
CO
LU
> O
^D q>
c Q-
BE
is
0) 0)
?*
•^ c
J3 CD
r
o
w
c «
•- (0
!§
is
^o
i- CD
•^ ^
w 5
•=8
^P
7 c
g&
«c
ja E
a.
L
-------
-------
-------
Cfl
w
O
H
2
i
V)
Q)
"55
•o
c
r
T3
I"
O
0)
o
CO
a>
T3
G)
03
CD
O)
I
O
e>
O
£
a>
•o
CO
c
a>
"o
CD
CO
0)
i5
CD
CD
CO
•o
CO
To
CO
CD
N
"to
CO
Q.
CD
I CO
>.
u
I
;= O
«C C
CD.c
CD O
E£
55
o c
O.E
CD
"5
C
CO
1
o
o
I
CO
.2
u
CO
CO
.52
To
CD
cc
I*
I*
gui
^ O
£u
;i
(«b
-------
CM
CO
o
DL
O
O
Cfl
H
w
2
w
CQ
o
c
"5
3
TJ
E
a>
O)
c
o
a>
£
CO
0)
o
0)
•o
o
o
a.
(A
2
CD
-------
CO
W
U
o
Cu
Q
z
N-<
iJ
Z
w
X
H
c
0)
W£ «
O CO
-------
I-J
w
Q
O
D
w
H
w
I-J
U
U
H
X
w
"• C
f .2
co *5>
c o
O CE
- "5 75
w o 2
Q. DC
05" o
_ ni ^^.
*• mfi W
^1 C
^^J HHV »••»
Q.
3 0) Q)
O CE Q
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
Publication 9203.1-02!
April 1992
Superfund Accelerated
Cleanup Bulletin
Presumptive Remedies for Municipal Landfill
Sites
Superfund Revitalization Activity
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
Hazardous Site Control Division OS-220W
Intermittent Bulletin
Volume 1 Number 1
The Presumptive Remedy Selection Initiative
Since Superfund's inception in 1980, the removal and remedial programs have found that certain categories of sites have
similar characteristics, such as the types of contaminants present, past industrial use, or the environmental media that are
affected. Based on a wealth of information acquired from evaluating and cleaning up these sites, Superfund is undertaking
an initiative to develop presumptive remedies that are appropriate for specific types of sites, contaminants, or both. This
initiative is part of a larger program, known as the Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model (SACM), which is designed to
speed all aspects of the Superfund clean-up process.
The objective of the presumptive remedies initiative is to use clean-up techniques shown to be effective in the past at similar
sites in the future. The use of presumptive remedies will streamline removal actions, site studies, and clean-up actions, thereby
improving consistency, reducing costs, and increasing the speed with which hazardous waste sites are remediated.
Municipal Landfill Pilot Project
Superfund kicked off a new pilot project designed to
expedite the site investigation and remedy selection
process for municipal landfills with a visit to
Region V on March 18-20,1992. Superfund
anticipates that remedy selection may
be streamlined for municipal landfills
because they typically share similar
characteristics and because con-
tainment and ground water
cleanup frequently is the appro-
priate remedy for these sites.
An existing EPA manual, Con-
ducting Remedial Investigations/
Feasibility Studies for CERCLA
Municipal Landfill Sites, outlines
streamlining techniques for municipal landfills. The goal
of the initiative is to aid the Regions in implementing the
manual, so that site characterization, the baseline risk
assessment, and the number of alternatives considered
will be streamlined at every municipal landfill site.
Albion Sheridan Township landfill, a municipal landfill in
Michigan, was the first site to participate in the pilot
t. A team of Remedial Project Managers (RPMs) from
Regions and experts on landfill construction met
f the site RPM in Grand Rapids, Michigan to develop
j strategy. As a result of the meeting, site character-
ization will be conducted in a phased approach, with
Faster... C/eaner... Safer
criteria established for when additional sampling will
occur. Streamlining of the baseline risk assessment will
depend upon data obtained in the first phase of
sampling.
Four other Superfund municipal
landfill sites have been identified
as candidates for participation in
the project: Lexington County
Landfill, Lexington County,
South Carolina (Region IV); BFI /
Rockingham, Rockingham, Ver-
mont (Region I); Sparta Landfill,
Sparta Township, Michigan (Re-
gion V); and Beulah Landfill,
Pensacola, Florida (Region IV).
