United Slates Environmental Protection Agency Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Sesoonse 4>EPA DIRECTIVE NUMBER.-9932.1 TITLE: Guidance for Environmental Priorities Initiative (EPI) Facilities in the Superfund Pre-Remedial Program APPROVAL DATE: JAN 31 1989 EFFECTIVE DATE: ^ 3| 1989 ORIGINATING OFFICE:owPE/ RED (3 FINAL D DRAFT LEVEL OF DRAFT G3 A — Signed by AA or DAA D 8 — Signed by Office Director DC — Review & Comment REFERENCE (other documents):9932.0 Method for Prioritizing CERCLA Preliminary Assessments at RCRA Facilities SWER OSWER OSWER DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE Dl ------- United States environmental Protection Agency Washington. DC 20460 ' 1 OSWER Directive initiation Request 1. Directive Numoer 9932.1 2. Originator Information Name of Contact Person Ellen Brown {Mail Code OS 520 Offi '8WPE Teiepncne Code 475-9848 3. Title Guidance for Environmental Priorities Initiative (EPI) Facilities in the Superfund Pre-Remedial Program 4. Summary of Directive include tone! statement of purpose) Provide guidance to the Regions and States as to how EPI facilities should be handled by the Superfund Pre-Remedial Program. 5. Keywords EPI, Sreening Site Investigations(SSIs), Preliminary Assessments (PA) 6a. Does'This Directive Supersede Previous Directness)? b. Does It Supplement Previous Oirective(s)? No No Yes What directive (number, trtle) Yes What directive (number. tWe) 9932.0 Method for Prioritizing CERCLA TTeliminTry Assessments at RCRA Facilitie JDraft Level A - Signed by AA/DAA B - Signed by Office Director C - For Review & Comment 0 - In Devetopmem 8. Document to be distributed to States by Headquarters? | | Yw X No This Request Meets OSWER Directives System Format Standards. 9. Signajuw of Lead Office Directives Coordinator kM* Yfi. ulilc^J 10. Name and Title of Approving Official i \ 0.1. , //av/il Date ' EPA Form 1315-17 (Rev. 5-87) Previous editions are obsolete. OSWER OSWER OSWER O VE DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE ------- UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460 OSWER Directive 9932.1 31 |989 •,•--', c , - MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Guidance for Environmental Priorities Initiative (EPI) Facilities in the Superfund Pre- Remed^al Program. /' • ,•' '~(,^ PROM: J. Winston-Porter' Assistant Administrator TO: Waste Management Division Directors Regions I-X The purpose of this memorandum is to provide direction on the treatment of RCRA facilities in the Superfund Pre-Remedial Program under the Environmental Priorities Initiative (EPI). EPI is an integrated RCRA/CERCLA system to identify and focus resources for clean up on the most environmentally significant sites first. It is an important tool to ensure that the Agency fulfills its mandate to protect human health and the environment. As such I want to stress my support for this important initiative. This guidance presents a process for assessing RCRA facilities so that the most environmentally significant facilities can be identified. This process will allow the Agency to meet its mandate under both CERCLA and RCRA. BACKGROUND * The EPI is designed to allow the Agency to address in a timely manner those sites that present the greatest threat to human health and the environment. Under the EPI an integrated RCRA/CERCLA management approach will be applied to certain RCRA Subtitle C facilities to ensure that the sites presenting the greatest threat are identified for action under RCRA or CERCLA. I provided previous guidance (OSWER Directive 9932.0, May 31, 1988) that described the EPI concept and also suggested a method of assigning priorities to RCRA facilities for entry into the CERCLIS inventory and subsequent evaluation under the CERCLA pre-remedial program. This memorandum addresses the subsequent steps of the process. ------- OSWER Directive 9932.1 The RCRA universe to be addressed under EPI consists of two groups of sites. First are the roughly 2,000 RCRA sites that over the years have already been entered into the CERCLIS inventory. Most, if not all, of these have received preliminary assessments (PAs). Some of them also received site inspections (Sis). The second group of roughly 3,000 facilities consists of closing treatment, storage, and disposal facilities, as well as active storage and treatment facilities. CERCLIS ENTRY AND PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENTS As discussed in my May 31, 1988, memorandum, the Regions are to enter RCRA EPI sites into the CERCLIS inventory in a phased manner beginning in FY '89. Approximately 3,000 PAs will be done on EPI facilities over three years. All EPI sites should be entered into CERCLIS over a three year period with approximately one-third