u . UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 APR T !S92 PUBLICATION NO- 9203.1-01 OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE IMPORTANT - ALL READ BECAUSE THIS MEMORANDUM 18 SO IMPORTANT, I AM DIRECTING DESK-TO-DESK DELIVERY TO EVERY SUPERFUND EMPLOYEE MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model (SACM) FROM: Don R. Clay Te/r-^/'C Assistant Administrat^, TO: All Superfund Staff, Managers, Regions, and TTQs As most of you know, the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, has been working on a new model for streamlining and accelerating the Superfund program. Plans for full development of: the Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model (SACM) began after the Administrator's approval on February 27. The concept, borne of staff creativity and Total Quality Management, has been designed to make Superfund work better, and deliver results the public will value: 1) quick reduction of acute risks at all Superfund sites (removal and remedial) and 2) restoration of the environment over the long term. The new model consists of: o A one step site screening and risk assessment at the front end of the process o Regional management teams to "traffic cop" all sites to: 1) Early Action to reduce immediate risk to people and the environment and/or 2) Long-term Cleanup to restore environment; and o A combination of enforcement, community relations and public involvement throughout the entire process. Printed on Recycled Paper ------- -2- The promise of implementing SACM is that we can achieve immediate risk reduction at a larger number of sites, do the work more efficiently, move more money into actual cleanup, and work more effectively by eliminating duplicative assessment steps. Representatives from Headquarters and the Regions will meet in mid-April to brainstorm, resolve issues, and develop solutions and real-time plans to implement SACM. This concept has been presented to diverse and sizable audiences, and while it has produced many comments and questions, it has been well-received and has generated a good deal of enthusiasm and support. Since this will be the future of the program, I urge you to familiarize yourself with the SACM conceptual write-up and briefing package attached. I also urge the development of dialog on SACM implementation at all levels and across all functions in the Superfund program, both in Headquarters and the Regions. I will keep you informed of updates and changes that may occur. Attachments ------- SUPERFUND ACCELERATED CLEANUP MODEL (SACM!) THE NEW SUPERFUND PARADIGM Introduction The present Superfund program operates within a complex and, at times circuitous pattern that was designed ten years ago to accommodate a new and complicated law, then tinkered with as the program lurched from its infancy. The result has been a somewhat "jerry built" structure, altered to fit everyone's perceived needs and a host of conflicting expectations, but basically satisfying few. Early implementation focused on numerous intricate administrative and legal requirements. However, recent budget emphasis has dramatically shifted towards construction; policy emphasis has moved from Fund to enforcement. Various committees and workgroups continue to suggest ways to speed up the process. Congress will soon consider many ideas for restructuring under Reauthorization. Amidst this evolution, however, a few facts are unlikely to change - the public does not understand our present process or grasp the full scope of pur work. It wants faster cleanups, and believes that enough money has been given to Superfund to get the job done. The bottom line is that we can expect neither a lowering of expectations, nor a rise in resources. These factors have crystallized into a new focus on radically speeding up and streamlining the program. OERR/OSWER 3/1/92 ------- -2- Background The current system for Superfund cleanups is based on two discrete programs - remedial and removal. The remedial component is a series of steps to define and address long term cleanup sites on the National Priorities List (NFL). Separate and apart are the activities of the removal program. These sites enter our system through a different "door," usually the States (through the National Response Center) seeking our help at a specific release. Some are spontaneous "screaming emergencies," others are prioritized for short term action as money becomes available. While the removal program generally does not address ground water, many of the other risks and response actions associated with the two programs are similar. Yet, there are enormous differences between remedial and removal actions regarding the depth of investigation, and cost and time expended to complete a cleanup. In summary, the innate complexity of our process and our heretofore unsuccessful attempts to portray progress have left the Superfund program highly vulnerable to criticism. Therefore, we must focus attention on a few major outcomes that the public will value. - We must make sure we deliver these outcomes and do it in terms the public will understand. For this reason, the new Superfund paradigm must be: o simple and flexible -- to allow fastest possible, worst first, risk reduction; ------- -3- o free of administrative contrivances that divide and diffuse the totality of reduced