The review team anticipates meeting with the RPMs for
these sites during April, May, and June 1992.
RPMs who participate in the project and implement the
municipal landfill manual at their sites will become mem-
bers of the team and will be available to assist other RPMs
in developing streamlined Rl/FSs. These RPMs will be a
resource for their Regions, providing assistance in stream-
lining remedy selection at all future municipal landfill
sites.
Questions should be addressed to Andrea McLaughlin at
FTS 678-8365.
-------
-------
Inside EPA's
•Su
HAZARDOUS WASTE
MAR -5
Report
An
inside
Washington
Publication
An exclusive
Special Report
report tracking Superfund regulation, litigation, legtftatto* and pet trie*
~ February 38,1992
FMV1RCMMENTAL PHGTECTION AGENCY
Relllv alons off on sweeping reforms
"."^'^TON.D.C. 20 'S3
EPA TO MERGE REMOVAL, REMEDIAL PROGRAMS IN MOVE TO SPEED CLEANUPS
EPA Administrator William Reilly Feb. 27 signed off on a plan aimed at significantly speeding Superfund
cleanups and redefining the way progress is measured. A key objective of the plan is to better communicate program
accomplishments to the puhlk. Under the Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model, EPA would count all removal and
remedial actions as Superfund actions, .a move mat could allow the agency to tout significantly higher cleanup num-
bers. A key issue raised by the proposed reforms, according to one environmentalist, is whether EPA can implement
the plan without congressional approval.
According to a Feb. 10 memo signed by Assistant Administrator for Superfund Don Clay and sent to Reilly, "The
president's announcement of a 90-day Review of Regulations presents us with a unique opportunity to initiate far-
reaching reforms." Hie memo outlines Clay's proposal to restructure Superfund, as well as the Resource Conservation
& Recovery Act and Underground Storage Tank programs. Clay faults the Superfund program for emphasizing "bu-
reaucratic distinctions and process, rather than fast results." Headquarters officials have discussed the proposed
changes to Superfund with BPA regions, and Clay and his staff are set to brief environmentalists, industry and congres-
sional staff on the plan this week.
new executive order on civil justice reform and with the regu-
latory review objective of reducing me burden on small busi-
nesses." The proposal says that the agency, in pursuing this
method could build more positive relationships with the private
•timjnmf fh»of SuperfundandRCRA by removing liability.
"It gives conyanietafree ride if something happens to cause a
release" after the remedy is in place, Kaufman says.
« Text of Clay Memo to fWly and (^^3 Reorganization Plan for Supviund Begins on P. 2 »
-------
-------
C/ay Memo Outlining Now Superfund Plan
United SMM
To: William K.Reilly
Prom: DOT R. Clay
Assists^ Administrator
Subject; Environmental Growth Initiative
The President's announcement of a 90-Day Review of
Regulations presents us with a unique opportunity to initiate
far-reaching reforms. This memorandum sets fbrflrmy near-
tenn proposal to tesliuctute add SBetMtaet)SWBl's regular
tory programs. Having completed the RCRA Implementation
Sftidy and the Superfund 30-Day Review, OSWER is in a
position to Jump-start |**ain||t while continuing to examine
additional regulatory refaons and potential legisWve iaitia-
tives. hi undertaking the near-term refonnSySfiri in continuing
work on other statutorily required activities, we- will salve to
achieve the goalsof protection of h
We will t
(and Superfund as wefl). We will
standanis that protect land nses
effective cleanups. We will allow the sttbtiizatfanofwsitecJB.
glass, without costly permittinf, removal aad treatment^ We
Will 6XCD3pt TftlT*P^y^^y ItOQttO BOO ttCsttflBBBsJ att
from the land ban. We will exempt pet
media from RCRA corrective action because of the existence of
adequate state cleanup programs. Finally, we will recognize
that our current technology doesn't allow us to achieve ultimate
cleanup goals at RCRA and Superfund sites. TmmH'ntf guid-
ance will alleviate the expenditure of costs at such sites.
ment in a manner that reflects the risks posed, eliminates
i unnecessary burdens sad duplication, stimrisces technology
Problem: Localities, small businesses, and others an BI-
prepared to deal with the costly UST requirements.
