United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency Response
Washington, DC 20460
EPA/68-01-7259
November 1988
&EPA Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response:
Annual Report, Fiscal Year 1988
-------
Annual Report for
Fiscal Year 1988
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
November 1988
-------
I am pleased to provide a summary of the accomplishments of the
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) of the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for Fiscal Year 1988.
Considerable progress was made over the last twelve months in
both the development and implementation of programs supporting
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and Super-
fund.
Clearly, the hard work and dedication of the EPA Headquarters and
Regional staff, combined with our State partners, has resulted in a
"banner year" of achievements in the RCRA and Superfund pro-
grams. I want to give special recognition to the many career staff, at
both the State and Federal levels, for their perseverance and com-
mitment to carry out their responsibilities under the national solid
and hazardous waste management programs.
Looking ahead to 1989, we face many new commitments. The
dynamic nature of these programs, combined with intense public
and congressional interest, will continue to present new challenges.
However, with the strong base we have developed in support of
these programs, we can continue to build upon the momentum
achieved.
I hope that this report will provide a more complete understanding of
the numerous accomplishments within the national solid and haz-
ardous waste management programs over Fiscal Year 1988. You
are invited to comment on any information presented herein.
J.Winston Porter
Assistant Administrator
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
FOREWORD i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
SECTION 1 SUPERFUND PROGRAM 7
RESPONSE ACTIVITIES 7
Pre-Remedial Actions 8
Removal Actions 10
Remedial Actions 11
ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES 16
Overview of Enforcement Authorities 16
Enforcement Accomplishments 16
REGULATIONS, GUIDANCE, AND OTHER ACTIVITIES 21
National Contingency Plan 22
Hazard Ranking System 23
RI/FS Guidance 23
ROD Guidance 24
Release Notification Program 24
Removal Program Guidance 24
Technical Assistance Grants (TAGs) 25
Cost Recovery Strategy 25
Other Superfund Enforcement Guidance 26
Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) Program 26
Emerging Technologies Program 26
Outreach and Training Activities 27
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION 2 RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT 29
PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION 29
Permitting 29
Corrective Action 31
Enforcement 32
Data Management 34
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT INITIATIVES 34
MAJOR REGULATORY AND GUIDANCE DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES 37
Land Ban 37
Permit Modifications 37
Mobile Treatment Units 38
RCRA Inspection Manual 38
Technical Case Development Guidance 38
Laboratory Audit Inspection Guide 38
Other Rulemakings 39
Reports To Congress 39
Guidance Documents Issued 40
SECTION 3 FEDERAL FACILITIES 43
IDENTIFICATION OF FEDERAL FACILITIES OF CONCERN 43
ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE MONITORING 44
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT OF RESOURCES TO
ADDRESS CONCERNS 46
SECTION 4 CHEMICAL EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS AND
PREVENTION PROGRAM 47
REGULATORY ACTIVITIES 47
BUILDING REGIONAL AND STATE EMERGENCY
PREPAREDNESS CAPABILITY 49
PREVENTION 50
OUTREACH 50
INTERNATIONAL ASSISTANCE 50
SECTION 5 UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS 53
REGULATORY ACTIVITIES 53
Technical Standards 53
State Program Approval Standards 55
Financial Responsibility Standards 55
IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITIES 55
Building State and Local Programs 55
LUST Trust Fund Activities 57
Outreach Activities 58
Measuring OUST's Progress .... 59
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: Records of Decision (RODs) Signed in FY 1988
APPENDIX B: FY 1988 Remedial Design/Remedial Action
(RD/RA) Settlements
APPENDIX C: Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation
(SITE) Program Participants
APPENDIX D: Emerging Technology Program (ETP) Participants
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Fiscal year (FY) 1988 was an important year for all programs of the Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER). Greater emphasis was placed on
implementation activities and accelerating the pace of the programs. Our ability to
make impressive gains in many areas over the past year can be attributed to a solid
base of experience, the issuance of a substantial number of key guidance and policy
documents, increased delegations of authority to the Regions, and the presence of a
strong regulatory framework. This Executive Summary highlights some of the major
accomplishments and key initiatives undertaken by the OSWER programs in FY 1988.
More detailed information is provided in later sections of the report.
ACHIEVEMENT OF RCRA PERMITTING GOALS
EPA worked jointly with the States towards meeting the permitting goals
established in the 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Act Amendments (HSWA). HSWA
requires that EPA issue all land disposal permits by November 8, 1988 and all
incinerator permits by November 8, 1989. During FY 1988, EPA processed 117 land
disposal permit applications under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA), issuing final permits for 82 and denying permits for 35. By November 8,1988,
EPA had processed 248 of 264 land disposal facility permit applications (94%).
Significant progress towards the 1989 goal for incinerator permits was also achieved,
with 33 incinerator permit applications reviewed and 30 permits issued during FY
1988. The Agency reviewed closure plans and conducted inspections for the more
than 1,100 land disposal facilities that have elected to close their waste management
operations rather than continue to operate under RCRA permits.
PROGRESS TOWARDS MEETING MAJOR SUPERFUND TARGETS
The Superfund program experienced considerable growth over the past year with a
major emphasis on moving more sites into the design and construction phase of the
program. A great deal of progress was made towards meeting the statutory goal of
remedial action starts at 175 sites by October 1989. During FY 1987 and 1988, the
Agency achieved 74 remedial action starts toward this goal. By the close of the fiscal
year, the program started 231 of the 275 Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Studies
(RI/FSs) mandated for initiation within three years of the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986. Moreover, over 150 Records of Decision (RODs)
were signed in FY 1988 double the number signed the previous year. In addition,
332 removal actions were initiated during FY 1988, with 279 removals completed. The
Superfund enforcement program had the highest number of settlements in any year,
bringing our total to over 500 and a dollar value of more than one billion. The program
-------
is now in full swing with good momentum towards meeting the many important
statutory commitments.
NEW EMPHASIS PLACED ON SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
In FY 1988, building on efforts in prior years, OSWER proposed an Agenda for
Action for managing solid waste in the future. This Agenda signals a major milestone
for the solid waste programs. Over the past several years, most program attention
focused on hazardous waste. The strategy demonstrates the Agency's recognition
that municipal and other categories of solid waste can pose equally severe problems
for the environment, it establishes a hierarchy of integrated waste management
techniques to solve the nation's municipal waste problems, including source
reduction, recycling, incineration, and landfilling. Also, a national goal to recycle 25%
of municipal solid waste by 1992 was set.
A new leadership role for EPA is also defined, including the following activities: (1)
promote national source reduction and recycling; (2) provide leadership on Federal
procurement of recyclable and reusable products; (3) improve safety of incinerators
and landfills; (4) support a national research agenda; and (5) facilitate State and local
planning through activities such as an information clearinghouse.
IMPLEMENTATION OF RCRA CORRECTIVE ACTION
OSWER made significant progress in implementing the corrective action
provisions established under the Hazardous and Solid Waste Act Amendments
(HSWA) Sections 3004(u) and 3008(h). OSW continued work on regulations for the
program throughout the fiscal year and sent them to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) in October 1988 for final approval before proposal. Despite the
absence of regulations, the Regions continued their implementation efforts using a
variety of guidances issued by OSW and the Office of Waste Programs Enforcement
(OWPE). In FY 1988, the Regions completed 353 RCRA Facility Assessments (RFAs)
at facilities seeking RCRA permits or closing their waste management operations. In
addition, the RCRA enforcement program greatly expanded its use of Section 3008(h)
orders to require RCRA facilities to undertake corrective action investigations, issuing
20 on consent and 5 unilaterally. Of the 180 permits issued to RCRA facilities in FY
1988, 110 contained schedules of compliance requiring the facilities to undertake
corrective action investigations.
-------
FURTHER FEDERAL FACILITIES COMPLIANCE INITIATIVES
OSWER continued to focus special attention on improving compliance with
requirements under RCRA and the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) at Federal facilities. The Federal
Facilities Task Force, established in FY 1987, made substantial progress in FY 1988,
including publication of the Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket.
This docket lists over 1,000 facilities that must conduct Preliminary Assessments (PA)
to determine the need for further investigations and possible listing on the National
Priorities List (NPL). In addition, OSWER negotiated model interagency compliance
agreements for cleanups under CERCLA and RCRA with both the Department of
Defense and the Department of Energy. These models will be used to develop
site-specific agreements during FY 1989. Current plans call for developing 40-45
Federal Facility Agreements in FY 1989.
INCREASED DELEGATION OF RESPONSIBILITIES TO THE REGIONS
EPA has recognized and chosen to have these complex programs implemented
by those officials closest to the problem either EPA Regional offices or States. Thus,
increasingly more responsibility for contracting and program management has been
delegated to the Regional Offices to enhance their ability to obtain the resources
needed to manage ongoing activities without obtaining Headquarters review and
approval. For example, the Regions have been delegated full responsibility for RODs
as well as significant responsibility for Superfund settlements. Many Regions have
been delegated responsibility for issuing Section 3008(h) corrective action orders as
well. Superfund and RCRA are now "the most delegated" programs in the Agency.
This continued delegation of responsibilities is part of OSWER's effort to expedite
program implementation activities.
CHEMICAL EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS AND PREVENTION PROGRAM
The Chemical Emergency Preparedness and Prevention (CEPP) Program focused
on building State capability through a wide range of technical assistance efforts. To
date, 56 State Emergency Response Committees (SERCs) and more than 3,800 Local
Emergency Planning Committees (LEPCs) have been established. In FY 1988, CEPP
assisted these groups with training and guidance for developing required emergency
preparedness plans, and assisted 41 States and territories in planning and conducting
a total of 67 emergency preparedness exercises. In June and July, 1988, CEPP
conducted five information management workshops for SERC and LEPC members.
During the fiscal year, five million dollars were allocated for SERCs' and Indian tribes'
Title III training through the Federal Emergency Management Administration's
(FEMA's) comprehensive cooperative agreement with each State.
-------
DEVELOPMENT OF AN EFFECTIVE UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK
PROGRAM
In addition to finalizing the Underground Storage Tank (LIST) technical standards
and State program approval regulations, the Regions had awarded Cooperative
Agreements to 50 of the 56 States and territories by the end of FY 1988, enabling the
States to spend Trust Fund resources for corrective action and related program costs.
The Office of Underground Storage Tanks (OUST) awarded approximately $35 million
from the Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Trust Fund in FY 1988. In
addition, OUST is undertaking a number of activities to build State and local capability,
including development of a handbook on compliance and enforcement techniques
("Building State Compliance Programs"), which provides information on outreach
activities, compliance monitoring and enforcement actions.
MAJOR RULES AND GUIDANCES DEVELOPED
In addition to the accomplishments outlined above, the programs also made
substantial progress in promulgating the rules and guidances that provide the
foundation for the implementation activities. Major efforts in this area include:
The Office of Emergency and Remedial Response (OERR), working with
OWPE, completed revision of the Superfund National Contingency Plan
(NCP) in FY 1988 in preparation for proposal in early FY 1989.
« OSW issued final land disposal restriction rules for the "First Third" of
scheduled wastes in August 1988, as required by HSWA.
OSW issued final rules governing permit modifications that provide
owner/operators with greater flexibility in the types of changes they can
make in their processes without triggering major permit modification
procedures.
OERR, working with the Superfund Enforcement Division, issued interim
final guidance on conducting RI/FSs in compliance with CERCLA, SARA,
and other laws, and finalized the strategy on achieving the target of 175
Remedial Design/Remedial Action (RD/RA) starts. Final RI/FS guidance
will be issued after the NCP has been promulgated.
-------
The Preparedness staff promulgated the final rule for SARA Sections
311-312 on October 15, 1987. This rule establishes requirements for
material safety data sheets (MSDS) and hazardous chemical inventory
reporting.
OUST promulgated final technical standards for USTs and State program
approval regulations in FY1988 to provide an effective regulatory base for
implementing this new program.
OWPE issued an interim policy on the determination of acceptability of
facilities for off-site disposal of wastes from Superfund response actions.
Work was completed on the proposed rule embodying this policy which
will be published for comment in FY 1989.
SARA required States to certify that they have adequate capacity to
properly dispose of wastes from Superfund cleanups. EPA, working with
the National Governors' Association (NGA), developed draft guidance for
the States to follow in meeting the certification requirement. EPA expects
to issue this guidance in early FY 1989.
-------
SECTION 1
SUPERFUND PROGRAM
Since the passage of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA)
early last fiscal year, the Superfund program has made substantial progress in terms
of site activity as well as regulatory and policy efforts. Fiscal year 1988 was the first full
year of SARA implementation. Also during FY 1988, the Superfund program issued
interim guidance on preparing Records of Decision (RODs). The Superfund
program's accomplishments in all of these areas during FY 1988 are described more
fully below.