risk at remedial and removal sites; o realistically achievable in that we make realistic cleanup commitments and deliver them on time; and o focused on rapid protection of people and the environment and disconnected from the single and unattainable goal of returning all groundwater to pristine condition. ; The New Suoerfund Accelerated Cleanup Model Under this paradigm all sites on which Superfund takes any kind of cleanup action are Superfund sites. The distinctions between "remedial" and "removal" are eliminated. Rather than viewing these two entities as separate programs, they are viewed as separate legal authorities with different, but complimentary, application at Superfund sites. Rather than entering the program through one of two doors marked "remedial" or "removal", all sites enter through one marked "Superfund". All site assessment takes place in one program, combining, as appropriate, elements of present removal ------- assessments, PA/SIs, RI/FSs, and risk assessments. During the assessment process, a Regional Decision Team institutes short term activities that address all threats to the health and safety of the existing population. These actions include cleanup activities generally taking no more than three or, at the most, five years - a reasonable time frame based on the program's demonstrated ability to identify and address immediate risks to people and the environment within three to five years. ' These activities are published in the Federal Register (for public information purposes only, not as a rulemaking) on an Early Action List. It is crucial to note here, that though these actions 'are "short term" and quickly implemented, they could eliminate the majority of human risk from Superfund sites. Enforcement activities would commence with immediate PRP notification, expedited orders/negotiation, and opportunity for voluntary cleanup. Because the vast majority of risk reduction occurs in this part of the program, most of EPA's public participation/information activities are focused here. Community relations and opportunities for Technical Assistance Grants (TAGs) continue as they do today. The State role is confirmed in its present configuration; further, they can continue with their own State-funded programs, resulting in a net increase of cleaned-up sites nationwide. The Regional Decision Team can also determine if and when long term remediation (e.g., ground water restoration) is appropriate. Sites would then be placed on the Long ------- -5- Terra Remediation List (formerly known as the NPL), and cleaned up over many years. Regional Decision Teams could also decide that no Federal action was appropriate or that the site should be deferred to RCRA or other response authority. The major parameters of this concept are outlined below. 1. Single Site Assessment Function. There are a number of redundancies in the beginning of the program as it is structured today. Hazardous waste sites can receive numerous similar, but sequential, assessments before any kind of cleanup begins. Sites are evaluated by the removal program (removal assessments), the site assessment program (PAs, Sis, Expanded ; Sis, and Hazard Ranking System (HRS) scoring), the remedial program (RIs, baseline risk assessments, and FSs), and even the RCRA program. ATSDR, State, local, and private party assessments may also occur. Many, if not most of these assessments start from scratch, - they do not necessarily take into consideration the information and data generated by the studies that preceded them. This happens not only because of the obvious financial incentives to the contractor community and the human inclination to distrust the work of others, but because each part of the program is gathering data to respond to its particular perceived need. The site-assessment program wants to know if it will score on the HRS; the ------- NEW SUPERFUND PARADIGM Public Notification of Early Action Start PRP Search / Notification All Sites Start Site Screening & Assessment No Action Early Action To Reduce Risk (< 5 Years) Issue Order/ Negotiate Public Notification of Completion Issue Order/ Negotiate Enforcement Activities State / Public Participation/Community Relations Early Action Completed Regional Decision / Management Team Long Term Hazard Ranking RCRA or Other Authority Long Term Action for Media Restoration (> 5 Years) Long Term Cleanup Completed [ Delete I ------- removal program wants to know if the site is going to blow up; the remedial program wants to know the extent of the ground water plume, the size of the cap, etc. Large amounts of tune and money are expended on the process of executing separate contracts, mobilizing sampling teams, designing sampling strategies, modifying health and safety plans, etc., as each part of the program goes out to "feel a different part of the elephant." Assessment, in all of its forms, now absorbs far more time than any other part of the process. The public believes that the program has been cleaning up sites for ten years with little result. It does not know that much of this time has been spent in various parts of the assessment process. Whole steps in this redundant process must be combined if the goal of expediting cleanup is to be achieved. The FIT/TAT contract mechanism could support this combined assessment effort and thereby