Solution: We winpr9videa"menunof ways thatmuniti-
palitietcan comply »*htwflnaotialre»ponabiUty regulauona
(resuUmg in savings of$300miUiott«ircr tea years), and allow
states- the flexihiUty to eiteadoHBpliaBce for soul! businesses
over ten years. WewiUissueadiiectiveyvmg examples of h8«j|
U)streamlmecteafflipB(mourMmne80tapUotprojeculone,i>»
project over $1 billion in savings over ten years). We will abtji
provide legal protection to banks, that loan money for tadk
upgrades. Attachment B outlines these reforms in more detail.
public. We estunaie savings from me first pbjs*ef«rRC»A
reforms alone to conservaaverf4otal over tt^fiHoDSBDaaty.
Most imfHymitt, in addkkm ID ssdssc toaal jMhtrataeaa and
Ourregulationspi
irjrroadblockstoimno-
A* Attach
raoeasmg uidusoys compeUliMcocs^ltsliaii Mm we can
m'lease the effect! vaueas oft
nt C indicates, we will pursue en-
tin RCRA sndTSCA.We
Briefly, fee fim phase of my
will scale back insyimt reoBheniMis, and commit to rapid
pwicfssmg of RJa3peraits.W»wtaeaoaBt testing on biore-
mrdttrtrii from RDAD peraritt. We will also allow Pedml
10 sptad: flu transfer of new technologies to market.
detail in.
reforms designed to lajjal JJC?A'rpiewas3oB and cleanup
programs more cost-f sTaafre and risk-crienMaV^hese reforms
will significantly Decrease. 0* ragulatory raach-of RCRA.
Wewttfimestabttsil «amg a consen-
across-tiie-board oonceainilsA^Mscd exemp-
sus approach
don* to replace fee
rules. For many itmaJnmg wastes, we
Sakmom Tbfr S^ptrfund Acwnenwd Oaannp Model
wil radtcaUy speed up and streamline cleanups. As described
m Attachment D. rather than cmphasirc the National PrjoritJes
List, removals, and remedial actions, the new model provides
results the American people value: speedy reduction of health
risk*, and longer-term restoration of i
tJontevelstoigplsfletheeBTteBtwefcofJ
ISM! ban msiiiicot standards. We" wffi-also >
standards for kmnrisk wastes, and i
wofkbnrdenstosavesubstsntial costs wiD^ovtaffe
media. We are scheduled to brief you and Hank OB this concept
oaBsbniary27.
m addition, meSuperfimd RevitaiuanoaTeam wilt work
sarily prolong Oe desmp process.
ogprotec- meats
tion. We wmeh^miMe RCRA pennitrequhtments for many
activities, such as low-risk storage sod post-closure, and create
"class" permits for others.
entail cosfiy mdwastenillitigaiion.
Solution: As described in Anachmrmt E, we will mini*
na« the co6ttyiiwoNenic« erfnuBiiciPriirtes and small waste
con&ibutors in Superfund litigation. We will work to modify the
SUPERRJNO REPORT - Spadal Rfjpoit - FfAn»ry 28,1W2
-------
-------
"enforcement culture" toward environmental protection by
pursuing i'""'CMtn1 nso of mediation y^ alternative dilute
resolution.
We will reduce caaJttMB com by initiating an Environ-
lOCOtati ^SXiiQBtiOD SCCVlll^9H^DH»'''HOB tiDCOQTUKS OdODIBBCT'tO
use innovative n i liiiiilngtffi|Viiiini>i ill iniMllniUy gearing
them complete releases^lirSBjwiriiiid iimlRCRA liab&hyia
return. Finally, we wffl accelerate property tmnfen by provid-
ing, upon request, "tiered" review of voluntary cleanups.
My deputies office directors and I are excited by the
opportunities ft"1* these and additional longer-term reforms
pose.mn^ spoil of TQM.IwouMnote that these reforms enjoy
the btoad-basedsaptMtt of proyamJuff-ft^thnMi closest to
the work bdieve they ctBacUe^siffificamefflcksjeywiaiott
rotactakW* will nee4 dose
rising
teamwork- we miat be wtttag
the process.
I look forward to discussing my proposals wim you.
Attachment 0 of Clay Memo
Introduction
The presmSoperfiind program operates mthmacomplex
and, at times circuitous pattern that was designed ten years ago
to accommodate anew and complicated law, then tinkered with
as the program lurched from its infancy. The result has been a
somewhat "jerry built" structure, altered to fit everyone's
perceived needs and a host of confflcrhig expectations, but
basically satisfying few. Early implementation focused on
numerous intricate administrative and legal requirements.