RESPONSE ACTIVITIES
Under the authority of the Superfund site response program, two types of
response activity may be undertaken removal and remedial actions. These
response actions are carried out as either fund-lead or enforcement-lead activities,
depending upon the availability of responsible parties and other considerations.1 A
pre-remedial Preliminary Assessment (PA) of existing site information provides the
basis for determining whether a removal or remedial action should be performed. At
sites warranting additional study prior to determining the appropriate type of response,
pre-remedial site inspections (Sis) are conducted to further evaluate potential
hazards.
Selection of a long-term remedy for a Superfund site is based on two major studies
a Remedial Investigation (Rl) and a Feasibility Study (FS). During the Rl, EPA
personnel or contractors collect site-related data with which to develop a detailed
understanding of the contamination problem at the site. During the FS, alternative
approaches for site remediation are developed and evaluated, and a recommended
approach is identified.
Section 116 of SARA prescribes goals and timetables for completing pre-remedial
work (PAs and Sis) and for initiating remedial work (RI/FSs and RAs). These goals and
schedules and EPA's progress toward meeting them are detailed below in the sections
on pre-remedial and remedial actions. It has become more apparent that Superfund
cleanups are complex, long-term efforts that involve more scientific uncertainty, and
are more difficult to complete than anticipated in the earlier days of the program. In
spite of these challenges, however, the program is making a concerted effort to meet
the statutory schedules.
1 For purposes of this report, enforcement-lead activites are those carried out by potentially responsible parties
(PRPs). All federally-financed Superfund activities are referred to as "fund-lead. "
-------
Pre-Remedial Actions
Section 116 of SARA specifies that PAs are to be completed by January 1, 1988 for
all facilities listed in the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Information System (CERCLIS) as of October 1986. In January 1988, the
Agency announced that it had met the statutory target for achieving PAs. Achieving
this goal required the completion of almost 1,000 sites in the first quarter of the fiscal
year.
Overall, Superfund's pre-remedial program substantially increased its productivity
in FY 1988, exceeding Agency goals for both PAs and Sis. The PA target of 2,432 for
FY 1988 was exceeded by 21 % for a total of 2,884 completions. There are now 27,000
sites listed in CERCLIS that have completed PAs. Elimination of the PA backlog
allowed the Agency to establish a new policy requiring that all sites entered into
CERCLIS recieve PAs within one year. This action was taken to prevent buildup of a
new backlog. Exhibit 1 illustrates the cumulative percentage of PAs completed
through FY 1988. The FY 1988 SI target of 1,117 was exceeded by 11 % for a total of
Exhibit 1
Percent of CERCLIS* Sites with
Preliminary Assessments Completed
Through FY 1988 (Cumulative)
FY 1981-1987
24,075
(80%)
Total CERCLIS = 30,013 (estimate)
* Inventory of potential Super/and sites
1,237 completions. Approximately 30% or 9,000 of the sites entered in CERCLIS
through FY 1988 now have completed Sis. Exhibit 2 compares the number of Sis
conducted in FY 1988 with the number completed in previous years.
-------
Exhibit 2
Number of Site Investigations
Completed
10000
9000
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
9,064
FY 1988
FY 1981-1987
The Agency also conducted a full-scale reassessment of past low priority sites. It
was necessary to re-evaluate approximately 5,000 existing PAs in order to more
accurately assess the future SI workload. Through the PA reassessment process it
was determined that no further remedial action was necessary at approximately 3,000
sites that had previously been given low priority site inspection recommendations.
This project saved substantial resources for use at more serious sites.
An additional 229 sites were listed on the NPL during FY 1988, bringing the total
number of sites on the NPL to 1,175.
The FY 1987 management initiative to design a strategy that would expedite the
pre-remedial process was further developed and partially implemented in FY 1988.
This initiative has resulted in a restructuring of the pre-remedial program. The
purpose of this restructuring is to provide EPA with enough specific site information
early in the pre-remedial process to decide expeditiously which sites require further
EPA evaluation. The PA has been expanded in scope and involves more site-specific
research, and considers Hazard Ranking System (MRS) factors at both the PA and SI
stages in order to develop a projected MRS score. Sites that have no probability of
being listed on the NPL are designated "No Further Remedial Action Planned
(NFRAP)" and will receive nofurther Superfund evaluation. Approximately 11,000 sites
have been so designated.
-------
The SI is now divided into two steps: (1) the Screening SI, in which a sampling plan
is developed for a limited number of on-site samples to determine which contaminants
exist on-site and whether they are migrating; and (2) the Listing SI, in which more
extensive analysis is conducted to better determine the extent of contamination and a
draft MRS score is produced. Using this redesigned pre-remedial system, EPA can
more quickly determine which sites do not pose a threat significant enough to require
placement on the NPL. Field tests are currently being performed at seven to ten sites in
each Region to fine-tune these changes in the pre-remedial program. Testing will be
complete in 1989 and will result in revised guidance documents, a finalized computer
scoring system (PRESCORE), and a complete pre-remedial training program.
Removal Actions
Removal actions generally are short-term actions intended for responding to
immediate threats to human health, welfare, orthe environment. SARA Section 104(e)
imposes limits of one year and $2 million upon removal actions, although exemptions
may be granted in some cases. Removals may be undertaken to temporarily stabilize
or clean up an incident or site until longer-term response actions can be implemented.
In some cases, no further response action is necessary. Since the inception of the
Superfund program, the removal program has been highly successful. Exhibit 3
shows the total number of removal actions initiated since the enactment of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA) in 1980. Fiscal year 1988 accomplishments contribute to the program's
good record. In FY 1988, 332 removal actions were initiated, and 279 actions were
completed using CERCLA funds or enforcement authorities.
Exhibit 3
Number of Removal Actions
Initiated*
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
1,604
FY 1988
FY 1981-1987
* Includes PRP and fund-lead
removals at both NPL and
non-NPL sites
10
-------
Removal actions are characterized according to the urgency of the response
required. Incidents or sites requiring immediate attention are considered
emergencies. Those that require attention within six months are time-critical, and
those that can be postponed for more than six months are non-time-critical. Classic
emergencies, such as fires and explosions, and time-critical situations that cannot be
addressed by other authorities are the removal program's highest priority.
Approximately one-third of the removal actions carried out each year are classic
emergencies. Of the remaining removals, time-critical removals comprise the vast
majority. Additional FY 1988 accomplishments relating to Superfund removal actions
include implementation of recommendations made by the On-Scene Coordinator
(OSC) Management Support Task Force. Specifically, the Regions: (1) began hiring
administrative assistants to support OSCs; (2) installed a removal cost management
system using portable computers at many sites; and (3) produced and distributed a
site-file guidance kit.
Remedial Actions
Remedial actions are long-term cleanup actions that are undertaken in
non-emergency situations. Remedial actions usually take longer to complete than
removal actions, require extensive study to select the most effective remedial
alternative, and may cost millions of dollars to implement. Overall progress in the
remedial program for fiscal years 1987 and 1988 is shown in Exhibit 4.
Selection of a long-term remedy for a Superfund site is a multi-step process
involving many factors. Remedial alternatives are developed by screening all
potentially applicable technologies and process options (including innovative
technologies) on the basis of technical implementability. Technologies and process
options that cannot be effectively implemented are screened out using site
characterization data from the Rl. The Rl and FS are often conducted concurrently.
Each remedial alternative is evaluated with respect to nine criteria developed by
EPA to address the statutory requirements of CERCLA Section 121. The criteria
include: (1) overall protection of human health and the environment; (2) long-term
effectiveness; (3) short-term effectiveness; (4) reduction of toxicity, mobility, and
volume of contaminants; (5) compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
Requirements; (6) implementability; (7) cost; (8) State acceptance; and (9)
community reaction.
Based on the results of the evaluation, the Regional Administrator or Assistant
Administrator, in consultation with appropriate State personnel, selects the remedy for
the site. EPA's proposed plan for remediating the contamination is then announced to
the affected community at a public meeting. After the public has had a chance to
comment on the plan, a ROD is prepared. The ROD formalizes the selection of a
11
-------
Exhibit 4
Major Superfund Program Accomplishments
FY 1987 and 1988
Removals RI/FS Subsequent
First RI/FSs
Starts
RODs
RD
Starts
RA
Starts*
RA Starts includes both first and subsequent starts.
(NOTE: Only "first starts" count towards statutory goal of 175 by October 1989.)
Remedial
Site Work
Completions
and NPL
Deletions
12
-------
remedy from the alternatives analyzed in the FS. The ROD also describes the ways in
which the selected remedy satisfies the statutory requirements of CERCLA Section
121.
The following SARA-mandated schedule governs RI/FSs at facilities placed on the
NPL prior to October 1986:
RI/FSs must be commenced for at least 275 sites by October 1989; or
RI/FSs must be commenced for at least 450 sites by October 1990 and for
an additional 200 sites by October 1991 for a total of 650 sites by October
1991.
Exhibit 4 illustrates the RI/FS accomplishments in FY 1988. These included 101
"first start" RI/FSs and 49 subsequent RI/FSs. As shown in Exhibit 5, EPA has already
accomplished 231 RI/FSs, or 84% of the SARA prescribed goal of initiating RI/FSs at
275 sites by October 1989. A national goal of completing most RI/FSs within 18
months continues to be a high priority.
Exhibit 5
Progress Toward Meeting SARA
Goal of 275 RI/FS Starts
Number
of Sites
400
370
340
310
280
250
130
100
Targets
n Accomplishments
Goal
Quarter
One hundred and twelve initial RODs and 41 subsequent RODs were signed in FY
1988, for a total of 153. (Appendix A provides a list of these RODs by Region.)
Selected remedies and costs in FY 1988 are summarized in Exhibit 6.
13
-------
Exhibit 6
Records of Decision (RODs) Summary
FY 1988
I. Source Control RODs
A. Treatment Technologies
Incineration/Thermal Destruction
Solidification/Stabilization/Neutralization
Volatilization/Soil Aeration
Soil Washing/Flushing
Biodegradation/Land Application
Vacuum Extraction
Other
B. Containment
C. Other
Subtotal
II. Non-Source Control RODs
A. Ground Water Management
B. Leachate Treatment
C. Other
Subtotal
III. No Further Action RODs
Total*
Fund
18
8
5
3
4
4
2
7
4
85
23
1
1
2S
11
91
Enforcement
4
10
2
4
2
6
2
25
1
56
14
3
0
17
5
78
Total
22
18
7
7
6
10
4
32
5
111
37
4
1
42
16
1$9
* Some of the RODs signed in FY 1988 (totalling 153) involve more than one remedy.
Remedy Costs
Program
Enforcement
Total
0-$2M | 2-$5M
35 [ 18
24 I 12
59 I 30
5-$10M
11
16
27
10-$20M
6
13
19
20-$50M
10
4
14
$50M+
3
1
4
14
-------
As shown in this exhibit, 111 remedies selected during FY 1988 required source
control, either through treatment or containment. Treatment technologies included
incineration and thermal destruction; solidification; stabilization and neutralization; soil
aeration; soil washing and flushing; biodegradation; and vacuum extraction. Of the
remaining RODs, 42 involved ground-water action and 16 required no further action.
Five RODs contained both source control and ground-water remedies.
Under SARA Section 116(e), EPA is further required to start remedial action at 175
NPL sites by October 1989, and to initiate such activities at an additional 200 sites
within the following two years. The program made good progress toward achievement
of the target of remedial action at 175 sites. Since SARA, the program has initiated
remedial action at a total of 74 sites (see Exhibit 7). Site completions and NPL deletions
were accomplished at 35 sites in FY 1988, raising the total to almost 50. In addition, 99
remedial designs were initiated during FY 1988.
Exhibit 7
Progress toward Meeting SARA Goal of
175 RA First Starts by October 1989
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1987 - 1988
I Enforcement
1 Fund
Two key management initiatives relating to remedial work that were introduced in
FY 1987 were further developed in FY 1988. These include the Alternative Remedial
Contracts Strategy (ARCS) and the RI/FS Improvements Initiative. Central to ARCS
are the concepts of promoting continuity of remedial performance from the RI/FS
stage to construction management, increasing the level of competition for contract
awards, and facilitating delegation of contract management responsibility to the
Regions.
Awarding an ARCS contract is a two-step process. Negotiations are conducted
with a pool of firms selected as potential ARCS contractors. ARCS contracts then are
15
-------
awarded to several firms within the pool. EPA completed ARCS negotiations in all
Regions in FY 1988, and awarded ARCS contracts in Regions II, III, and V. The RI/FS
Improvements Initiative is discussed later in this chapter, (see "Regulations,
Guidance, and other Activities.")
ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
The Superfund enforcement program made substantial progress in FY 1988.
SARA provided strong enforcement provisions in order to compel potentially
responsible parties (PRPs) to conduct site cleanups or to reimburse the government
for costs it incurred in conducting cleanups.