of each Region's sites entered in each fiscal year. All sites that are entered into CERCLIS must receive a PA. The Agency has set a goal for completing PAs within one year of a site's entry into CERCLIS. Once the RCRA sites are entered into CERCLIS, they should be treated no differently from other sites in CERCLIS for purpose of setting priorities for, PAs. No separate target for PA accomplishments on RCRA sites will be set, but all PAs on RCRA sites will count toward the CERCLA SCAP target for PAs. However, entries onto CERCLIS at the conclusion of the PA will identify RCRA sites so that we can track progress under EPI. Based on the data collected in the PA, a projected HRS score (or Prescore) will be developed. This score should be used as a basis for setting priorities for site inspections or to eliminate sites from further action under CERCLA. Using the Prescore, EPI sites, like other sites, would be categorized as either high priority, medium priority, or no further remedial action planned (NFRAP). In performing PAs, EPA's 'preliminary Assessment Guidance for FY '88 (OSWER Directive #9345.0-011 should be used until it is supplemented by new guidance under the revised HRS. Upon completion of the PA, information concerning all RCRA sites that are designated as NFRAP should be handed back to the RCRA program, including the final PA report,the projected HRS score, background documents, and any other support documents. Sites that arc assigned a high or medium priority, should be referred on for a screening site inspection SSI or, in some cases, will be handed back to the RCRA program for direct enforcement or permitting action, including conducting RFAs as necessary. This is discussed further below under Site Inspections. ------- OSWER DIRECTIVE 9932.1 RCRA facilities that were in CERCLIS before the implementation of EPI that have received a PA but not an SI may need to be reviewed to determine the next appropriate steps. OSWER Directive 9345.0.01 discusses reassessing PAs. The Directive gives the Regions discretion as to which PAs they will reassess. Each Region should apply the same criteria to RCRA facilities that it is using for other facilities in CERCLIS to decide whether to reassess a PA. All sites with completed PAs where no SI has been done must be assigned a high, medium, or NFRAP disposition. As a result of the reassessment, those RCRA sites identified as having incomplete PAs should be upgraded like other non-RCRA sites. SITE INSPECTIONS Upon completion of PAs, RCRA and CERCLA program managers in the Regions should determine which of the high and medium priority sites identified will receive a CERCLA SSI or RCRA RFA and in what time frame. The CERCLA SCAP target for SSIs will be increased beginning in FY '90 to accommodate conducting SSIs at approximately 1,200 RCRA facilities over a three to five year period. This is the number of facilities, out of the 3,000 facilities that will be added to CERCLIS under EPI, that we estimate will receive SSIs. The 1,200 figure results from the assumption that the following types of facilities will be handed back to the RCRA program after a PA without receiving an SSI: o Facilities that have been designated "NFRAP" at the conclusion of the PA; o. Facilities that have already received an RFA under RCRA (there should be very few of these because facilities that have received RFAs, normally, would not be entered onto CERCLIS under EPI); o Facilities that, since entry onto CERCLIS, have become likely to receive RCRA permits; and o Facilities that are owrred by large, financially robust firms. An analysis of the financial characteristics of EPI facilities was performed for EPA by ICF, Inc. The results may be helpful to Regions that wish to hand back sites -owned by large firms to the RCRA program after the PA. Copies of the results will be distributed under separate cover. In order to reach the .estimate of 1,200 SSIs required at RCRA facilities it was assumed that facilities owned by firms with a net worth of over $4 billion or sales of over $10 billion would not receive an SSI under CERCLA. This was the most restrictive definition of a ------- OSWER directive 9932. Although SSIs at RCRA EPI facilities will not begin in earnest until FY '90, Regions are not precluded from doing SSIs at high priority RCRA sites in FY '89. SSIs performed at RCRA facilities should satisfy the needs of the RCRA program to the extent feasible. This is important because at the conclusion of the SSI the facility will be handed back to the RCRA program for permitting or enforcement action. The SSI should support such actions. This may require some additional data gathering and may mean that information should be organized somewhat differently in the SSI