However, recent budget emphasis has dramatically shifted
towards construction; policy emphasis has moved fromFund to
enforcement. Various committees and workgroups continue to
suggest ways to speed up meprocess. Congress will soon con-
tiii^
change ~ me public does not understand ow present process or
grasp ihe fun scope of our work, ft wants fester cleanups, OK}
believes that enough money has been givcp to Supertundtoget
me job done. The bottom line is mat we en" fBpect ^tif^y a
have cryttaBized taw aiiew focus onr^
miMmillnipim liM'^m^^Man •/-,"'
TuanlHimg inB.j»«nyaiii» - ••• . , . . .
•. ' • ••-••:,--' .-"•'. ; "-•*..••••
. *-v.^-:^ '^^ ' ' '
. ._ •jia.-«i-
~" ' '"^f^ 'A
Tbecuncsjt
outcomes and do' t "i tcr"is the pubMc wfll
reason, the new Superfund paradigm must be:
- simple and flexible - to allow fastest possible, worst
first, risk reduction;
- free of adrmnistrative connivances that divide and dif-
fuse the lojaJi{y_Q£isdttCS&fisJ( at remedial and removal f*ff*i
- realistically achievable in mat we make realistic cleanup
(xmimUiucms abd deliver them on time; and
- focused on rapid protection of people and the environ-
ment fl"d <^ft|^Tm>ffftfd^l>vrn Iftf single ""^ unattainable goafof
returning afl groundwa«et to pristine condition. j
kmd of deanup action are SuperAoid siiei. The distinctions
between •Remedial" and •"igmovaTw dimmated. Rather than
viewing mese two enBties at separate r»«f«™« they are
I with dt06rent, but oompli*
i at Superfund sites.
lenfcringme program through one of twodoors
'remedial* or •Removal", ail sites enter through one
naifc^»$uperfnBd*. M j^ii>M|iniBi» tafaa place is one
•opriate, elemeDa of present re-
ft Rifionai Decima Team
our system through a ilffHn ut 'door," usually me States
(through the National lejjwnse Center) seeking our help at a
specific release. Some art spontaneous "screaming emergen-
cies," omen are prioritized for short terra-action as money
becomes available. White me removal program does not ad-
dress ground water .many of tbe other risks and respooaeactioas
associated with the two programs are similar. Yet, mere are;
enormottt differenow between remediai and removal actioos
Tegardmg the depm of investigation, and cost and lime ex-
pended to complete a cleanup.
Ini summary, die innate complexity of our process and our
heretofore unsuccessful attempts tp portray progress have left
the Superfund program highly vulnerable to criticism. There-
fore, we must f bens attention on a few major outcomes that the
vain* ~ We must make sure we deliver these
These actor*
iHcmg oo more than three
cr.atmeaioct, five y4on^aiea«onable time framed
program's deoxxutratedabimy to identify and addre
diate risks to people and the environment within three to five
yean.
These activities are published in the BdaaJJBfigjaei (for
pubfic fafiyMMH"*1 purposes only, not as a rnfcmairiTig) on an
Bartyltetion list, tt hcrodd to note here. Out daough these
"Ulan lanf and qoicfcly implemented, they could
Superfund sites.
• with immediate HUP
_ _ jj __ .... __ , ___ L*tn 9^^
i am opponuniiy IUT
isethevastmajbrityofriakreduction
ocean to dtis part of the pregram. most of EPA's public
panictpaiionjinformarkin acthntka are focused here. Commu-
nity relations and opportunities for Technical Assistance
Grants (TAGs) continue as they do today. The State role is
SUPERRJND REPOFTT- SpOCtel Report - FMiuvy 26,1992
3
-------
-------
confirmed in itt promt configuration; fuilius, they can con-
uriHuneirown Staterflinded programs, resulting in a net
require the development of new protocol* but they would serve
many needs. RigidQA/QC procedure* would anise the integ-
rity aod muldpte-flsability of the data developed.
bepiaced«n me Long T<
as them), and
i-»»«pnr»«» gytfanrhy
The major parameters of this concept are outlined below.