Overview of Enforcement Authorities
EPA uses three major types of efforts to enlist PRP involvement in cleanups and
reimbursements. First, if the PRP is willing and capable of doing the work, EPA will
attempt to negotiate an enforcement agreement (settlement) with the PRP. The
enforcement agreement may be an agreement entered in court (such as a judicial
consent decree for RD/RA) or it may be an administrative order for RI/FS removals
(where EPA and the PRP sign an agreement outside of court). Both of these
agreements are enforceable in Federal District Court, and under both agreements,
EPA oversees the PRP. Section 122 of SARA provides EPA the authority and
parameters for negotiating these settlements.
If a settlement is not reached, EPA can use its authority under Section 106 of SARA
to issue a unilateral judicial and administrative action against the PRP. Under this
course of action, the PRP is directed to perform removal or remedial actions at a site. If
the PRP chooses not to respond to an administrative order, EPA has the option of filing
a law suit to compel performance and seek statutory penalties, and in some instances,
treble damages.
Finally, if PRPs do not perform the work and EPA undertakes the work, EPA will file
suit against the PRPs to recover money spent by the Agency and return it to the Trust
Fund. EPA's authority to conduct these cost recovery efforts is provided under
Section 107 of SARA.
Enforcement Accomplishments
In FY 1988, the Superfund enforcement program met or exceeded most targets,
resulting in record-setting accomplishments for the year. By the end of the fiscal year,
EPA had reached settlements with PRPs for them to conduct responses worth more
than one billion dollars since the start of the program in 1980. These responses include
emergency removals of hazardous substances, remedial investigation/feasibility
studies, and remedial actions.
16
-------
RI/FS first starts by responsible parties (RPs) were targeted at 35 sites, and 48 were
achieved. This is representative of the increasing role PRPs are playing in the conduct
of RI/FSs. Exhibit 8 shows that while PRPs conducted only 38% of RI/FSs in FY 1987,
they are expected to conduct 55% of all RI/FSs in FY 1989. RODs where the RI/FS was
conducted by RPs increased significantly with a total of 51 signed (43 initial RODs and
8 subsequent). The Agency also exceeded its commitment of 20 RP remedial action
starts by accomplishing 21. Cost recovery referrals under Section 107 also exceeded
the target of 49, with 56 cases referred to the Department of Justice (DOJ), seeking
more than $120 million.
Exhibit 8
Increasing Enforcement
Role in RI/FS First Starts
FY 1987
FY 1988
FY 1989
Enforcement
Fund
Settlements. In FY 1988, EPA negotiated more settlements than in any prior year.
This included 29 consent decrees lodged worth approximately $270 million in RD/RA
work. Another 19 consent decrees signed by PRPs for RD/RA are in government
concurrence (value of response is yet to be determined). There were an additional 7
sites where the Agency issued an unilateral order for RD/RA which resulted in
settlements worth approximately $50 million. (See Appendix B for a listing of these 36
FY 1988 RD/RA settlements.) The number lodged represents a 300 percent increase
over the number of decrees lodged in FY 1987. In addition, EPA negotiated RI/FS
17
-------
settlements at 77 sites worth approximately $85 million and removal settlements at 94
sites valued at approximately $67 million. These settlements are for first or subsequent
starts or for takeover of a project the Agency has started. Exhibit 9 summarizes the
settlements lodged in FY 1988 and the approximate value of these settlements. The
information in the exhibit is a combination of data reported in CERCLIS and data
manually compiled by the Office of Waste Programs Enforcement (OWPE).
Exhibit 9
Number and Value of Superfund Settlements
Number of
Settlements
300
270
240
210
180
150
120
90
60
30
0
264
243
Removal RI/FS RD/RA
^B FY 1988 (Total = $470 million dollars)
liiil FY 1980 - 1987 (Total $626 million dollars)
A few of the more noteworthy settlements for FY 1988 include:
Cannons Engineering, NH and MA. This settlement was reached with the
largest waste generators and the owners of two of the four sites involved in
the case. The comprehensive settlement includes cost recovery of $17.1
million, implementation of RD/RA at two sites, and a removal action at a
third site. The settlers will reimburse oversight costs as a percentage of
actual costs. Two additional de minimis settlements and three
Administrative Orders on Consent added to this Consent Decree to bring
the total recovery to $48.1 million of the $58.57 million in total costs
expected.
Prices Landfill, NJ. The cashout provides for payment of $17.24 million in
exchange for a covenant not to sue for past and future liability.
Tysons Dump, PA. The settlement with the PRPs provided for 100
percent cost recovery, an agreement to conduct the remedy, and
payment of all oversight costs. The estimated value of this settlement is
$10.2 million plus oversight costs.
18
-------
Seymour Recycling, IN. After eight years of litigation, some of the
defendants have agreed to pay $6.5 million in past costs and conduct the
remedy for an estimated value of settlement of $25 million.
Outboard Marine Corporation (OMC), Ml. The settlement provides for the
PRPs to implement RD/RA involving construction of three containment
cells, slurry walls and a cap with a synthetic liner. PCB contaminated soils
will be excavated, treated, and disposed of off-site. The estimated value
of the remedy is $20 million. The PRPs will also pay future oversight costs
to EPA and the State. Past costs of $1.7 million were waived.
Bayou Sorrel, LA. The settlement provides for the PRPs to fully finance
RD/RA consisting of construction of a RCRA compliant cap over the site,
construction of a slurry wall and installation of a storm water/leachate
collection system. The remedy is valued at $25 million. The PRPs will also
pay $800,000 towards past costs and up to $1.8 million in future costs.
B.F. Goodrich and Airco Sites, KY. These two adjacent sites were settled
in one consent decree. The remedy for each was identical: the pumping
and treating by air stripping of contaminated groundwater and the
excavation and capping in place of contaminated soils. The settlement
calls for the conduct of 100 percent of the remedy for the two sites, and the
payment of 100 percent of EPA's past costs and future oversight costs
although EPA may take action against a non-settling party through an
AOU to seek these costs. The value of the remedy is approximately $6
million and the total past and future costs are estimated to be $800,000.
Cost Recovery Exhibit 10 highlights the key accomplishments of the cost recovery
program prior to and during FY1988 and shows the number and dollar value of actions
referred to DOJ or settlements filed by DOJ. During FY 1988, EPA Regional offices
initiated 56 cost recovery referrals with a combined dollar value of $120 million. In
addition to the referrals, 36 Administrative Cost Recovery settlements, valued at over
$20 million dollars, were achieved in FY 1988.
19
-------
Exhibit 10
Number and Value of Cost Recovery
Referrals
Number of
Referrals
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
FY 1988 (Total = $120 million dollars)
FY 1981 1987 (Total $66 million dollars)
Two guidance documents for the cost recovery program were also released in
1988. The first is titled, "The Superfund Cost Recovery Strategy," (OSWER Directive
9832.13). It provides a framework for planning and initiating actions to recover Federal
funds expended by EPA or a State during CERCLA response actions. The second is
titled, "Guidance on Documenting Decisions Not to Take Cost Recovery Actions,"
(OSWER Directive 9832.11). This guidance document discusses the information to be
included in EPA close-out memoranda written to document the basis of EPA
decisions when cost recovery of unreimbursed Superfund monies is not being sought.
EPA also delegated concurrence on most Section 107 cost recovery actions to the
Regions on June 7, 1988 (OSWER Directive 9012.10-a). EPA Regional offices now
have a greater amount of authority to resolve Section 107 claims without approval from
EPA Headquarters. Referrals subject to the new delegation criteria may be referred
directly to the Department of Justice.
Section 106 Enforcement. In FY 1988, EPA issued 14 unilateral administrative orders
under Section 106 of SARA for RD/RA worth more than $136 million (Exhibit 11). Of
these 14, 7 resulted in settlement, 1 resulted in settlement under a lodged consent
decree, 2 cases were referred to DOJ, and the remaining orders are waiting for a PRP
response. The Agency referred one additional case to the Department of Justice for
injunctive relief for RI/FS and remedial action, the value of which has not yet been
determined.
20
-------
Exhibit 11
Administrative Orders Issued Since SARA
160
140
120
100
Number of 80
Orders
60
40
20
0
150
139
Removal
RI/FS
FY 1988
FY 1987
RD/RA
For the removal program, 116 orders were issued in FY 1988 for removal activities
valued at over $78 million dollars. Of these, 94 resulted in compliance, with a value of
over $67 million dollars. One hundred and two of these resulted in removal starts.
For FY 1988, there were a total of 156 Administrative Orders on Consent and 61
unilateral Administrative Orders. The overall total of 217 represents a 62 percent
increase over the total number of orders issued in FY 1987 (135).
REGULATIONS, GUIDANCE, AND OTHER ACTIVITIES
Concurrent with a significant amount of site activity, there was a substantial amount
of regulatory and guidance development in the Superfund program during FY 1988.
Some of these activities were mandated by CERCLA or SARA. Other efforts stemmed
from the need to improve the pace of the Superfund program. Proposed revisions to
the NCR and the MRS are almost complete and scheduled to be published in early FY
1989. Extensive guidance was drafted on how to conduct RI/FSs. Interim guidance
for preparing RODs and proposed plans was released in FY 1988; a final guidance
document, however, will not be issued until the revisions to the NCR are promulgated.
The following sections outline these and other regulatory and guidance activities
undertaken by both Superfund program staff and Superfund enforcement staff during
the past year.
21
-------
National Contingency Plan
During FY 1988, OSWER announced major revisions to the National Contingency
Plan (NCR), which comprises the bulk of the Superfund regulatory program. In
addition to incorporating the changes mandated by SARA, the NCP is being revised
to: (1) more accurately reflect the sequence of response actions taken pursuant to the
NCP; (2) clarify existing language on roles, responsibilities, and activities of affected
parties; and (3) incorporate changes indicated by program experience. The revised
NCP will reflect the Agency's bias toward active remedies for Superfund cleanups.
The proposed rule:
Proposes using the following nine criteria for evaluating and selecting
cleanup remedies: (1) overall protection of human health and the
environment; (2) compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
Requirements (ARARs); (3) long-term effectiveness and permanence;
(4) reduction of toxicity, mobility or volume; (5) short-term effectiveness;
(6) implementability; (7) cost; (8) State acceptance; and (9) community
reaction;
Incorporates the new statutory requirement that remedies must comply
not only with ARARs under Federal law, but also with ARARs under State
environmental or facility-siting laws that are more stringent than
corresponding Federal standards;
Implements the SARA requirement that States play a "substantial and
meaningful" role in the initiation, development and selection of remedial
actions, by introducing the Superfund Memorandum of Agreement
(SMOA) and the process of EPA/State concurrence in remedy selection;
Specifies public participation requirements including conducting
community interviews, developing community relations plans, making
available for public comment the proposed cleanup alternatives and
responding to comments received;
Incorporates the new statutory requirements for the expansion of
short-term action expense and time limits from $1 million dollars and six
months to $2 million dollars and one year; and
Requests comment on a proposal to defer sites from listing on the NPLif
the sites can be addressed by other Federal and State environmental
authorities or by PRPs under enforcement authorities.
22
-------
Hazard Ranking System
During FY 1988, OSWER undertook a major revision of the Hazard Ranking
System (MRS), the Superfund pre-remedial tool used to identify sites warranting
inclusion on the NPL. The proposed changes to the MRS will make it a more
comprehensive ranking system, taking into consideration two new exposure pathways
- the human food chain and direct contact with soils - and making the definition of
"sensitive environments" more inclusive. In addition, the revised MRS will consider
both acute and chronic health effects. The revisions will result in a ranking system that
is more accurate in assessing potential for exposure, contaminant concentration, and
contaminant toxicity. As a result, the MRS will provide a more selective tool for
identifying the most problematic sites.
The MRS rulemaking effort passed several important milestones during FY 1988,
including: (1) workgroup closure; (2) Agency review; and (3) Science Advisory Board
(SAB) review. The proposed MRS incorporating Agency and SAB revisions was sent
to OMB in February 1988 for review and is scheduled to be proposed early in FY1989.
In addition, work was initiated during FY 1988 on a two stage field testing project to test
the implementability of the MRS provisions.
RI/FS Guidance
During FY 1988, the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER)
issued detailed guidance for implementing the RI/FS Improvements Initiative of FY
1987. The goal of the RI/FS Improvements Initiative is to improve the schedule and
cost efficiency of the RI/FS process while concurrently improving the technical quality
of RI/FS work. The guidance, focusing on easily implemented short-term initiatives,
was distributed to the Regions in April 1988. EPA established workgroups to address
more complex and longer term issues, including: (1) enforcement; (2) State
considerations; (3) interim action response; (4) technical/procedural aspects (e.g.,
laboratory support and treatability studies); (5) procurement actions (e.g.,
subcontract procurement) and; (6) program management aspects (e.g.,
performance-based goals and risk taking in decision-making).