assist in blending the remedial/removal "cultures." In some Regions, there will be no reason for a two-staged screening function (PA followed by SI) since there will be no backlog of sites to be screened. Discovered sites could be screened once and, if serious, go ------- -7- directly to RI level data collection and risk assessment. Appropriate short term cleanup activity, combined with public participation/outreach, and expedited enforcement action (i.e., PRP search, information gathering, and notification) could begin immediately. .These changes in the assessment process could save several years, since the level and type of risk posed by the site would be understood and often eliminated prior to listing. Placing all site assessment activities in one area would require the development of new protocols but they would serve many needs. Rigid QA/QC procedures would assure the integrity and multiple-usability of the data developed. 2. Regional Decision/Management Teams. Regions often know the most likely course of action to remediate a site well before the decision process allows them to act. In future years that capacity certainly will expand. The Region Decision Teams would "traffic cop" sites onto the Early Action List and/or score long term restoration actions such as ground water sites for inclusion on the Long Term Remediation List. In addition, standards for both remediation levels and technologies are likely to have been developed and accepted. This move toward standardization will both speed up the decision making process and allow increased flexibility in the staging or ------- -8- timing of various activities. The chief benefits are the ability to: o make early action decisions while studies continue; o cany out relatively short term cleanup steps that may in many cases be all that is necessary without ' triggering the site listing process; o stay flexible while various activities are going on, rather than keeping functions in rigid and sequential boxes; ; o effectively utilize the decision making expertise in the Regions, delegating where appropriate (e.g., standard remedy selection), to the project manager level to speed cleanups; and o realize time and cost economies. Regional Decision/Management Teams would require the skills of the most experienced managers (Fund and Enforcement), site and risk assessors, on-scene ------- -9- coordinators (OSC), remedial project managers (RPM), Commumty Relations coordinators and State officials, as appropriate. The OSC and RPM individual site management function would eventually become combined, which would further increase the efficiency of the process. Enforcement orders and negotiations would be conducted within strict deadlines. Cleanup could be performed by PRPs and appropriately overseen by the Agency. Training and commitment on the part of Superfund Headquarters and Regional management can help overcome different cultures that now exist and use the combined expertise in the remedial, removal, and enforcement programs to achieve the common goal of risk reduction. 3. Early Actions. Risks at NPL sites fall into a number of categories, but most commonly are associated with the direct contact with wastes or contaminated soil, or drinking contaminated water from ground water sources. Source control steps taken early in the remedial process, such as drum removal, soil cleanup and access restraints, as well as alternate drinking water provision, frequently provide substantial risk reduction to existing populations. Actions taken under removal authorities are designed to address just such risks. Early Actions would be an expansion of current removal activities. In fact, we have already interpreted and expanded removal authority to allow continuing ------- -10 cleanup actions at NPL sites if consistent with remedial actions (e.g., Radium Chemical, White Chemical, Avtex, Publicker). True emergency situations such as train derailments would continue to be handled as they are today. Surface cleanup associated with remedial actions, (i.e. actions other than long term ground water pump and treat or extensive site restoration technologies such as large mining site cleanups, wetlands/estuaries remediation, or extended incineration projects), would be carried out through the Early Action phase of the program. This would include such activities as: o waste and soil removal, o preventing access, / o capping landfills, o moving people, o providing alternate drinking water sources. Most important, all immediate threats to public health and safety would be addressed in this part of the process. While standardized cleanups for similar sites would expedite many cleanups, innovative technology would be used whenever it is faster, more efficient, more acceptable to the public, less expensive, or less environmentally impactive. Both standardized and innovative treatment technologies offer opportunities for cost efficiencies. ------- -11- The public could be notified of activities at these Superfund sites through a quarterly Federal Register notice - the Early Action List. Sites would be listed when the decision to cleanup was made, then documented and delisted when the work was completed. Public input would be achieved through all the mechanisms (possibly including TAGs) that are now used by the program's community relations professionals. Most important, Superfund progress would be measured against all of its risk reduction activities and most of those activities would be completed rapidly. Under the New Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model, the Agency would commit itself first and foremost to substantially reducing or eliminating threats to public health and the environment within a specified time frame and that time frame would be short. This commitment would be EPA's primary measure of success. 