There are a
beginning of the program as it is
structured today. Hazardous waste sites can receive numerous
similar, but sequential, assessments before any kind of cleanup
begins. Sites are evaluated by the removal program (removal
assessments), the site assessment program (PAs, Sis. Expanded
Sis, and Hazardous Ranking System (HRS) scoring), the reme-
dial program (RIs, baseline risk assessments, and FSs), and
even the RCRA program. ATSDR, State, local, and private
party assessments may also occur. Many, If not most of these
assessments start ftom scratch, - they do not necessarily take
mtft Qfy^^loBTBtlftft toft OuQaTDUUlOO 8Du uflufc ftCDCtlu0Q DV UJft
studies that preceded mem. This happens not only became of
the obvious financial incentives to the contractor community
and the human nyiirmtifwi to distrust the work of omen, bat
for inclusion on me Li
standards for bom remediation levels and technologies are
likely to have been developed and accepted. This move toward
starfardizatioa win both speed up the decision making process
and" allow increased flexibility in the staging or timing of
various activities. The chief benefits are the ability to:
— unit* early action decisions while studies cr*1^*11"^
- carry out relatively abort term cleanup steps mat may in
many cases be all that is necessary without triggering the site
listing process;
- stay flexible white variousactivities are going on, rather
man keeping functionf jarigd and sequential boxes; and
Regions, delegating where appropriate (e.g., standard remedy »
sdectioid,tamepngeaa)anag&l^ |
-reali»;tiine;4
because each part of the program is gathering data to.resppndLlD
particular perceived need. The
wants to know if me site Is going to bkMt op-
program wants to know me extent of te
the size of the cap, etc; ,
Large amounts of time and money ttt
process of executing
teams, designing
safety plans, etc., as eachnarte/
adafereBtptrtofme
now absorbs ar
oh«oene coordinators (OSQ,
Commnmt^ Relations cooc-
TheOSCandRPM
. would weotaally become
veo)d[tStt%K poeaae die efficiency of the
s would be con-
"^ff^nfi" Vekmtary deanup could be
Whole stepgiHrns
goal of expediting
contract
.f^V. .-.,
••;*>.1.. ••* '.
effort and thereby
"cultures."
In some Regions, then will be no reaaontort two staged
saeerring function (PA foUowed by SO atace_4a»f wffl be BO
backlog of sites to be screened.
AsUAaUMBkJsflaUaUsBsUiJs^JaiUJIflBH
activity, combined with public
expedited enforcement action fte^JgtP Jg^h. hrfonnation
garnering,
record ef ERR). Traming
and
dlCTeieul cultures
mtheremedjal,
sttftMt itae oomlnon
anumberof
ly 'are associaied with me direct
lOllt ObT *r^^^ ITIff COnttftfiT"
nated water front ground water sources. Source control steps
taken early mine mi loiHSjTjpotels,such as Jjumeruovai, soil
wefias atternate drinking
dskreductioato
removal i
understood and often eliminated prior to listing.
Placing all site assessment activities in one area would
factions at NPL
Chemi-
Troe etnergency sttu-
sucii as train O^railmenttwouU continue U> be handled as
they are today. AH remedial actions, (other than long term
1992
-------
-------
water pump and Beat or extensive ate restoration
such as large mining site cleanups, -wetlands/
remediation, or jppwaded incineration jpojects).
would be carried out tfBO|pibe Early Action phaWof me
program. This would incMy jBCh activities as;
_ waste and soil reasiftfe^-
— preventing access,
— capping landfills,
— moving people,
- providing alternate drinking water sources.
MLiiDHicdifliii-tlirBM te puhlki tKttlth srol
MMnffififd in ft1" part of the process. While
niiy Relations wodd be pcribrnsfrl and public participation
fostered, mnovathre technologies and Kandanfiaid cUarnys
would be aswl, as appropriate, Ctfpettest benefit, the ptiJUc
nquJremaay yean, if not decades, to
.aotaamedtauttmtatallto
rgiuuu| wsjaW^cMOcsdon <|itesllon to ai
decision mating process weald also allow £or a i
able evaluation of me benefits and costs of such i
PubUcpolkymatoracouMthCT more reasonably o^cidew
ground water resouices warrant priority action given limited
JyQQUlfl,
standardized cleanups for similar sites would expedite many
cleanups, innovative technology would be used whenever it is
fiuter.more efficient, more acceptable to the public, less expen-
sive, or less enviroomentaUyiB^active. Both standardized and
innovative Beanaeet techaelogtes offer opportunities for cost
efficiencies. ••- •-•
the public could be notified of activities at these Super-
fimif jtes through* quarterly Fedesal Register notice - the
all a»
. Public input would be achieved through
ismf (including TAGs) that are now used by me
This concept has been developed in Headquarters and
weal Regions. The next step is to hypotheti-
i some sites through the proposed process and see if
mere are any unforeseen'stopoeni,'' After receiving Agency
manm^fmfnt f^mual •« »«rtl •« DOT ««vlta BMI tfi t> appanjrt .