An interim final version of the RI/FS guidance document on addressing these
issues was distributed to the Regions in October 1988. This document reflects a new
RI/FS process outlined in the NCR. The RI/FS is no longer a two-phase process in
which the Rl is completed prior to the start of the FS. Instead, the RI/FS process is now
a one-phase process with stages feeding into each other and sometimes occurring
simultaneously. The interim final guidance also reflects other FY 1988 proposed
revisions to the NCP and will be finalized after promulgation of the revised NCP.
23
-------
ROD Guidance
In addition, EPA began revising the draft ROD guidance in FY 1988 to reflect
proposed revisions to the NCR. The draft guidance now provides more specific
guidance on: (1) implementing remedies organized into several operable units; (2)
proposing sites for deletion from the NPL; and (3) selecting a "no action" alternative.
Release Notification Program
Timely notification of hazardous substance releases is critical to the success of the
response program. CERCLA Section 103 and SARA Section 304 contain release
notification requirements for hazardous substances listed under CERCLA. FY 1988
regulatory activity in the hazardous substance release notification program consisted
mainly of designation and reportable quantity (RQ) adjustment rulemakings pursuant
to CERCLA Sections 102(a) and (b).
Removal Program Guidance
In order to promote the most efficient use of limited removal program funds and
resources, the Emergency Response Division (ERD) issued four guidance documents
in FY 1988. These guidance documents assist Regions in setting priorities so that the
most serious threats to human health and the environment can be addressed. First, in
February 1988, ERD issued the revised "Superfund Removal Procedures Manual."
This manual describes all of the procedural and administrative requirements for
removal actions, and provides step-by-step directions for preparation and approval
of documentation.
Second, the "Removal Program Priorities" memorandum distributed on March 31,
1988, identifies national priorities for use of removal resources (e.g., time-critical
removals at NPL sites and at non-NPL sites posing major threats which cannot be
addressed by other authorities). It also allows Regional discretion in conducting other
types of removals within program authorities, if site-specific conditions necessitate
such action.
Third, the "Removal Cost Management Manual" provides comprehensive cost
management procedures for use by EPA at CERCLA-authorized removals. Revised
and reissued in April 1988, the manual includes: (1) a discussion of the concept and an
approach to cost management; (2) techniques for cost projection and tracking; and
(3) techniques for cost control, cost recovery, and cost documentation.
Fourth, the "Removal Actions Universe Study" provides information on the
universe of removals (i.e., numbers of removals, average costs, types of removals,
and removals by Region). This study will be used by EPA to develop policy and
prepare future budgets that accurately reflect the program's needs.
24
-------
Technical Assistance Grants fTAGs)
Section 117(e) of SARA provides for technical assistance grants of up to $50,000 to
be made available to groups of individuals to obtain assistance in interpreting
information related to activities at Superfund sites. In June 1987, EPA issued an
advance notice of rulemaking and requested comments on the Technical Assistance
Grant Program. In March 1988, EPA issued an interim final rule which discussed
Technical Assistance Grants (TAG) Program requirements so the Agency could
immediately begin to accept applications from citizens' groups for financial assistance,
while simultaneously accepting comments on and developing the final rule.
From the time of publication of the interim final rule to the end of fiscal year 1988,
EPA Regional offices received 79 letters expressing intent to apply for grants and 28
draft or final grant applications from citizens' groups. As of September 30, EPA
awarded grants to four citizens' groups at sites listed on the NPL. Many more are in
progress. The four grants awarded in FY 1988 are listed in Exhibit 12. Before the
creation of the TAG Program, EPA provided financial assistance to citizens' groups at
both the Lipari Landfill Site in Pitman, NJ and the Stringfellow Site in Glen Avon Heights,
CA. The citizens, as well as EPA, have benefitted from the independent advisors' input
the groups have a greater understanding of the Superfund process and there is
enhanced communication between EPA and the citizens.
Exhibit 12
NPL Sites Where TAGs Were Awarded in FY 1988
Region
II
II
III
V
Name of Site
Love Canal Site,
Niagara Falls, NY
Fulton Terminals Site,
Fulton, NY
Lackawanna Refuse Site,
Old Forge Borough, PA
Industrial Excess Landfill
Site, Uniontown, OH
Grant Recipient
Love Canal Environmental
Action Committee
Fulton Terminals Safe Drinking
Water Action Committee
Old Forge Toxic Waste
Removal Committee
Concerned Citizens of
Lake Township, Inc.
Grant Amount
$43,067
$50,000
$50,000
$50,000
Cost Recovery Strategy
OWPE issued its final Superfund Cost Recovery Strategy on July 29, 1988. This
strategy lays out the Agency's case selection priorities and guidelines and describes
the cost recovery process for removal and remedial actions.
25
-------
Other Superfund Enforcement Guidance
Administrative Record Strategy. OSWER has developed a strategy for
ensuring that complete administrative records are kept on the processes
used for selection of response actions. The strategy includes assessment and
training in all ten Regions to ensure that adequate records are being compiled.
The strategy also includes the issuance of a guidance document which is
being used by the Regions in draft form pending publication of proposed
regulations on administrative records. The regulations are slated to be
Subpart I of the revised NCR.
Dispute Resolution Initiative. OSWER has developed a strategy for the use of
third party neutrals to help resolve Superfund disputes. The strategy includes
Regional pilot projects to investigate the feasibility of using alternative dispute
resolution during the Superfund process. OSWER is monitoring these
Regional activities and will develop a suitable policy after conducting an
analysis of the pilots.
Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) Program
SARA's emphasis on cleanup and the new cleanup standards established by the
statute require the development of new treatment technologies. The Superfund
Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE) Program's objective is to develop,
demonstrate, and subsequently encourage the use of such technologies as
alternatives to land disposal. In FY1988, the SITE Program accepted an additional ten
technologies, bringing the total number of accepted technologies to 29 (see Appendix
C). EPA will distribute a fourth request for proposals in January 1989. Seven field
demonstrations were completed in FY 1988 for new treatment technologies, including
infrared incineration, solidification, in-situ vacuum extraction, oxygen-enhanced
incineration, and solvent extraction.
Emerging Technologies Program (ETP)
The Emerging Technologies Program (ETP) encourages the investigation and
development of technologies that may be useful for remediation at Superfund sites,
but that are not yet ready for full-scale demonstration. ETP's goal is to validate such
innovative, alternative remediation technologies and prepare them for demonstration.
ETP is interested in developing cutting-edge technologies for recycling,
separation, detoxification, destruction, and stabilization of hazardous wastes. Two
year funding is available to technology developers through competitive cooperative
26
-------
agreements. An individual developer may receive up to $150,000 per year for a
maximum of $300,000 over two years to bring a promising technology from laboratory
scale to the pilot stage.
ETP accepted its first set of proposals from developers in October 1987. Seven
projects were awarded a total of $1,000,000 in funding during FY 1988 (see Appendix
D). A second solicitation was released in September 1988, and 61 responses are
currently being evaluated. A third solicitation is planned for September 1989, with
preproposals due to EPA in October 1989.
Outreach and Training Activities
OSWER is involved in numerous training activities aimed at improving the
effectiveness of its regulatory and enforcement programs. In FY 1988, OSWER began
implementing a new five-year training strategy. This plan is a result of the shift in
emphasis from the development of regulations to implementation of programs,
expedited enforcement activities, congressionally mandated acceleration of activities,
and assisting the States in managing and implementing their own solid and hazardous
waste programs.
The Office of Emergency and Remedial Response (OERR) also initiated a variety of
new Superfund training courses and guidance documents in FY 1988. New training
courses begun in this fiscal year include: (1) training courses on Applicable or
Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) of RCRA and the Clean Water Act in
Regions II, III, IV, V, and IX; (2) three new Emergency Response Team (ERT) courses;
(3) a course in Systematic Development of Informed Consent; and (4) a Superfund
Task Manager course. In addition, OERR initiated development of a course on
Construction Management in Superfund and a Remedial Design Scheduling course.
27
-------
SECTION 2
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Program made substantial progress in
addressing the priorities outlined for FY 1988. Most notably, the program issued 82
land disposal permits under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
and denied another 35 in an effort to meet the November 1988 land disposal permitting
deadline established in the Hazardous and Solid Waste Act Amendments (HSWA).
Municipal solid waste issues were studied by a special Task Force, which developed
an agenda for changing the ways in which the nation produces and disposes of solid
waste, emphasizing source reduction and recycling. Significant progress was also
made in implementing the RCRA requirements and improving data management in
the programs. This section reviews the specific achievements of FY 1988.
PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION
The RCRA program continued to make progress towards its goal of protecting
human health and the environment through the hazardous waste permitting and
enforcement programs. Priorities for FY 1988 included working toward meeting the
land disposal and incineration facility permitting deadlines; imposing corrective action
requirements at facilities through permits and enforcement orders; and taking
appropriate enforcement actions for high priority violations identified. Summaries of
key activities are provided below.
Permitting
The Agency made significant progress toward meeting the November 1988
deadline for land disposal permits in FY 1988. EPA and the States issued 82 permits
for land disposal facilities and denied another 35 such permits. (See Exhibit 13.)
Progress toward the November 1988 goal for land disposal facility permitting actions is
shown in Exhibit 14. Progress was also made toward the November 1989 deadline for
incinerator permits, as can be seen in Exhibit 15. EPA easily met its target of 30 by
issuing or denying 33 permits to incineration facilities. The Agency and States also
approved 14 closure plans for incinerators and 237 closure plans for land disposal
facilities during this period (see Exhibit 16).
29
-------
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
Exhibit 13
Land Disposal Facility
Permit Actions, FY 1988
117
Permits Issued
EH Permits Denied
Exhibit 14
Progress Toward November 1988 Goal of 264
Land Disposal Facility Permitting Actions
300
270
240
210
180
150
120
90
60
30
0
248
FY 1988
D FY 1982 1987
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Exhibit 15
Incinerator Permit Actions
FY 1988
H Permits Issued
CH Permits Denied
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
Exhibit 16
Closure Plan Approvals
FY 1988
FY 1981 1987
767
Incinerators
Land Disposal
Facilities
30
-------
Corrective Action
The HSWA corrective action authorities greatly expanded EPA's ability to ensure
that owners and operators correct releases resulting from past waste management
practices at RCRA facilities. In FY 1988, the Regions undertook the following activities
to implement the corrective action program: RCRA Facility Assessments (RFAs) were
conducted at 228 land disposal facilities, 40 incinerators, and 85 storage facilities. In
addition, RCRA Facility Investigations (RFIs) were initiated or in progress at 87 land
disposal facilities, 8 incinerators, and 15 storage facilities. A new corrective action
measure is being developed for the Strategic Planning and Management System
(SPMS) that will assist in tracking the number and progress of RFIs underway.
In FY 1988, the RCRA enforcement program made substantial progress in
effectively using the Section 3008(h) authority for corrective action. Regions issued
twenty consent orders and five unilateral orders. In addition, seven Regions were
delegated authority for issuing consent orders (Regions 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, and 10), while
Regions 4, 8, and 9 also received authorization for issuing unilateral orders. The
Section 3008(h) model consent order was made final, and is in use throughout the
Regions. A draft model unilateral order is in use and is expected to be finalized in early
FY1989.
Guidance was issued in May 1988 to direct the Regions in implementing the
Environmental Priorities Initiative (EPI) developed last year. EPI is an integrated
RCRA/CERCLA management system designed to enable the Agency and the States
to identify and clean up first those sites that present the greatest threat to human health
and the environment. In FY 1988, in accordance with guidance provided by
Headquarters, the Regions and States ranked storage and treatment facilities and
closing land disposal facilities as high, medium or low priority based on each facility's
environmental significance. Facilities that are ranked "high priority" are to be entered
onto CERCLIS and receive CERCLA Preliminary Assessments (PAs) and preliminary
and projected Hazard Ranking System (HRS) scores in FY 1989. Medium and low
priority facilities will be entered onto CERCLIS and receive CERCLA PAs in FY 1990
and 1991. Certain high priority facilities will also receive a CERCLA Site Inspection. By
using the CERCLA screening mechanism in this way the Agency will be able to focus
its cleanup efforts on the sites that pose the greatest threat to human health and the
environment.
Close coordination with the CERCLA cleanup program includes policies being
developed to address corrective action at RCRA NPL sites. The Office of Waste
Programs Enforcement (OWPE), in cooperation with the Office of Emergency and
Remedial Response (OERR), has been working on expanding and clarifying the
RCRA/NPL Listing Policy. This policy explains under what circumstances RCRA sites
may be listed on the National Priorities List (NPL), and thus become eligible for
31
-------
Super-fund monies for remedial activities. During FY 1988 the criteria for listing RCRA
sites on the NPL was expanded in a Federal Register Notice. RCRA sites which had
been proposed during the first four NPL updates were reviewed to determine whether
they met the new criteria for listing RCRA sites on the NPL. Thirteen of these sites were
found to meet these criteria and will be reproposed for the NPL, while 30 of these sites
are to be dropped from the NPL. In FY 1988, Update 7 to the NPL was proposed, which
included 43 RCRA facilities that meet the criteria for listing on the NPL.
