SERA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
Publication 9203.1-051
December 1992
Early Action and Long-Term Action
Under SACM — Interim Guidance
Off jce of Emergency and Remedial Response
Off jce of Waste Programs Enforcement
Office of Enforcement
Intermittent Bulletin
Volume 1 Number 2
The purpose of the Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model (SACM) is to make Superfund cleanups more timely and efficient.
This will be accomplished through more focus on tfr
components. The approach involves:
L the front end of the process and better integration of all Superfund program
A continuous process for assessing site-specific conditions and the need for action;
Cross-program coordination of response planning;
Prompt risk reduction through early action (removal or remedial);
Appropriate cleanup of long-term environmental problems;
Early public notification and participation; and
Early initiation of enforcement activities.
SACM is a process change that should be considered for all Superfund activities. Implementation of this policy will be
consistent with the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) and the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). Overall Superfund priorities remain the same: deal
with the worst problems first; aggressively pursue enforcement; and involve the public and relevant State agencies at all
appropriate stages of the work.
Response Goals
The primary goals of an early action are to achieve prompt
risk reduction and increase the efficiency of the overall site
response. The main goal of a long-term action is to attain an
effective, final site cleanup.
Prompt and Effective Risk Reduction
The only response authorities under CERCLA are removal
and remedial. Any Superfund clean-up action that is taken
must meet the requirements of one authority or the other.
SACM encourages Regions to think creatively about the
way these authorities may be used under tine NCP to
achieve prompt risk reduction (early action) or to conduct
more complex, time-consuming remediations (long-term
action). Take, for example, a site where sub-
stantial soil contamination threatens a
drinking water aquifer. Traditionally,
no response action might have been
taken until the study of and plan-
ning for all the site work was
complete. Under SACM, the Re-
gion should consider taking an
early action to eliminate the soil
problem through a non-time-
critical removal or an early re-
medial response, as appropriate.
Of course, if the soil poses a sig-
nificant threat (e.g., human di-
Faster... C/eaner... Safer
rect contact), an emergency or time-critical removal may be
warranted. SACM is anticipated to result in an increase of
early risk reduction activities at both National Priorities
List (NPL) and "NPL-caliber" sites.
A Regional Decision Team (RDT) is responsible for deter-
mining/recommending the approach that will be taken at
a site. The RDT should not be involved in response deci-
sions for most emergency and some of the more time-
critical removals, as these actions will be taken within the
normal removal implementation process. However, the
RDT should stay apprised of any emergency responses to
factor information into future response plans. A primary
consideration will always be what enforcement op tions are
available. An emphasis on early actions will not jeopardize
the program's commitment to enforcement first. The over-
all plan must also ensure good State coordina-
tion and suitable community involvement.
All response actions must meet the statu-
tory and regulatory requirements estab-
lished in CERCLA and the NCP. In
situations where a time-critical re-
sponse is warranted, established re-
moval mechanisms will continue to
be used. In less urgent situations,
non-time-critical removal actions or
early remedial actions may be used
to accomplish early nsk reduction.
Long-term actions using remedial
authority are most appropriate
-------
for sites requiring complex source control or surface
or groundwater remediation.
Early Actions
Early actions are responses performed under removal or
remedial authority to eliminate or reduce human health or
environmental threats from the release, or threat of release,
of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants. These
risk reduction activities can be conducted as emergency or
time-critical removals, where quick response is necessary,
or as non-time-critical removals or early remedial actions,
in less urgent situations. These actions generally will take
less than five years and will not always achieve complete
site cleanup. The early action must meet all of the statutory
and regulatory requirements of whichever authority is
used (e.g., time and dollar limitations for removal actions
and State assurances for remedial actions) and should
generally not be started before the possibilities for enforce-
ment are pursued, depending on the urgency of the situa-
tion. In some cases, more than one early action may be
conducted during the course of work mitigating the threat
at a site.
Time-critical actions will be taken when a removal site
evaluation indicates that a response is appropriate and
must be initiated within six months. Even when there is
little time to get the response organized, Regions are al-
ways expected to consider enforcement options and to
work with State and local officials in conducting the re-
sponse. When a removal site evaluation indicates the need
for an early response and a planning period of at least six
months exists prior to the on-site initiation of the removal
activities, a non-time-critical removal action is an option. A
major change as a result of SACM will be that the number
of non-time-critical removal actions (i.e., those where there
is at least six months to plan) will likely increase because of
the greater emphasis being given to early risk reduction. In
order to ensure consistent use of non-time-critical author-
ity, Regions must consult with Headquarters on poten-
tially responsible party (PRP)-lead and Fund-lead non-
time-critical removals costing over $5 million.