report than it would for other-than-RCRA sites. Some of the Regions have developed guidelines for conducting an SSI that can also support action under RCRA. The Office of Emergency and Remedial Response and the Office of Waste Programs Enforcement are developing information to provide assistance in this area. It will be available shortly. Approximately one-quarter of the roughly 2,000 RCRA sites that were entered onto CERCLIS before the implementation of EPI have received an SI. Those Sis that have a draft HRS score or equivalent should be referred to the RCRA program. Those sites without a preliminary HRS score may be scored or upgraded to add any additional RCRA elements. The other three-quarters of the 2,000 RCRA facilities that have been on CERCLIS since before the initiation of EPI but have not yet been given Sis or rated "NFRAP" are part of the existing SI backlog. These sites should be screened according to the criteria discussed above to determine whether they should be handed back to the RCRA program. The rest should receive SSIs according to their environmental significance along with facilities added to CERCLIS under EPI. There will not be a separate SCAP target for SSIs at RCRA facilities. These SSIs will count toward a single SSI SCAP target. * CORRECTIVE ACTION f Upon completion of the SSI/RFA the final report and all supporting documents should be referred to the RCRA program for -financially robust firm that was considered. Regions may want to use a less restrictive definition if the percentages of facilities that are handed back to the RCRA program after a PA are less than we have estimated. ------- OSWER Directive 9932.1 5 appropriate action.2 At a later time, if an owner/operator is found to be bankrupt or has demonstrated unwillingness to undertake corrective action as described in the Federal Register notice of August 9, 1988 (53 FR 30005), the site would become eligible for listing on the NPL. RESOURCE IMPACTS The FIT teams in each Region should be staffed at sufficient levels so that, along with State pre-remedial funding, the work associated with this initiative can be accommodated. This assumes that FIT teams continue to be focused on pre-remedial activities. EPI COORDINATORS EPI will work most efficiently if the RCRA and Superfund program managers and staffs communicate well and frequently. Communication will help both programs anticipate workload and assure that information on facilities as they are passed from one program to another meet the needs of each program. Toward that end, we ask that each Region appoint someone from the RCRA enforcement program to be an EPI Coordinator. It is anticipated that many EPI sites will be the subject of RCRA enforcement action and thus a person familiar with the procedures and needs of that program would be most appropriate to serve as coordinator. The coordinator would serve as a liaison between the RCRA and Superfund programs in the Region and a source of information as to procedures and program needs. The headquarters EPI coordinator is Ellen Brown at FTS 475-9848. CONCLUSION In summary, I ask that you follow the guidelines in this memo in implementing EPI. I do not expect that every Region will take exactly the same approach. The following principles should be applied in your implementation: * o 3,000 RCRA sites should be entered onto CERCLIS in The Agency has determined that the preliminary and projected scores generated as part of PAs and Sis are not releasable to the public (unless a final decision of NFRAP is made). For this reason they are generated as a document separate from the PA and SI reports. In negotiating with the owner/operator for corrective action, it is appropriate to Indicate that preliminary scoring of the site suggests that the 'site has a potential to meet NPL scoring requirements. However, specific scores and the score sheet may not be released until final Agency decision (to list or NFRAP) is made. ------- OSWER Directive 9932.1 order of environmental significance over a three year period; RCRA facilities should receive PAs in the same time frame and in the same manner as other facilities on CERCLIS and will count toward the PA SCAP target in the same way; After the PA, determine which sites should have an SSI/RFA funded by the CERCLA program using the four criteria outlined in this memorandum; Beginning in FY '90 it is expected that 1,200 SSIs will be performed at RCRA facilities during a three to five year period based on the principle of "worst sites first." The SCAP target for SSIs will be raised to reflect this expectation. cc: EPI Task Force Members Bruce Diamond Sylvia Lowrance Henry Longest RCRA Enforcement Branch Chiefs, Regions I-X Superfund Branch Chiefs, Regions I-X ------- |