A revised corrective action order workshop was conducted in Washington, DC and
five Regions in FY 1988 for audiences of Headquarters staff from OWPE and the Office
of Solid Waste (OSW), Regional permits and enforcement personnel, Regional
counsel, and State personnel. The two-day workshops covered the authorities that
can be used to compel corrective action as well as the language and provisions of the
3008(h) order. The curriculum addressed planning and oversight issues encountered
throughout the corrective action process, from the RFI through the Corrective
Measures Study (CMS) and the Corrective Measures Implementation (CMI) phase.
The workshops were taught by staff of the Technical Implementation and Policy
Sections of the RCRA Enforcement Division.
Enforcement
In addition to corrective action orders, FY 1988 RCRA enforcement priorities
included: conducting required high-quality inspections; pursuing actions against
Significant Non-Compliers (SNCs); enforcing land ban disposal restrictions, and
ensuring the adequate availability of appropriate Superfund treatment and disposal
capacity through development of the CERCLA Off-site Policy.
In December 1987, the Agency issued a revised Off-site Policy that incorporates
the requirements set out by SARA. The revised policy ensures that wastes from
CERCLA sites are sent only to facilities capable of handling them in an environmentally
sound manner. The policy also formalizes the Agency's commitment to according
due process to facilities that are potential recipients of CERCLA wastes. The Off-site
Policy further applies to actions taken jointly under CERCLA and other Agency
statutes. EPA expects to propose a rule to codify the Off-site Policy in early 1989. The
rule, however, will not apply to actions taken under RCRA Section 7003. The draft rule
has completed Agency and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review.
A key goal of FY 1988 was to conduct at one third of the land disposal facilities either
a Comprehensive Monitoring Evaluation (CME) or an Operation and Maintenance
(O&M) Inspection. CMEs were conducted at 402 facilities and O&Ms were conducted
at 25 facilities in FY 1988. Compliance Evaluation Inspections (CEIs) were conducted
at 1,338 land disposal facilities by either EPA or the States in FY 1988, as required by
HSWA. In addition, treatment and storage facilities owned or operated by Federal,
32
-------
State, or local governments were inspected, as required by Sections 3007(c) and (d).
The RCRA Inspection Enhancement Strategy was developed to increase the quality of
inspections. Final guidance on the strategy was issued in July 1988, and is now being
implemented in the Regions.
Emphasis continued to be placed on assuring enforcement against SNCs (i.e.,
land disposal facilities that have Class I violations of groundwater monitoring, closure,
or financial responsibility requirements). At the beginning of the year, there were 147
SNCs that required formal enforcement action. At the end of FY 1988, all but 8 had
been addressed by EPA or the States with enforcement actions or had returned to
compliance (see Exhibit 17). A revised Environmental Response Policy (ERP) was
finalized in December 1987. The new ERP provided additional flexibility in selecting
enforcement actions by changing the method of defining high priority violations.
Another initiative to increase the Regions' flexibility in tailoring enforcement activities to
better fit their own priorities is the "RIP-flex." Under this initiative, the Regions may
negotiate with Headquarters to redirect resources and alter priorities within their SPMS
commitments to better reflect Region or State-specific priorities.
Exhibit 17
Beginning-of-year SNCs
with Formal Enforcement
Action or Returned to Compliance
Total Beginning-of-year
SNCs 147
rj SNCs with Formal
Enforcement or
Returned to Compliance
I Still Require Action
In addition to Regional and State inspections, OWPE supported enforcement of
the land disposal restrictions through workshops and training. OWPE, in conjunction
with the Regions and States, conducted an intensive RCRA Inspector Workshop in all
ten Regions, the State of Florida, and Washington, DC. Approximately 1,000 EPA,
State, and contractor personnel attended the three and one half day workshops, in
which they learned procedures to be used when conducting inspections of hazardous
waste generators, transporters, and treatment, storage and disposal facilities. Topics
33
-------
covered included evidence, generator requirements, permitted facility inspections
access issues, regulatory interpretations, industrial processes, photo interpretation ot
hazardous waste facilities, the inspector as a witness, report writing, sampling and site
reconnaissance, environmental crime, enforcement authorities, and HSWA.
Training on the Technical Enforcement Guidance Document was conducted in five
locations nationwide during FY1988. The training was revised and updated to include
new information on the Compliance Order Guidance and Laboratory Audit Inspection.
Data Management
Significant progress was made in FY 1988 in streamlining reporting requirements
and procedures. The Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System
(RCRIS) is under development to better manage the RCRA program at both the State
and national levels. Conversion of data from the Hazardous Waste Data Management
System to RCRIS began in FY 1988. Design and programming continued throughout
the fiscal year for RCRIS's seven major components, which include:
Handler Identification;
Permitting/Closure/Post Closure;
Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement;
Corrective Action;
Data Quality/Data Management;
Program Management; and
Facility Management Planning.
Field tests of the various aspects of the system (e.g., conversion of HWDMS data to
RCRIS) began in August 1988 in conjunction with several States. These field tests are
being used to refine the system before a three-month pilot project is conducted in
March 1989. The pilot project will be conducted in Region IV and will involve the States
of Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, and Mississippi.
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT INITIATIVES
HSWA required the Agency to conduct a study of the extent to which the existing
Subtitle D land disposal criteria are adequate to protect human health and the
34
-------
environment from groundwater contamination. This study resulted in a Report to
Congress that concluded the criteria were inadequate and recommended their
revision. OSWER followed up on this recommendation by proposing revised criteria
for land disposal on August 30, 1988.
Concurrent with the study of land disposal criteria, the Agency created a Municipal
Solid Waste Task Force in February 1988 to fashion a strategy for improving the
nation's management of municipal solid waste. The Task Force's report was released
for public comment in September 1988, with the final report due in January 1989. The
report recommends using a hierarchy of integrated waste management to solve
municipal waste problems at the local, regional, and national levels. The hierarchy
favors source reduction to first decrease the volume and toxicity of wastes. Recycling
is the preferred management option to further reduce potential risks to human health
and the environment, divert wastes from diminishing landfill capacity, and slow the
depletion of nonrenewable natural resources. The EPA action agenda calls for
reducing landfill use from the current 80% level to 55% by 1992, while incineration
would rise from 10% to about 20% (see Exhibit 18).
Perhaps the most significant feature of EPA's proposed Agenda for Action is that it
commits the Federal Government to a renewed leadership role in solid waste
management. There are a number of significant activities planned, as follows:
1. EPA intends to promote source reduction and recycling and has set a
national recycling goal of 25% by 1992.
2. EPA is committed to providing leadership on Federal procurement of
recyclable and reusable products. Guidelines in several areas have
already been issued (e.g., used oil, tires, paper, etc.).
3. EPA is continuing its work towards making incinerators and landfills safer.
For example, new criteria for municipal landfills were recently proposed;
in 1987, technical guidance was provided to the States for new major
solid waste incinerators; and air emission regulations for both new and
existing incinerators will be proposed in late 1989.
4. EPA supports a national research agenda to lead to a better
understanding of municipal waste management. Among other things,
EPA will look at how ash residues should be characterized; the presence
and fate of toxic substances in the municipal waste stream; techniques for
the recycling and reuse of ash through solidification; how plastics break
down after disposal; and technical and other issues related to
development of degradable plastics.
35
-------
Exhibit 18
EPA Goals For Municipal Solid Waste Management
CURRENT SITUATION
GOALS FOR 1992
LANDFILL
80%
INCINERATE 10%
A 4 I |
RECYCLE 10%
LANDFILL
55%
IIIH
INCINERATE 20%
Hllllft
REDUCE/RECYCLE 25%
-------
5. EPA will help facilitate State and local planning and is committed to
establishing a national information clearinghouse.
MAJOR REGULATORY AND GUIDANCE DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES
Land Ban
HSWA recognized that land disposal should be the least favored method of
managing hazardous waste because of the potential for groundwater contamination
and other hazards associated with land disposal. The program for restricting land
disposal of waste includes a series of deadlines for issuing regulations that specify
levels of treatment needed before the residues left after treatment are acceptable for
land disposal. During FY 1988, the Agency continued to meet the schedule set for
issuing rules under the land ban. EPA issued regulations in August 1988 covering
disposal of the "First Third" of RCRA hazardous wastes.
In addition to rulemaking and enforcement, OSWER is providing orientation
training to the Regions to educate them about the land ban. A Land Disposal
Restriction Strategy and Inspection Manual has been developed to assist the Regions
and States in implementing the regulations.
Permit Modifications
EPA issued new permit modification regulations on September 28, 1988 which
replace the previous major/minor categories with a new three-class system. Under
the old system, any change to the permit initiated by the permittee required prior
approval from EPA, which was often a time-consuming and resource-intensive
process. As a result, facilities found it difficult to make routine changes necessary to
maintain effective operations, to introduce improved technologies, and to respond
quickly to shifts in the types of waste generated. The new three-class system makes it
easier for facilities to make changes that are administrative or routine in nature (Class
1) or do not substantially alter the facility's design or management practices (Class 2)
by requiring notification of EPA but not requiring prior approval. (EPA still has the right
to review and deny Class 1 and 2 permit modifications.) Changes that substantially
alter the facility or its operation (Class 3) still require a draft permit modification to be
submitted and approved by EPA before the facility may initiate them. This rule,
developed as a result of OSWER's participation in a negotiated rulemaking effort, also
expands public involvement opportunities during significant permit modifications.
37
-------
Mobiie Treatment Units
Regulations for a new system for permitting mobile treatment units (MTUs) were
proposed on June 3,1987. During FY1988, the Agency revised the proposed rule and
placed it into Agency review. The new rule, which is expected to be promulgated in
early 1989, should have a significant impact on streamlining the process for bringing
MTUs on-line. By promoting faster permitting of MTUs, the new system should
expedite cleanup at facilities required to conduct remedial actions, increase capacity
development, and facilitate the use of alternative treatment systems.
RCRA inspection Manual
in March 1988, OSWER issued a new RCRA Inspection Manual to replace the 1981
Compliance Evaluation Inspection Manual. The revised manual is a comprehensive
guide for State and Regional staff and contractors on how to conduct effective RCRA
inspections. Topics discussed in the manual include preparation for inspections,
permit review, communicating with owner/operators, post-inspection activities, report
preparation, and keeping up to date with RCRA. The manual also provides inspection
procedures and checklists for generators and treatment, storage, and disposal
facilities.
Technical Case Development Guidance
In June 1988, OSWER issued final guidance that for the first time consolidates
information useful to RCRA inspectors, enforcement officers, and attorneys for
reference in the development of enforcement cases. The guidance covers various
aspects of technical case development including: the role of inspectors,
pre-inspection activities, investigative procedures, sampling, administrative
procedures, and preparing technical information to support litigation. The guidance
includes a number of technical resources available to assist RCRA case development
and a bibliography of references.
Laboratory Audit Inspection Guide
In September 1988, OSWER issued this guidance detailing Laboratory Audit
Inspection (LAI) procedures. The LAI is designed to supplement the existing RCRA
groundwater monitoring inspection process by evaluating the adequacy of the
laboratory program used for the analysis of a facility's groundwater samples. The
guidance includes procedures for evaluating the owner/operator's sampling and
analysis plan, general staffing, equipment, the maintenance program, quality
assurance and control procedures, sample tracking, and analytical procedures.
38
-------
Other Rulemakings
OSWER staff devoted a significant effort to developing corrective action
regulations in FY 1988 under Section 3004(u) of HSWA. The proposed rule went
through final Work Group closure and received concurrence during Agency review. In
addition, the Economic Analysis Staff completed its regulatory impact analysis and the
Agency anticipates proposing RCRA corrective action regulations in early FY 1989.
Other major rulemakings completed or underway include:
Land Disposal Restrictions: First Third Wastes;
Codification Rule for the 1984 Amendments;
Revision of Subpart H Liability Regulations: Corporate Guarantee;
Deferred Closure Rule;
Groundwater Monitoring at Hazardous Waste Facilities (proposed);
Hazardous Waste Incinerator Amendments;
Revisions to Definition of Solid Waste;
Exemption for Samples Used in Treatability Studies; and
Regulations Covering Hazardous Waste Burning in Boilers and Industrial
Furnaces (Administrative portion issued as final; technical portion is
proposed).
Reports To Congress
OSWER submitted three major reports to Congress in FY 1988. The Report to
Congress on Wastes from Combustion of Coal by Electric Utility Power Plants was
delivered in March 1988. In the report, the Agency concluded that coal combustion
waste streams do not exhibit hazardous characteristics under current RCRA
regulations and, therefore, the Agency does not intend to regulate them under Subtitle
C. The report expressed the Agency's concern, however, that several other wastes
39
-------
may exhibit corrosivity or EP toxicity characteristics and may merit regulation under
Subtitle C. These include wastes produced during equipment maintenance and water
purification.