The NCP establishes some special requirements for non-
time-critical removals, including the need to prepare an
Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis (EE/C A). (See NCP
Section 300.415 (m) (4) for additional requirements for non-
time-critical removals.) An EE/CA is a study to identify
and assess response alternatives. It is similar to, but less
comprehensive than, what is done during the Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) phases of a reme-
dial action. The EE/CA must go through a public notifica-
tion and comment period to ensure all interested parties
have an opportunity to have input to the proposed re-
sponse. EPA is developing guidance on how to conduct a
non-time-critical removal action.
Sometimes it may be more appropriate to undertake early
actions with remedial authority. This may be likely for
National Priorities List (NPL) sites already far down the
remedial pipeline, enforcement lead sites where a consent
decree may be appropriate, sites outside the scope (techni-
cal or financial) or authority of a removal action, or sites
where Statecostshare, operation and maintenance or other
assurances may be important considerations. These expe-
dited remedial actions still require a Record of Decision
(ROD). The work can be done through a variety of con-
tracts discussed below under Response Selection Factors.
The RDT should ensure that an early action will be consis-
tent with any long-term action that may eventually be
required. This means that, especially for non-time-critical
removals and early remedial actions, opportunities for
treatment and permanence of remedy must be fully evalu-
ated. Furthermore, potential differences that may exist
between early action and long-term action data quality
objectives and risk assessment goals must be reconciled at
the outset. This can only happen if there is an emphasis
placed on good program coordination, particularly among
the participating Site Assessment Manager (SAM), On-
Scene Coordinator (OSC), Remedial Project Manager
(RPM), risk assessor, and enforcement/legal staff.
Long-Term Actions
Long-term response actions will usually be taken when
there are conditions requiring extensive site characteriza-
tion, where there are high costs, or where it will take more
than approximately five years to complete the work. The
majority of current NPL sites have some long-term re-
sponse component. Most groundwater remediation ef-
forts, many surface water remediation efforts, and most
large-scale soil remediation efforts would be expected to
take in excess of five years to complete or have complexities
that preclude early action approaches, alone, from being
used. In addition, remedies that require extensive opera-
tion and maintenance activities may fall into the long-term
response category.
Identification of a remedial action as a long-term response
does not mean that all of the work can or will be deferred.
In many cases, even where there is no immediate threat, a
quick start to the long-term response will be necessary to
prevent site conditions from deteriorating (e.g., contain-
ment of a groundwater plume). In such circumstances, an
early action is appropriate if the site meets the NCP re-
quirements for a removal action or if an early remedial
action can be initiated.
Response Selection Factors
Under SACM, the RDT has considerable flexibility for
selecting/recommending the most appropriate approach
forasite. Many factors will enterinto its deliberations. The
following is provided as a general overview of the differ-
ences between early and long-term actions.
Response Duration — A Region should be able to plan
for, implement, and complete an early action in less than
five years. Projects which will take more than five years
should generally be done as long-term responses using
remedial authority. If an action can be done quickly, but
there are extensive operation and maintenance require-
ments to ensure the reliability of the response (regard-
less of the cost of the O&M), then early or long-term
action under remedial authority should be considered
It is removal program policy that protracted and costly
long-term post-removal site control is more appropril
-------
ately conducted by the affected State, local unit of gov-
ernment, or Potentially Responsible Party (PRP). In
some cases, it may be done by the Superfund remedial
program through a ROD. (For additional information
on this removal policy see OSWER Directive 9360.2-02,
Policy on Management of Post-Removal Site Control, De-
cember 3,1990).
Cost—Since either removal or remedial authority may
be used, there is no maximum dollar cap on the cost of
an early action. Regions must always follow the existing
rules for justifying and obtaining exemptions for re-
moval actions estimated to cost over $2 million or ex-
ceed one year in duration. Also, Regions must consult
with Headquarters prior to taking an early action which
will require funding beyond what the Region has in its
allowance. Regions are also strongly urged to discuss
with Headquarters any situations which present par-
ticularly difficult issues or may be controversial with a
State or other interested parties.
