1 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
APR 27 1993
IMPORTANT -- ALL READ
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
DIRECTIVE NO. 9203.1-08
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Further Direction on Implementing the Superfund
Accelerated Cleanup Model (SACM)
FROM: Henry L. Longest II, Director ^
Office of Emergency andJtemedia/Wiipfmse
/JLur-o"-' V^V'-
Bruce M. Diamond./. Director [j
Office of Waste Programs Enforcement
TO: Addressees
PURP08H
This memorandum provides a summary of where we are in our
efforts to implement the Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model
(SACM). It it essential that we continue to refine our goals as
we transition to full implementation in Fiscal Year (FY) 1994
when all sites will be addressed under the SACM principles.
We have made excellent progress in developing SACM over the
past year and it has been due in great part to the coordination
among every facet of the Superfund program. As SACM is
implemented, we expect to see all staff working more and more
closely with each other to take advantage of the strengths and
economies of each program. Headquarters remains committed to
assisting you.
BACKGROUND
SACM is the most significant change to the Superfund program
to date. With any major change comes some resistance to letting
go of what is familiar. As you know, Superfund was first
designed with the expectation of a small number of sites that
would receive absolute and complete cleanup. Experience in
implementing the many requirements of the statute and the
National Contingency Plan (NCP) has brought us to a new
environmental equilibrium. We must balance cleanup resources
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
with the need to tackle worst pollution sources first and reduce
risk to people and the environment. As pointed out in Osborne's
and Gaebler's Reinventing Government, traditional bureaucracies
have tended to focus solely on cost of services and control of
tax dollars in order to avoid waste, fraud and abuse. However,
modern government must also find creative ways to speed,
streamline and leverage traditional government services under
tight budget constraints and funding cuts. This, along with the
desire to quickly reduce risk, is the intent of SACM.
OBJECTIVE
SACM will accelerate and streamline the Superfund process in
order to: BUILD PUBLIC CONFIDENCE THROUGH PROMPT AND APPROPRIATE
HAZARDOUS WASTE CLEANUP THAT PROTECTS THE HEALTH OF PEOPLE AND
THE ENVIRONMENT. We will achieve this through:
o working together as One Program: coordinating our
efforts among enforcement, assessment, removal,
remedial, community relations, information management,
analytical services, and contracts; Headquarters and
Regions
o focusing on the worst sites first by addressing sites
on the "One List". The One List is the integrated site
list for all site assessment, non-emergency early
actions, and long-term actions
o applying SACM principles to everything we do to ensure
a smooth transition to full implementation of SACM in
PY 1994
IMPLBMSOTATION
Program Priorities
In a recent directive (OSWER Directive No. 9202.1-14), the
Acting Assistant Administrators for OSWER and the Office of
Enforcement (OE) outlined the eight National Superfund Program
Priorities. The top three are: (1) meeting our construction
completion commitment of 650 by the year 2000; (2) maximizing
PRP participation while testing ways to accelerate cleanup; and
(3) accelerating cleanup through implementation of SACM and
presumptive remedies.
i
We view these as complementary priorities that are aimed at
achieving measurable program results (completions), leveraging
-------
all available resources for cleanup (enforcement first), and
improving and streamlining our process (acceleration). As public
managers we must allocate our resources to create synergy among
our program priorities. SACK provides tools to help us
accelerate sites already in the pipeline, and assess and respond
to the worst sites that are awaiting entry into the pipeline.
Headquarters is developing more detailed guidance on how to
manage, the blending of these program priorities.
With SACK, we must continue to keep sites moving through the
pipeline. Our priority still is to deal with the worst sites
first. As part of SACM implementation in FY 1993, we are asking
each Region to develop an integrated site list for all
assessment, non-emergency early actions and long-term actions
(the "One List"). It is a base assumption that emergencies will
always be given first attention, and are "above" the List. The
purpose of this list is to help ensure that resources are
directed to the most serious risks at National Priorities List
(NPL), NPL-caliber, and non-NPL sites. "NPL-caliber" sites are
those sites with a potential for a Hazard Ranking Score (HRS)
above 28.5. At such sites, the remedial investigation (RI) and
enforcement actions like the PRP search, can begin prior to the
NPL proposal. This will enable faster response. The SACM
Assessment Short Sheet (Publication No. 9303.1-051) gives an
excellent list of examples of NPL-caliber sites. Further
guidance on NPL-caliber sites is being developed.