The final Report to Congress on Subtitle D concluded that the existing criteria do
not contain adequate provisions to ensure protection of human health and the
environment, and that even if they did, the criteria are not being effectively
implemented by States. The report recommended revision of the Subtitle D criteria,
greater emphasis on recycling, and technical assistance for the States.
The Report to Congress on the Management of Wastes from Exploration,
Development, and Production of Crude Oil, Natural Gas, and Geothermal Energy was
submitted to Congress in December 1987 and was followed by a regulatory
determination on June 29,1988. The determination concluded that Subtitle C controls
were not warranted for these wastes.
Guidance Documents issued
OSWER issued a number of guidances on various technical and policy aspects of
the RCRA program in FY 1988, including:
Guidance Manual for Subpart G Closure and Post-Closure Care
Standards and Subpart H Cost Estimating Requirements;
Minimum Technology Guidance on Double Liner Systems Design,
Construction, and Operation;
Guidance on Limiting Metals Emissions from Hazardous Waste
Incinerators;
Guidance on Carbon Monoxide Controls for Hazardous Waste
Incinerators;
Guidance on Trial Burn Reporting and Setting Permit Conditions;
« Minimum Technology Guidance on Leak Detection Systems for Land
Disposal Units;
« Hazardous Waste Incineration Measurement Guidance;
40
-------
Clean Closure of Hazardous Waste Tank Systems and Container Units;
Off-Site Policy;
RCRA Evaluation Guide;
RCRA Inspection Manual;
RCRA State Oversight Inspection Guide;
RCRA Case Development Guidance;
Hazardous Waste Tank Systems Inspection Manual;
Revised Enforcement Response Policy;
RCRA Inspection Enhancement Strategy;
Incinerability Index (primary index developed: ongoing over next one to
two years); and
Surface Impoundment Retrofitting Requirements Enforcement Strategy.
41
-------
SECTION 3
FEDERAL FACILITIES
FY 1988 brought recognition for the effectiveness of the Federal Facilities
Compliance Task Force, established during FY 1987 to serve as a focal point for
solving compliance issues under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (CERCLA) at Federal facilities. This year the Task Force was given
permanent organizational status. It is now known as the Federal Facilities Hazardous
Waste Compliance Office and is located within OWPE.
The Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) has made
significant progress in bringing order to the array of complex and controversial issues
involved in managing and cleaning up solid and hazardous waste at Federal facilities.
OSWER has responded to this challenge with the following three-part strategy:
(1) Identification of Federal facilities of concern;
(2) Enforcement and compliance monitoring at these facilities; and
(3) Planning and management of resources to address concerns at these
facilities.
IDENTIFICATION OF FEDERAL FACILITIES OF CONCERN
OSWER has accomplished part one of this strategy - identification of Federal
facilities of concern - by developing and publishing in the Federal Register the Federal
Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket, a computerized data base defining
the universe of potential Federal facilities with hazardous waste problems. This
Docket, required under the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA)
Section 120(c) and involving the cooperation of over twenty Federal agencies, lists
over 1,000 facilities. Each of these facilities must conduct a Preliminary Assessment
(PA) to determine whether the facility poses a threat to health and the environment
significant enough to warrant further investigation. EPA estimates that half of the 1,170
Federal facilities on the Docket will warrant further investigation and Hazard Ranking
System (HRS) scoring to determine whether the facility should be placed on the
National Priorities List (NPL).
Publication of the Docket set into motion a series of statutory deadlines for these
assessments of hazardous waste problems at Federal facilities, as well as for the
43
-------
evaluation and potential listing of Docket facilities on the NPL. In conjunction with the
compilation of the Docket, OSWER developed comprehensive guidance for Federal
agencies to use in assessing Federal facilities for possible NPL listing, resulting in the
evaluation of over 100 facilities this fiscal year, of which between 30 and 40 will be
included in a special NPL Update to be promulgated in early 1989. In addition, the first
biannual update of the Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket was
issued in November 1988.
ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE MONITORING
The second part of OSWER's Federal Facilities strategy - enforcement and
compliance monitoring at facilities of concern - has been accomplished during FY
1988 by developing practical, action-oriented policies for resolving compliance
disputes, selecting an enforcement approach, and developing interagency
agreements governing cleanups. Of special note, in January 1988, OSWER
developed a comprehensive enforcement strategy entitled, "Enforcement Actions
Under RCRA and CERCLA at Federal Facilities," which discusses the range of
enforcement options available to EPA under RCRA and CERCLA to obtain
environmental compliance and cleanup at Federal facilities. In addition, this policy
document identifies criteria for the EPA Regions to consider in selecting an
enforcement strategy.
In March 1988, OSWER issued another important guidance document entitled,
"Elevation Process for Achieving Federal Facility Compliance Under RCRA," which
identifies procedures for elevating compliance disputes at Federal facilities to higher
levels of authority within EPA in order to keep the enforcement process moving. This
guidance document was designed to ensure timely resolution of significant RCRA
compliance issues. These guidelines have helped achieve RCRA compliance
agreements at three facilities during FY 1988, including:
(1) Iowa Army Ammunition Plant (Region VII);
(2) Picatinny Arsenal (Region II); and
(3) Holloman Air Force Base (Region VI).
Thirdly, during the spring and summer of 1988, OSWER successfully negotiated
model provisions with both the Department of Energy (DOE) and Department of
Defense (DOD) to be included in all Federal Facility Agreements for Superfund cleanup
of DOE and DOD facilities. The model provisions clearly establish the relative
44
-------
responsibilities and working relationships between the agencies during the Superfund
cleanup process.
EPA, DOE, and DOD have agreed that the model provisions should be
incorporated into site-specific agreements for Federal facilities. These agreements
will be negotiated among representatives of EPA, the Federal facility, and the
appropriate State. In the course of these negotiations, States will be encouraged to
participate in all phases of the cleanup process. Individual State concerns will be
integrated, as appropriate, into the final site-specific agreement.
Key elements of the model provisions are as follows:
Establishes the DOE and DOD commitment to fully study the
environmental problem at the Federal facility and perform the
EPA-approved cleanup of the facility.
Establishes the EPA commitment to review and comment on DOE and
DOD plans and studies at the facility.
Establishes a mechanism for resolution of disputes arising under the
agreement, including technical disputes. The Administrator will resolve
any disputes under the agreement which cannot otherwise be resolved by
EPA and DOE and DOD staff.
Establishes the significance of specific timetables, deadlines, and
schedules for completion of the major tasks to be performed pursuant to
the agreement.
Establishes that EPA may assess stipulated penalties in the event of a
DOE or DOD failure to comply with the timetables, deadlines, or the
remedial requirements established pursuant to the agreement.
Establishes that the agreement, and the commitments of the parties
established by the agreement, will be fully binding and enforceable by the
parties to the agreement, States (even if not a party to the agreement), and
citizens.
The model provisions will expedite site-specific cleanup negotiations and,
therefore, cleanup of Federal facilities. There are currently 25 Federal Facility
45
-------
Agreements under EPA/State/Federal facility negotiation. OSWER anticipates that FY
1989 will yield 40-45 Federal Facility Agreements. During FY 1990, OSWER expects
Records of Decision (RODs) to be signed and implementation of technical remedies to
begin at numerous Federal facilities.
PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT OF RESOURCES TO ADDRESS CONCERNS
Under part three of the Federal Facilities Compliance Strategy - planning and
management of resources to address concerns at these facilities, OSWER has
succeeded in having Federal facility targets incorporated into the agency's
accountability and resource allocation systems for the first time.
Finally, OSWER's staff analyzed five different legislative proposals relating to waste
management at Federal facilities during FY 1988 and coordinated the Agency's
comments and testimony on each of them. In addition, OSWER developed the
Federal Real Property Transfer Regulations, as required by SARA Section 120(h).
These proposed regulations, which govern the manner in which notice is given to
buyers of Federal land where hazardous materials have been released or stored for
one year or more, are currently being reviewed by OMB.
46
-------
SECTION 4
CHEMICAL EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
AND PREVENTION PROGRAM
FY 1988 was the second year of implementation for Title III of the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) - The Emergency Planning and
Community Right-to-Know Act (see Exhibit 19). The principle objectives of the
Chemical Emergency Preparedness and Prevention (CEPP) Program Staff were to
complete the rulemaking process in accordance with statutory requirements, to build
State and local capabilities to implement Title Ill's preparedness provisions, and to
initiate a program to help prevent chemical accidents. Highlights of the CEPP program
are presented below.
REGULATORY ACTIVITIES
The Preparedness Staff met all statutory deadlines under Title III and began new
rulemaking initiatives. The final rule for SARA Sections 311-312 was promulgated on
October 15, 1987. This rule established requirements for material safety data sheets
(MSDS) and hazardous chemical inventory reporting. The initial rate of compliance for
Section 311 MSDS or list submissions (due October 17, 1987) and for Section 312
inventory submissions (due March 1, 1989) was estimated at less than 50 percent of
the anticipated levels. The scope of this rule was expanded as of September 24,1988
to the non-manufacturing sector as a result of the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration's (OSHA) expansion of the Hazard Communication Standard. The
Preparedness Staff also began analyses of alternatives for a rule establishing a
permanent reporting threshold for Sections 311 -312 reporting. This rule is scheduled
to be published in January of 1989.
The Preparedness Staff supported the publication of the proposed rule for claiming
trade secrets in Title III on October 15, 1987 and the final rule on July 29, 1988. The
Staff continued to coordinate with the Office of Toxic Substances, which has the lead
for the SARA Section 313 toxic chemical release inventory. The final rule for this
Section was published on February 16, 1988. Over 72,500 inventory forms have been
filed from over 17,500 facilities.
The Preparedness Staff has coordinated the development of the Enforcement
Strategy for Title III with the Office of Waste Programs Enforcement (OWPE) and
Regional Offices. The Staff also held three Regional meetings with Indian tribes to
develop a coordinated Indian policy for Title III.
47
-------
Exhibit 19
Major Responsibilitites Under Title III
EPA/Federal
Provides support to
States and local
agencies by:
Q Issuing regulations and
maintaining list of
regulated chemicals;
Q Maintaining the Toxic
Chemical Release
Inventory data base
(Section 313);
Q Developing policy and
guidance; and
Q Providing technical
assistance to States,
SERCs, and LEPCs.
States
Provide support to SERCs
and LEPCs by:
Q Appointing SERCs;
Q Receiving and dissemi-
nating information; and
a Under certain circum-
stances, designating
additional facilities or
chemicals as subject to
Title III requirements.
State Emergency
Response
Commissions
(SERCs)
Provide support to LEPCs
by:
Q Designating local emer-
gency planning districts;
Q Appointing LEPCs for each
district;
Q Reviewing local emergency
plans; and
Q Receiving and disseminat-
ing information.
Local Emergency
Planning
Commissions
(LEPCs)
Foster emergency prepared-
ness assistance to local
communities by:
Q Developing and maintain-
ing emergency plans; and
Q Receiving and disseminat-
ing information.
Facilities
Plan for and respond ap-
propriately to chemical
emergencies by:
Q Designating emergency
coordinators;
a Providing inventory infor-
mation to LEPCs and
SERCs;
Q Notifying LEPCs and
SERCs of emergency
chemical releases; and
a Providing information
about chemical releases
to the community.
pSo0911a
-------
BUILDING REGIONAL AND STATE EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS CAPABILITY
In accordance with the "cascading" approach to Title III implementation, which
entails a minimal support role in implementation for EPA Headquarters and an
expanded role for local agencies, the Preparedness Staff focused on assisting States
and localities to plan for and respond to major chemical accidents. One highlight of
this effort was the Deputy Regional Administrators' White Paper on Title III
Implementation. This paper, written from the perspective of the Regions and States
with Headquarters assistance, evaluated the implementation effort to date and
provided recommendations for improvement. The White Paper was presented to the
Administrator on February 25, 1988 and the Title III workgroup has used the
recommendations to guide its efforts in FY1988. EPA Regions also assisted 41 States
and territories in planning and conducting a total of 67 table top and field simulation
exercises in emergency preparedness.
To date, 56 active State Emergency Response Committees (SERCs) and over
3,800 Local Emergency Planning Committees (LEPCs) have been established.
Regional Offices continued to assist in increasing the capability of these groups
through five information management workshops for SERC and LEPC members held
in June and July. Five million dollars in funding for Title III training for SERCs and Indian
tribes was allocated through the Federal Emergency Management Administration's
(FEMA's) comprehensive cooperative agreement with each State. SERC and LEPC
representatives attended a National Governors' Association/EPA conference in June
1988 to share information and discuss successful implementation techniques.