Enforcement — The "Enforcement First" policy will
continue to be aggressively pursued under SACM. Re-
gions must take appropriate enforcement steps consis-
tent with removal and remedial policy and guidance.
This includes, but is not limited to, conducting PRP
searches, issuing notice letters, and negotiating with
PRPs to conduct an action through the use of adminis-
trative orders (unilateral or consent) or consent decrees.
The'lead time available for non-time-critical removal
actions should allow for comprehensive PRP searches
' and subsequent negotiations. For each site, an adminis-
trative record file must be established and made avail-
able to the public according to the schedule in the NCP.
Protection of Human Health and Environment — It is
critical that removal actions conducted atnon-NPL sites
take into consideration the potential for future NPL
listing to ensure consistent goals are achieved, where
practicable. In cases where a non-time-critical removal
action will be the only or last action taken to dean up an
NPL or NPL-caliber site, the alternatives should be
evaluated on their ability to achieve clean-up levels
consistent with the remedial program and be protective
of public health and the environment.
ARARs Compliance — Under the NCP, applicable or
relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs) must
be met during removal actions to the extent practicable
considering the exigencies of the situation. ARARs
should be identified and factored into the non-time-
critical removal process. Careful consideration of ARARs
is a key to ensuring that early actions are consistent with
possible long-term actions. (For additional information
on ARARs compliance during removal actions, see the
NCP section 300.415 (i) and Superfund Removal Proce-
dures, Guidance on the Consideration of ARARs During
Removal Actions, EPA/540/P-91 /Oil, September 1991).
State Involvement — An early action must include
appropriate State involvement. This means there needs
to be continuing meaningful communication between a
Region and each State in order to ensure the highest
priority sites are being handled and there is no unneces-
sary duplication of effort. State ARARs must be met or
waived for remedial actions and met to the extent prac-
ticable for removal actions. For non-time-critical re-
moval actions costing over $2 million, Regions should
request State participation in the response action (e.g.,
funding, in-kind services). Although a State cost share is
not required under CERCLA section 104 (c) (3) for a
removal action, the absence of a State's financial partici-
pation may limit the capacity of EPA to fully fund
certain large dollar value non-time-critical removal ac-
tions. When a State does not participate in the conduct
and financial support of a Fund-lead non-time-critical
removal action, the RDT must evaluate whether the
urgency is great enough to justify the loss of the State
contribution. (Until such time as the authority for ap-
proving $2 million waivers at non-NPL sites is del-
egated to the Regions, Headquarters will have to be
involved in this decision on a site-by-site basis.) Until a
final policy is developed, Headquarters will generally
support projects costing less man $5 million, as long as
there is a good justification, even if a State is unable to
participate. Headquarters also will consider projects
costing over $5 million, but there will have to be a
compelling case for undertaking the work in the absence
of a State contribution. Response actions taken under
remedial authority must comply with established pro-
cedures for State involvement, including securing State
assurances for Fund-financed remedial actions. States
may apply for a cooperative agreement to conduct non-
time-critical removal actions (See40CFRPart35 Subpart
O, Cooperative Agreements and Superfund State Con-
tracts for Superfund Response Actions).
Public Involvement—Early and frequent involvement
of the public is pivotal to the success of expediting
cleanups under SACM. All applicable community rela-
tions requirements in the NCP must be met at both
removal and remedial actions. Site managers should
make sure the public has an opportunity for meaningful
input and that concerns are considered. As community
interest and awareness increase, it may be appropriate
to conduct additional community relations activities
beyond those required in the NCP. For example, field
personnel (OSCs, RPMs, SAMs, Community Relations
Specialists) could make themselves available to the pub-
lic, or meetings could be held in the community, during
times outside those that are typical (e.g., prior to the
initiation of or at the conclusion of on-site work).
Risk Management — Since removal and remedial ac-
tion levels and dean-up levels may differ, when making
risk management decisions for early actions it is impor-
tant that potential long-term response actions be consid-
ered. For emergency and time-critical removal actions.