ate While House, OMB and Congressional contacts would be
briefed. Thftjocxt step would be tested on apilot basis hi one or
two Regions. VarioBS Regional pilots are being reviewed for
Q)B UfiCUQQD QK DuC DCOOCSS* 1Q6 (HTIBIgY IS
Superfund progress would be measared against all of its risk
reduction activities and most of those activities would be
Lnpidly. Under the New Superfand Paradigm, the
r would commit itself fast and £oremostto
meat within a specified time frame an t
be short This conamjtmcnt would be EPA 's
success.
water restoratioaor long term
extended lacingratiest projectSi
pubtahedintbe
tinrlMJThaywnalflnntbeniaoed
prioritized public health protcc-
ainmalic disrinfirion, within five
and having, asaseparate activity, the
better chaace/of bemg andersiood, appreciated, and therefore,
publicly supported.
C«Btting the totality of risk reduction rather than focusing
on Wk ate dektiOBB, is a shnpte, uncontrived, and true
eitateeaiMpf the worit of the program. It fulfills several of our
p^>H<'^nfijf|yft pjm WMJ fltfltt
Ae pragiBiit OB die very substantial risk
and achievable. Second, it
tnentftmftjqn Many
under Ae^ariy Action phaasv _
many of me issues mat hold up R(X>s~todBy.
opportunities would be vigomssly punned uStagnellQ s^>
nal of Enforcement tools m sjnatn PBP participation. C
. ...... 7- _ _„ *s*BJrbot nqoking decades 10
cc
-------
-------
THE NEW STREAMLINED PROCESS
Long-Temi
Cleanup
Completed
-'^: SUBSCRIPTION ORDER FORM
Sign me up for alul?** of Supwlund Report at $450 ($510 outride U.S. and Canada).
QChMlienck»adflX:tub-*fc-»-*l
-------
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
JAN 2 81994
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Directive no. 9203.1-13
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Expectations for Full Implementatio
FROM:
TO-
Henry L Longest II, Director
Office of Emergency and Rei
Bruce Diamond, Directo
Office of Waste Programs
Addressees
ment
Attached are our expectations for implementation of the Superfund Accelerated
Cleanup Model (SACM). They have been jointly developed by Headquarters and the
Regions. There are a few key points we would like to emphasize.
1. SACM Is the usual way of doing business at Superfund sites. In Fiscal
Years 1992 and 1993 we developed the SACM concept and applied the principles to
various pilot projects and other sites where appropriate. Many of the pilot projects
have concluded and some are still continuing this year. We have shared the results
among ourselves and with outside interested parties through the mid-year and end of
year pilot reports. We will continue to evaluate the results of the projects this year.
The success of these shared experiences enable us to move forward with applying the
SACM principles to aJI Superfund sites.
2. Regions should have an up4o-date site inventory and workplan. This is a
two-step process. Regions should first establish an inventory of al known National
Priorities Ust (NPL) and non-NPL sites. This inventory should include everything
except for the "classic" emergencies that are unpredictable by nature. This inventory
should be updated periodically. Regions should condense the inventory by cuffing out
sites that need no Federal response. The remaining sites wi be the basis for
developing an annual workplan of sites on which to focus. When developing the
workplan, Regions should work with the states and begin to identify sites appropriate
for state lead. The Regional Decision Team (RDT) should use the inventory and
workplan to ensure that the worst sites are given the highest priority. The Regions
should use the most appropriate response authority to address each site
(enforcement, removal, remedial, state lead).
*!
-------
-2-
3. Regions substantially reduce the Site Inspection Prioritization (SIP)
backlog. As Regions form their workplans, it is important that decisions are made on
sites that have received Preliminary Assessments and Site Inspections (PAs/SIs).
Doing away with the backlog will allow us to better deal with sites as they come in the
door.
On a number of occasions we have been asked about how reauthorization
could impact SACM. Although the reauthorization proposal has been evolving over
the past few months, there are clear indications that tlle fundamental SACM pnnaptes
will be incorporated. It appears likely that the new law will allow for state program
authorization. Working with the states while we establish the Regional inventones and
workplans will put us in good standing for reauthorization.