Another highlight of the year was the 1988 Hazardous Spills Conference in May,
which EPA co-sponsored with the American Institute of Chemical Engineers and
National Response Team (NRT). The Preparedness Staff was an active participant in
the conference, with personnel serving on the conference program committee,
presenting papers, moderating discussions, and participating on panels of many
subcommittees.
In December 1987, EPA, FEMA, and the Department of Transportation published
the Technical Guidance for Hazards Analysis. Preparedness Staff, with the technical
support of the Office of Toxic Substances, contributed to this document. This key
guidance was used by the SERCs and LEPCs as they developed their plans for the
October 17, 1988 plan submission deadline. A training module on this guidance was
developed and implemented. The NRT developed its Criteria for Regional Response
Team Review of Hazardous Materials Emergency Plans and the Regions distributed
an exercise guide to assist SERCs and LEPCs in testing their plans. The Preparedness
Staff supported the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in refining the
CAMEO II software to include planning, hazards analysis, and Title III information
management components.
49
-------
The National Incident Coordination Team (NICT) was established in May of 1988.
The NICT is a mechanism for coordinating Agency response to incidents and
emergency situations of national and international significance. The Team will provide
a contact mechanism for media, Congress, and Federal agencies while serving to
coordinate information internally.
PREVENTION
This year, the Preparedness Staff launched its prevention program, which
complements preparedness efforts by seeking ways to foster efforts to prevent
chemical accidents from occurring. In FY 1988, the prevention program focused on
developing an understanding of the problem and the role of government in addressing
the problem.
One highlight of the prevention initiative was presentation of the SARA Section
305(b) Review of Emergency Systems to Congress in June 1988. The study,
completed by OSWER with the cooperative effort of several Agency offices and FEMA,
described systems for detecting, monitoring, preventing, and alerting the public to
releases of extremely hazardous substances. The Chemical Process Safety Training
developed for site visits performed in the study has been modified for presentation to
the Regions in preparation for chemical safety audits to be performed in FY 1989. In
addition, the Agency reconvened the Prevention Work Group to identify and discuss
issues relating to accident data bases, audits, research, and further areas of study.
The Accidental Release Information Program was evaluated and revised in
September and will continue to collect data for a national database on the causes of
accidental releases and prevention technologies. The Preparedness Staff also
continued analysis of the potential impacts of air toxics provisions in pending Clean Air
Act reauthorization legislation.
OUTREACH
The outreach subcommittee of the Title III Workgroup coordinated various
publications in FY 1988 to assist in educating the public and the regulated community
on the provisions of Title III. The revised Title II! Fact Sheet was published in August.
Over 40 organizations supported development of a brochure targeted at LEPC
members entitled "It's Not Over in October" and a generic Title III brochure. A
brochure for small businesses detailing the provisions of SARA Sections 311-312 was
published in September 1988.
INTERNATIONAL ASSISTANCE
The Preparedness Staff has also coordinated with emergency response and
preparedness and prevention organizations around the world. The Joint Contingency
50
-------
Plan (JCP) with Mexico was signed in January and work continues on the Canadian
plan. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development Ad Hoc
Workgroup on Chemical Accidents, in which the Preparedness Staff participates, has
developed plans for conferences over the next two years concerning preparedness
and prevention. The Preparedness Staff is also assisting the United Nations
Environmental Program in developing a pilot preparedness project that combines
elements of the Community Awareness and Emergency Response program and NRT
Hazardous Materials Emergency Planning Guide for use in developing countries.
51
-------
SECTION 5
UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS
During FY 1988, the Office of Underground Storage Tanks (OUST) completed two
major rulemakings, neared completion on a third, and undertook a variety of program
activities to build an effective national Underground Storage Tank (UST) program and
improve UST management. (Exhibit 20 displays UST program responsibilities and
relationships.) In September 1988, EPA promulgated final technical standards for
USTs and State program approval standards. OUST responded to comments on the
financial responsibility regulations proposed in April 1987 and will issue the final rules
during the first quarter of FY 1989. Implementation activities have increased during the
past fiscal year with the primary emphasis on building strong State and local
programs. These activities include the awarding of Leaking Underground Storage
Tank (LUST) Trust Fund cooperative agreements and the development of LUSTTrust
Fund guidance, the development of a handbook on State program approval, and
technical assistance in the form of Targeted Improvement Projects (TIPs) and
outreach materials. A variety of measures suggest that OUST's efforts are resulting in
improved UST management.
REGULATORY ACTIVITIES
Technical Standards
OUST responded to more than 5,000 public comments on the proposed technical
standards for USTs. More than 1,100 manufacturers, owners, installers, tank testers,
environmental groups, and State and local regulators submitted comments on the
proposed standards. These comments and additional information obtained through
EPA's research efforts contributed to the development of OUST's final technical
standards regulation. The final rule establishes requirements for new tank design,
construction, and installation; existing tank upgrade and repair; release detection
standards; and release investigation, confirmation, and corrective action
requirements. The rule was published in the Federal Register on September 23, 1988
and will be effective 90 days later (December 23, 1988).
OUST prepared a Draft Report to Congress and Background Document in
response to a request by Congress for additional information about heating oil and
motor fuel tanks, which are exempt from Subtitle I of RCRA. The Report and
Background Document were completed in two stages. In the first stage, OUST
assessed the size, geographic location, and other characteristics of the exempt UST
population, including the extent of known releases from these tanks. This information
was reviewed by EPA, State government, and industry representatives. During the
53
-------
(TX
Exhibit 20
The National UST Program
56 STATE UST PROGRAMS
Manage Program
Develop/Revise Program
Support County & Local
Program Implementation
Inform Regulated Community
Monitor Compliance & Enforce
Requirements
Coordinate Public Participation
Conduct Cleanups
Oversee RP Cleanups
Conduct Cost Recovery
Manage Trust Fund
Monies
mr
^^ f
t
t
j) ~)
t
10 REGIONAL UST OFFICES
Support State Program
Development
Implement Targeted
Improvement Projects
Administer Trust Fund
Manage Grants
Provide Technical
Assistance to States
& Local Governments
c~
r^^ 1
t t
t
T)
OUST
Develop Regulations & National Policy
Provide Support and Technical Assistance to Regions
Support Trust Fund Administration
Measure National Program Progress
Manage National Program
Note: Arrows indicate direction of flow of support and services.
f8o091-3
-------
second stage, these comments augmented with additional analyses and data
obtained from UST industry representatives and government officials were
incorporated into the draft report. The final report will discuss the leak potential of
exempt USTs, assess the hazards, and recommend regulatory and non-regulatory
measures that might be appropriate. The report is scheduled for delivery to Congress
in the winter of 1988.
State Program Approval Standards
OUST responded to over 200 comments received on the proposed State program
approval regulation. The final rule, which becomes effective on the same date as the
Technical Standards rule, establishes requirements for the approval of State UST
programs to operate in lieu of the Federal requirements. The regulation uses an
innovative Federal objectives approach to provide flexibility for judging the stringency
and adequacy of enforcement under State programs. OUST's strategy is to ensure
that a baseline level of environmental protection is maintained while allowing flexibility
in the methods the States may select to obtain that protection.
Financial Responsibility Standards
Final financial responsibility requirements were published in the Federal Register
on October 26, 1988. OUST analyzed and responded to more than 1,000 comments
received on the April 1987 proposed rules. Major issues raised by commenters
included coverage requirements; timing of requirements; applicability of requirements
to municipalities; and suspension of enforcement provisions. In addition to analyzing
the financial responsibility requirements, OUST continues to assist States in the
development of State financial assurance programs as well as working with the
insurance industry to help them understand the risks associated with underground
storage tanks. EPA's primary objective in these efforts is to encourage the availability
and use of financial assurance mechanisms so that funds will be available to pay for
cleaning up leaks from USTs and for third party damages caused by leaks.
IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITIES
Building State and Local Programs
OUST's focus is on the achievement of long range goals and the need to build a
relationship with State and local governments so that all levels of government can work
together to improve tank management overthe next decade. The Office's approach to
the task of implementing its program is different from that undertaken by most of
EPA's other regulatory programs. This difference is due to three factors: the large
number of facilities to be regulated; the nature of the regulated community; and the
nature of the regulatory work. Consequently, OUST believes that, in the long run, UST
55
-------
systems will be most successfully regulated by State and local governments. EPA will
provide leadership, technical assistance, and enforcement backup as necessary. In
February 1988, UST staff met with franchise managers from several major
corporations to discuss ways in which EPA could use franchising principles in
effectively supporting State programs.
Many States and localities already have UST programs in place. The number of
States that regulate USTs grew from three in 1980 to 42 in 1988. Today, 88 percent of
the nation's underground tanks are subject to State legislation. Fifty States and
territories have LUST Trust Fund Cooperative Agreements in place. Nearly 30 States
have UST regulatory programs and many hundreds of counties and cities have
developed local UST ordinances and programs that often operate independently of
the State. The number of people working on UST programs at the State level has
grown dramatically from approximately 100 State staff in 1984 to over 600 today.
Because many of the States and localities plan to use EPA's rules to guide their
programs' development, EPA expects the current high level of UST program activity
nationwide to increase rapidly with promulgation of the Federal technical standards.
EPA expects most of the States to apply for approval to administer their own UST
programs in compliance with Federal requirements. OUST has simplified the
application process by providing clear guidance as to what constitutes an approvable
State program, and what constitutes a complete application. The Regional offices
conducted test runs of the guidance and sample application in eleven States. The
objectives of these test runs were to evaluate the usefulness of this guidance and
promote State delegation as soon as possible.
To assist States in developing effective compliance and enforcement programs,
OUST developed a handbook on compliance and enforcement techniques ("Building
State Compliance Programs," EPA/530/UST-88/003). Included in the handbook is
information on outreach activities, compliance monitoring, and enforcement actions.
The handbook does not present any one "right" way to do enforcement but gives State
and local program officials several examples of successful techniques that might be
applicable to their program. The handbook also contains a "users guide to selected
compliance techniques" which provides selected examples of the forms, fliers, letters,
data sources, etc. that have been useful in compliance monitoring and enforcement in
States and localities.
EPA Regional offices are working closely with States to enhance their level of
performance. The Regions have awarded UST grants to help States develop their
programs. States and Regions have worked together to address problem areas
through specific Targeted Improvement Projects (TIPs), including training and
technical support services. For example, Region X is assisting the State of Washington
56
-------
in developing a decentralized compliance inspection program. Region I is working
with Rhode Island to establish a targeting system for inspecting facilities.
Headquarters continues to foster the development of State and local UST
programs by producing the following:
A report on funding options for State and local governments;
Guidance on the development of State financial assurance programs;
Technical studies on UST corrective action, release detection, and
release prevention technologies;
Grants to the New England Interstate Water Pollution Association of State
and Territorial Waste Management Organizations, and U.S. Conference
of Mayors; and
A transition strategy that provides guidance for the period between the
effective date of the regulations and program approval for the States.
LUST Trust Fund Activities
At the end of FY 1988, the Regions had negotiated with and awarded cooperative
agreements to 50 of 56 States and Territories. Cooperative agreements between
States and EPA enable the States to spend Trust Fund resources for cleanups and
associated program costs. During the fiscal year, the Regions had awarded
approximately $35 million from the LUST Trust Fund.
States have already identified thousands of sites where responsible parties are
beginning cleanups, and States have begun more than 155 corrective actions using
Trust Fund monies. States will continue to encourage owners and operators to
conduct corrective actions, and will take appropriate response and enforcement
actions where owners and operators are unable or unwilling to perform corrective
actions.
OUST laid the foundation for its cost recovery program and took significant steps
toward its implementation during FY 1988. OUST worked closely with other EPA
offices and Department of Justice (DOJ) to develop a cost recovery policy that allows
the States to use the monies recovered from responsible parties at LUST Trust Fund
funded cleanup sites for additional LUST work and to achieve settlements without the
57
-------
direct involvement of EPA. This approach is consistent with OUST's strategy to
implement the program at the State level. It provides an incentive to States to
aggressively pursue cost recovery actions. States can use these funds to enforce
responsible party cleanups or to undertake State-lead corrective actions. OUST has
developed and issued an OSWER directive that presents the key elements of the
program and provides the States with guidance for implementing a sound program.
Currently, OUST is conducting three pilot studies in New York, Minnesota and
Maryland to explore innovative and effective ways to pursue cost recovery.
Outreach Activities
OUST has developed an outreach strategy that identifies various potential
audiences (e.g., owners and operators, State and local officials, trade associations,
Congress) for UST outreach material and determines how to make materials available
to various potential audiences. Consistent with the overall OUST position that UST
regulatory activities should occur at the State and local levels, OUST prepares the
materials and then makes them available to States, trade associations, and other
groups who, in turn, deliver the materials to owners and operators. In some cases,
OUST provides camera-ready copy to States who can add State-specific information
and then reproduce and distribute the product.