SACM will make greater use of both remedial and removal
authorities to eliminate or significantly reduce risk. Keep in
mind that this year we are testing facets of SACM at "SACM
sites," and we will transition to full implementation in FY 1994
where all sites will be addressed under SACM principles. The
principles of SACM should be applied to everything we do.
Although we do not expect resource growth over the next
couple of years, SACM can achieve economies of time and money so
we can accomplish more in the long run with the resources we
have.
Integrated Site Assessment
The concept of a continuous integrated assessment seems to
present a particular implementation challenge, since the removal
and remedial programs have traditionally approached "assessment"
differently. The removal program usually moves quickly into an
on-site assessment phase, while the remedial program usually has
a more prolonged examination of site records and other file
materials for HRS scoring purposes, with on-site assessment
happening later in the process. However, SACM calls for a single
unified approach that includes coordinated sample collection and
analysis performed during site assessment. The data will support
future removal, NPL listing and remedial activities; one report
-------
should be written to satisfy both programs' needs where
necessary. In the long-run, this will save us time and money
because we will not be doing redundant work. Other key elements
to integrated site assessment include: (1) ensuring smooth
transitions between studies; (2) basing decisions on the
commonalities of Data Quality Objectives (DQO's); and (3) using
the new START contract to compile one integrated site assessment
report. We are working on a directive that addresses data
quality issues.
Enforcement
Enforcement First will continue to be emphasised. Since an
RI may begin with or during an integrated site assessment,
potentially responsible parties (PRPs) must be identified earlier
in the process in order to give them an opportunity to
participate in the RI and Feasibility Study (FS). Regions should
use a phased approach for PRP searches. This involves
establishing liability for PRPs on whom we have the most
information and then expanding the search process to address the
remaining PRPs. Regions should maximize information sharing and
cooperation among site assessment staff, staff conducting^
emergency or time-critical removals, PRP search personnel, and
PRPs.
Non-time Critical Removals
Regions must consult with Headquarters on PRP- or Fund-lead
non-time critical removals costing more than $5 million. We will
be issuing guidance soon on conducting non-time-critical
removals. It is important to recognize that the use of non-time
critical removals will expedite higher risk components of
remedial actions and is not meant to encumber routine removal
actions with inappropriate analytical requirements'. There is no
intent to push bona fide time-critical removals into the non-time
critical category.
Regional Decision Teams (RDTs)
The ROTs are in place in all Regions. There has bee.n
considerable flexibility in establishing a decision process that
works for each Region. However, at a minimum the ROT:
(1) ensures that all parties are involved at critical points for
site decisions; (2) is empowered with as much decision power as
possible; and (3) provides policy and strategy direction to
designated site managers, while not assuming site management
responsibility. True emergency responses remain the purview of
the emergency response program.
-------
Involvement
Communicating with the citizens who live near sites is
essential for SACM to be successful. We must ensure that the
public is involved early in the process while we accelerate the
pace at which we clean up sites. Experience has shown us that
the earlier the public is involved, the smoother the process will
go. We heed to be responsive to citizens' concerns and opinions
from the beginning. Therefore, it is essential that a community
relations specialist is a part of the Regional Decision Team.
State Involvement
Regions should discuss and establish with each State a
process for appropriate and meaningful State involvement to
ensure that the worst sites first are being handled and there is
no duplication of effort. SACM requires traditional
consideration of State-cost share and Applicable or Relevant and
Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) . For non-time critical removals
costing over $2 Million, Regions should request state
participation in the response (e.g. funding or in-kind services).
COMCLUBIOM
We have made great headway over the past year in developing
SACM and the credit is due to you who have been striving for
continuous improvement in the way we do business. It is
essential that all components of the Super fund program work
together as one team in order to implement SACM. We urge you to
continue to be innovative and aggressive in finding better ways
to reach our goals.
-------
Addressees
Waste Management Division Directors
Regions I, IV, V, VII
Emergency and Remedial Response Division Director
Region II
Hazardous Haste Management Division Directors
Regions III, VI, VIII, IX
Hazardous Waste Division Directors
Region X
Environmental Services Division Directors
Regions I, VI, VII
Superfund Branch Chiefs
Regions I-X
Superfund Branch Chiefs
Office of Regional Counsel
Regions I-X
cc: Rich Guimond, OSWER
Walt Kovalick, OSWER
Bill White, OE
Lisa K. Friedman, OGC
Tim Fields, SRO
Superfund Section Chiefs
All OERR, OWPE and SRO Staff
------- |