We hope that this list of expectations will be helpful to you. This year is likely to
be as challenging and demanding as ever Good collaboration between Headquarters
and Regions will be essential to overall success. In order to improve communications,
we have established a single point of contact for SACM at Headquarters and fostered
partnerships between the Headquarters Division Directors and Regional management.
I urge you to talk to your Headquarters partner when questions or issues arise.
If you have questions on the expectations please contact your Headquarters
SACM partner or Katie Daly, the Headquarters SACM Coordinator, at (703) 603-9026.
Attachment
Addressees
Waste Management Division Directors
Regions I, (V, V, VII
Emergency and Remedial Response Division Director
Region II
Hazardous Waste Management Division Directors
Regions 111, VI. VIII, IX
Hazardous Waste Division Directors
Region X
Environmental Services Division Directors
Regions I, VI, VII
Superfund Branch Chiefs
Regions I-X
Superfund Removal Managers
Regions I-X
Superfund Branch Chiefs
Office of Regional Counsel
Regrons I-X
-------
cc: Elliott Laws, OSWER
Walt Kovalick, OSWER
Steve Herman, OE
Lisa K. Friedman, OGC
Tim Reids, SRO
Superfund Section Chiefs
All OERR, OWPE, and SRO Staff
Regional Information Management Coordinators
All Regional Superfund Staff
-*
*\
-------
EXPECTATIONS
FOR FULL IMPLEMENTATION OF SACM
Universe of Sites
•
1. SACM is the way of doing business at Superfiind sites.
2. Develop Regional inventories and workplans. In order to coordinate all
response activities, each region will establish an up-to-date, consolidated
inventory of all known, non-emergency sites (NFL and non-NPL). The
regions will use this inventory to work with the states to develop and
periodically up-date an integrated regional workplan that gives priority to
the worst sites, both NPL and non-NPL, including Federal Facilities, and
identifies sites appropriate for state lead. The Regional Decision Team
will use the inventory and workplan to ensure that the worst sites are given
highest priority and the most appropriate response authority (enforcement,
removal, remedial, state-lead) is used. As always, "classic emergency"
actions (requiring response within hours and days) will be taken when
needed.
3. To ensure that the worst sites have been identified, Regions have significantly
reduced the Site Inspection Prioritization (SIP) backlog and identified the
appropriate action for each of the sites addressed.
Integrated Site Assessment
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Integrated site assessments are routinely performed and incorporate early and
long-term action considerations (Preliminary Assessment/removal assessment
integration).
Information is shared with states to ensure they are applying SACM
principles to the assessment activities they perform. When possible, states
should prioritize sites or recommend decisions to EPA on sites.
Steps are taken during Expanded Site Inspections, when appropriate, to include
data collection required for the Remedial Investigation,
Integrated site assessments specify data quality objectives (DQOs) that
incorporate all significant data needs and issues for removal, site assessment,
remedial, enforcement, community involvement, and environmental justice.
Field screening methods with appropriate QA requirements are used to
streamline and expedite data collection as described by the Delivery of Analytical
Services (DAS) strategy.
-------
-------
Maximize PRP Participation
9. There is substantial PRP participation in early actions.
10. Phased PRP searches are initiated as soon as a decision is made that a site
requires a response. Because of variation in the timing of RDT involvement
among regions, the decision date will be indicated by either an actual initiation of
an early action or the Regional Decision Team date, whichever is earlier.
11. Constructive notice is provided to potentially interested parties through notices of
availability of administrative record files and notices of public comment periods in
major local newspapers.
12. General notice letters are issued prior to the start of the ESI/RI phase of the
integrated assessment when appropriate.
Earfy Action and Long-Term Action
13. Early actions are performed at NPL and non-NPL sites to significantly reduce risk
and expedite cleanup.
14. Presumptive remedies are used at appropriate sites.
Management
15. On-Scene Coordinators (OSCs), Remedial Project Managers (RPMs) and Site
Assessment Managers (SAMs) routinely receive cross-training when appropriate.
16. SACM successes, lessons learned, and resource implications are documented,
routinely shared with other Regions, Headquarters, and external audiences, and
included in administrative improvements quarterly reports.
17. Regions and Headquarters fully participate in the Superfund Partnerships.
18. Headquarters continues to support Regions in implementing SACM.
U.
------- |