During FY 1988, OUST continued its production of materials that will help
owner/operators understand and comply with the new requirements and help specific
audiences, such as inspectors, States, and local officials, to do a better job of program
implementation. OUST developed the following materials to inform the regulated
community about the UST Program:
Bulletin and Newsletter:
A quarterly bulletin, "Lustline," aimed at State officials, discusses the
latest UST issues and developments;
A technical newsletter focusing on technical information exchange;
Videos:
Demonstrating proper tank installation (for inspectors and owner/
operators);
Demonstrating safe tank closure practices (for inspectors);
Brochures:
A summary of the final regulations ("Musts for USTS") (for owner/
operators);
A description of external leak detection methods ("Leak Lookout") (for
owner/operators); and
A description of State financial assurance programs ("Dollars and
Sense");
58
-------
Handbooks:
"Corrective Action Technologies";
"Building State Compliance Programs"; and
"Funding Options for State and Local Governments."
Slide Show:
"Tank Talk II " on the final regulations.
Measuring OUST's Progress
According to a variety of measures, OUST's efforts are resulting in improved UST
management performance. The most dramatic evidence of the program's impact has
been the increased pace of tank replacement and tank replacement programs
undertaken by the major oil companies. According to experts interviewed by OUST,
over 90 percent of the new tanks sold are used to replace existing tanks. Although tank
sales between 1980 and 1986 remained flat, we have seen a 15 percent increase in
tank sales over the past two years (see Exhibit 21).
Exhibit 21
Underground Storage Tank Production (1980-1987)
CO
b
o
o
33
o
-------
More significantly, most tank systems sold in the United States are protected. In
1980, bare steel tank systems comprised 84 percent of the market. In 1984 bare steel
had slipped to a 74 percent share, and in 1987 bare steel tanks had less than half (43
percent) of the market. While this figure includes tanks which are not covered by UST
legislation or regulation, there is little question that Federal law (and anticipated
regulations), State and local regulations, and the fear of liability judgments have
radically changed the purchasing patterns of UST owners. Tank owners are investing
in tanks that are less likely to leak. As more data become available, OUST will analyze
other measures (e.g., numbers of leaks reported, number of corrective actions taken)
to evaluate program accomplishments.
60
-------
APPENDICES
-------
Appendix A
Record of Decision (RODs) Signed in FY 1988
-------
Appendix A
RODs Signed in FY 1988
Site
Cannon Engineering, MA
Charles George Landfill, MA
(two RODs)
Groveland Wells, MA
Iron Horse Park, MA
Keefe Environmental
Services, NH
Landfill and Resource
Recovery, Rl
Laurel Park, CT
Old Springfield Landfill, VT
Rose Disposal Pit, MA
Yaworski, CT
American Thermostat, NY
Asbestos Dump, NJ
Beachwood/
Berkeley Well, NJ
Brewster Well Field, NY
Burnt Fly Bog, NJ
Ewan Property, NJ
GE Wiring Devices, PR
Kin-Buc Landfill, NJ
Lipari Landfill, NJ
Love Canal, NY (two RODs)
Ludlow Sand and Gravel, NY
Marathon Battery, NY
Montgomery Township, NJ
Nascolite, NJ
Old Bethpage, NY
Reich Farms, NJ
Ringwood Mines, NY
Rocky Hill, NJ
Tabernacle, NJ
Upjohn Facility, PR
York Oil, NY (two RODs)
Aladdin Plating, PA
Ambler Asbestos, PA
Avtex Fibers, VA
Region
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
Site
Bendix Flight Systems, PA
Berks Sand Pits, PA
Chlsman Creek, VA
Delaware Sand and Gravel, DE
Dorney Road, PA
Douglassville Disposal, PA
Drake Chemical, PA
Fike Chemical, WV
Henderson Road, PA
Kimberton, PA
L.A. Clarke, VA
Middletown Airfield, PA
New Castle, DE
Ordnance Works
Disposal, WV
Palmerton Zinc, PA
Rhinehart Tire Fire Dump, VA
Southern Md Wood, MD
Tyson's Dump, PA
Voortman, PA
West Virginia Ordnance, WV
Westline, PA
Wildcat Landfill, DE
Airco, KY
Alpha Chemical, FL
Brown Wood Preserving, FL
Celanese, NC
Flowood, MS
Chemtronics, NC
Goodrich, B.F., KY
Independent Nail, SC
National Starch, NC
Perdido Groundwater, AL
Wamchem, SC
Zellwood, FL
Region
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
A-1
-------
Appendix A (continued)
RODs Signed in FY 1988
Site
Allied/lronton Coke, OH
Belvidere Landfill, IL
Coshocton, OH
Eau Claire, Wl
Forest Waste Disposal, Ml
Fort Wayne Reduction, IN
IMC Terre Haute, IN
Kummer Sanitary
Landfill, MN
LaSalle Electrical, IL
Long Prairie, MN
Mason County Landfill, Ml
Mid-State Disposal, Wl
NL Ind Taracorp Golden
Auto, MN
Ninth Ave. Dump, IN
Oak Grove Landfill, MN
Petersen Sand and
Gravel, IN
Poor Farm, IN
Pristine, OH
Republic Steel
Quarry, OH
South Andover, MN
Summit National, OH
U.S. Aviex, Ml
United Scrap Lead, OH
Velsicol Chemical, IL
Waste Disposal, MN
Atchison/Santa Fe
Clovis, NM
Bailey Waste Disposal, TX
Brio Refining, TX
Dixie Oil, TX
French Limited, TX
Gurley Pit, AR
Industrial Waste Control, AR
Koppers/Texarkana, TX
North Cavalcade, TX
Region
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
Site
Odessa Chromium I, TX
Odessa Chromium II, TX
Old Midland Products, AR
Sand Springs, OK
Sol Lynn, TX (two RODs)
South Cavalcade, TX
South Valley, NM
(three RODs)
Stewco, TX
United Nuclear, NM
Arkansas City Dump, KS
Big River Sand, KS
Cherokee County, KS
Deere, John, IA
Fulbright Landfill, MO
Hastings Groundwater,
NE (two RODs)
Midwest Manufacturing, IA
Minker Stout/Romaine
Creek, MO
Shenandoah Stables, MO
Syntex Verona, MO
Times Beach, MO
Anaconda Smelter, MT
Broderick Wood, CO
California Gulch, CO
Central City/Clear Creek, CO
Indiana Bend, AZ
Lorentz Barrel and Drum, CA
MGM Brakes, CA
Motorola (52nd Street), AZ
Operating Industries, CA
(two RODs)
Ordot Landfill, GU
San Gabriel (Area 1), CA
San Gabriel (Area 2), CA
San Gabriel (Area 4), CA
Selma Treating, CA
Region
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
8
8
8
8
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
A-2
-------
Appendix A (continued)
RODs Signed in FY 1988
Site
South Bay Asbestos, CA
Tucson Airport, A2
Commencement Bay/
Nearshore. WA
Commencement Bay/
Tacoma, WA
Region
9
9
10
10
Site
Frontier Hard Chrome,
WA (two RODs)
Gould, OR
Martin Marietta, OR
Pacific Hide, ID
Region
10
10
10
10
A-3
-------
Appendix B
FY 1988 Remedial Design/Remedial Action
(RD/RA) Settlements
-------
Appendix B
FY 1988 RD/RA Settlements*
Site
McKInn
Cannons (4 sites)
Picillo
GEMS
Goose Farm
Maryland Sand Gravel
& Stone
Tysons
Harvey and Knott
Limestone Road
Chisman Creek (OU1)
McAdoo
Saltville Waste
Palmerton Zinc
Middletown Airfield
N.W. 58th St.
Celanese
Brown Wood
Hlpps Road
Tower
Pioneer Sand
Gold Coast
Powersville
Laskan Poplar
Industrial Excess
Seymour
Rose Township
Forest Waste
Johns Manville
Bayou Sorrell
Mid-South
Conservation Chemical
California Gulch
Anaconda Smelter
Litchfield Airport
Stringfellow
Commencement Bay
Region
I
I
I
II
II
III
in
ill
in
III
III
Ml
III
III
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
V
V
V
V
V
V
VI
VI
VII
VIII
VIII
IX
IX
X
Approximate Value (M)**
7.0
33.0
2.0
27.4
9.0
7.8
20.0
10.0
1.2
15.0
3.0
5.4
8.0
4.0
11.0
2.0
9.0
4.0
7.0
3.0
3.7
4.2
8.5
2.0
25.0
25.0
1.8
3.5
25.0
4.0
20.0
2.5
2.0
5.5
3.9
3.5
* Does not include consent decrees in government concurrence
* * M - Millions of Dollars
B-1
-------
Appendix C
Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE)
Program Participants
-------
Appendix C
Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE)
Program Participants
Developer
First Solicitation, HFP SITE 001
1- American Combustion, Inc.
Norcross, GA
2. DETOX Industries, Inc.
Sugarland, TX
3. Hazcon, Inc.
Katy, TX
4. Haztech/EPA Region 4
Atlanta, GA
5. International Waste
Technologies
Wichita, KS
6. Ogden Environmental
Services
San Diego, CA
7- Resources Conservation
Company
Bellevue, WA
8- Shirco Infrared
Systems, Inc.
Dallas, TX
9. Terra Vac, Inc.
Dorado, PR
10. Westinghouse Electric
Corporation
Madison, PA
Second Solicitation, HFP SITE 002
1 1 Geosafe Corp
Kirkland, WA
12. CF Systems Corporation
Cambridge, MA
13. Chemfix Technologies, Inc.
Metairie, LA
14. MoTec, Inc.
Mt. Juliet, TN
15. Retech, Inc.
Ukiah, CA
16. Sanitech, Inc.
Twinsburg, OH
17. Separation & Recovery
Systems, Inc. (SRS)
Irvine, CA
18. soliditech, Inc.
Houston, TX
19. Zimpro Environmental
Control Systems
Rothschild, Wl
Technology
Pyretron Oxygen
Burner
Biological
Degradation
Solidification/
Stabilization
Shirco Infrared
Thermal Destruction
In-Situ
Stabilization
Circulating
Fluidized Bed
Combustor
Solvent
Extraction
Infrared Thermal
Destruction
In-Situ Vacuum
Extraction
Pyroplasma
System
In-Situ
Vitrification
Solvent
Extraction
Chemical Fixation/
Stabilization
Liquid/Solid
Contact Digestion
Plasma Heat
Ion Exchange
Solidification/
Stabilization
Solidification
Powdered Activated
Carbon/Biological
Demonstration Completed3
January 1988
(Early 1989)
October 1987
August 1987
April 1988
(Spring 1989)
November 1987
April 1988
(Spring 1989)
(Spring 1989)
September 1988
(February 1989)
(Spring 1989)
(Summer 1989)
December 1988
(April 1989)
3Dates in parentheses indicate expected dates of completion.
C-1
-------
Appendix C (continued)
Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation (SITE)
Program Participants
Developer
Third Solicitation, FtFP SITE 0034
20. Biotrol, Inc.
Chaska, MN
21 Biotrol, Inc.
Chaska, MN
22. CBI Freeze
Technologies, Inc.
Plainfield, IL
23. Chemical Waste
Management, Inc.
Riverdale, IL
24. Detox, Inc.
Dayton, OH
25. E.I. Du Pont de
Nemours, Inc.
Newark, DE
26. Freeze Technologies Corp.
Raleigh, NC
27. Silicate Technology Corp.
Scottsdale, AZ
28. Toxic Treatments Inc.
San Mateo, CA
29 Ultrox International Inc.
Santa Anna, CA
Technology
Soil Washing
Biological
Degradation
Separation By
Freezing
Low-Temperature
Desorption
Fixed-Film
Biological
Microfiltration
Separation By
Freezing
Pozzolonic/
Silicate Based
In-sltu Steam/
Air Stripping
Ultra-violet
Radiation and
Ozone
Demonstration Completed
(Spring 1989)
(Spring 1989)
(Spring 1989)
(February 1989)
(March 1989)
4Third solocitation represents technologies selected during FY 1988.
C-2
-------
Appendix D
Emerging Technology Program (ETP) Participants
-------
Appendix D
Emerging Technology Program Participants
Developer
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Atomic Energy of Canada
Limited Research, Inc.
Chalk River, Ontario
Battelle Memorial Institute,
Columbus Division
Columbus, OH
Bio-Recovery
Systems, Inc.
Las Cruces, NM
Colorado School of Mines
Golden, CO
Energy and Environmental
Engineering, Inc.
Somerville, MA
Envirite Field
Services, Inc.
Atlanta, GA
Western Research Institute
Laramie, WY
Technology
Ultrafiltration
In-Situ Electro-
acoustic
Decontamination
Biological Sorbtion
Wetlands-Based
Treatment
Laser Stimulated
Photochemical
Oxidation
Solvent Washing
Contained Oil
Recovery of Wastes
D-1
------- |