Regional response personnel may utilize their Agency
for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR)
representative to obtain public health advice on poten-
tial action and clean-up levels in the form of a Public
Health Advisory or a Health Consultation. In planning
for non-time-critical removal actions, the Regional risk
assessor should be consulted for similar advice. It is
important that the RDT take into consideration the
potential for NPL listing and subsequent remedial ac-
tions in order to achieve consistent risk goals, where
-------
practical. For example, when performing a source re-
moval to mitigate a direct contact threat at a site that also
has a groundwater threat, it may be prudent to consider
removal of additional soil contaminants consistent with
projected groundwater clean-up goals. This could elimi-
nate the need for additional source control actions dur-
ing future response actions. Furthermore, it could re-
duce the ongoing release of contaminants to ground
water, thereby reducingthe time required to pump and
treat ground water.
Contracting Mechanism — Available contracting ve-
hicles and capacities will affect the strategy for conduct-
ing both early and long-term actions. Contract mecha-
nisms potentially available are site-specific contracts
(including the Pre-Qualified Offerers ProcurementStrat-
egy (PQOPS) contracts for incineration and solidifica-
tion), the Emergency and Rapid Response Services
(ERRS) contracts, the Alternative Remedial Contract
Strategy (ARCS) contracts, the Technical Enforcement
Services (TES) contracts, or accelerated contracting
mechanisms accessible from the US. Army Corps of
Engineers or the US. Bureau
of Reclamation. The time and
resources necessary to pro-
cure and administer these
contracts, and the individual
contract capacities, where
applicable, are factors that
must be considered when
evaluating response options.
A separate guidance short
sheet is currently being de-
veloped on how to access the
various contracts listed above.
time allows, the RDT with support of the designated site
manager should consider all of the response options avail-
able, State and community concerns, and the need for
future action before a response is initiated. The table below
gives a conceptual outline of activities generally consid-
ered to be either early actions aiid/or long-term actions;
however, it is not an exhaustive, definitive categorization.
NOTICE: The policies set out in this fact sheet are not final
Agency action, but are intended solely as guidance. They
are not intended, nor can they be relied upon, to create any
rights enforceable by any party in litigation with the United
States. EPA officials should follow the guidance provided
in this fact sheet, or may act at variance with the guidance,
based on an analysis of site-specific circumstances. The
Agency also reserves the right to change this guidance at
any time without public notice.
Early Action
Access Restrictions
Source Removals/
Containment
Surface Structures and
Debris
Data Quality Objectives —
When performing site assess-
ment activities, appropriate
data quality objectives should
be used for decisions in sup-
port of removal and/or remedial actions. Historically,
sampling investigations performed ir>. support of re-
moval actions and remedial actions have had dissimilar
Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) require-
ments and have focused on different media (i.e., wastes,
ground water, soil, etc.). As an element of SACM imple-
mentation, the RDT should ensure that sampling activi-
ties are coordinated between removal and remedial
actions. Site assessors may be able to take advantage of
lower costs and quicker turn-around times if an ad-
equate number of samples are also collected that will
meet other anticipated data uses. Sample collection and
analysis activities performed during removal actions
should be coordinated such that the data generated will
also support NPL listing and remedial actions, as appro-
priate.
Selecting a Response
A primary function of the RDT is to weigh what is known
about a site and recommend/select those actions which
address the threats in a timely and efficient manner. When
Either
Source Remediation
Capping/Containment
Permanent/Temporary
Relocation
NAPL Source
Extraction
Ground Water Plume
Containment/Cleanup
Alternate Water Supply
Property Acquisition
Long-Term Action
Extensive Source
Remediation
Restoration:
Groundwater
Surface Water
Early Action and Long-Term Action Under SACM
— Interim Guidance
This paper is one of five fact sheets published by EPA
under publication number 9203.1-051 (Volume 1,
Numbers 1-5) to describe the Superfund Accelerated
Cleanup Model (SACM) and should be reviewed in
conjunction with the other SACM fact sheets. Com-
ments on this document should be directed to Mark
Mjoness of the Emergency Response Division (703)
603-8770.
There are two other important sources of informa-
tion: "SACM concept paper" (8/5/92) and Guidance
on Implementation of the Superfund Accelerated Cleanup
ModelUnderCERCLAandtheNCP [OSWER Directive
No. 9203.1-03 (7/7/92)]. General SACM information
can be obtained by calling the Superfund Document
Center (202) 260-9760.
------- |