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
------- |