4. Long Term Remediation. Sites requiring ground water restoration or long term remediation (e.g., mining sites, extended incineration projects, wetlands/estuaries) would be published in the Federal Register on the Long Term Remediation List. They would not be placed there until the need for such remediation activities was clearly established by the site assessment function. Many sites would already have been addressed under the Early Action phase, eliminating the need to evaluate many of the issues that hold up RODs today. Enforcement opportunities would be vigorously pursued using the full arsenal of ------- -12- Enforcement tools to obtain PRP participation. Community Relations would be performed and public participation fostered. Innovative technologies and standardized cleanups would be used, as appropriate. Of greatest benefit, the public would understand that the actions placed on this list would require many years, if not decades, to clean up, but would pose no immediate threat at all to existing populations. Removing the ground water restoration question to a separate part of the decision making process would also allow for a more reasonable evaluation of the benefits and costs of such restoration. Public policy makers could then more reasonably decide which ground water resources warrant priority action given limited funding. Implementation This concept has been developed in Headquarters and discussed with several Regions. The next step is to hypothetically run some sites through the proposed process and see if there are any unforeseen "stoppers." After receiving Agency management approval, as well as DOJ endorsement, appropriate White House, OMB and Congressional contacts would be briefed. The next step would be tested on a pilot basis in one or two Regions. Various Regional pilots are being reviewed for utility in the execution of the process. The timing is very opportune considering the congruence of current recommendations for improving and streamlining Superfund. ------- -13- Conclusion A program guaranteeing prioritized public health protection at all sites, without programmatic distinction, within five years of site identification, and having, as a separate activity, the long and difficult job of environmental media restoration, has a better chance of being understood, appreciated, and, therefore, publicly supported. Counting the totality of risk reduction rather than focusing on NPL site deletions, is a simple, uncontrived, and true expression of the work of the program. It fulfills several .' of our most basic needs in building public confidence. First and most important, it focuses the program on the very substantial risk reduction that is now achieved, and achievable. Second, it focusses on the distinction between sites with the risk reduced to safe levels because of completed surface cleanup and those sites presenting no immediate threat, but requiring decades to complete. And third, it supplies what the public expects, and has every reason to expect from a program called "Superfund" - the achievement of appropriate cleanup at large numbers of sites. ------- SUPERFUND ACCELERATED CLEANUP MODEL - SACM (The New Superfund Paradigm) March 1992 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency OSWER/OERR ------- WHAT'S THE PROBLEM? 1. Outside perception of Superfund is poor • Too slow • Scanty environmental improvement • Not enough $$ in cleanup. 2. Internal Superfund process is inefficient • Redundant • Pokey • Too much "cool down" time. ••{ V&7 \ u-s- Environmental Protection Agency ------- THE CURRENT SUPERFUND PROCESS PRP search/notification SITE DISCOVERY/ NOTIFICATION PA End response or refer to remedial/ State program I SITE DISCOVERY | . T _ | PA/FSI/ESIJ JL MRS Yes ) ^ not *"" immediate Expanded SI (ESI) >, MRS Package ^ Public Notification NPL f Rl 1 f FS ROD Public Notification Public Notification Enforcement Activities State/Public Participation/Community Relations ------- WHAT'S THE SOLUTION? MAKE SUPERFUND WORK BETTER 1. Provide results the public will value • Quickly reduce acute risks • Restore environment over long-term, 2. Streamline program • Eliminate delays and rework • Expand "worst first" • Funnel $$ into cleanup. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency OSWER/OERR ------- HOW DO WE DO IT? 1. One step site screening and risk assessment. 2. Regional Management Teams "traffic cop" all sites. 3. Early action to reduce immediate risk. 4. Long-term cleanup to restore environment/media. Enforcement, community relations, and public involvement throughout process. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency OSWER/OERR ------- 1. ONE STEP ASSESSMENT Streamlined assessment will speed cleanup. Also blends removal/remedial cultures (action vs. study). Enforcement search and notification starts immediately. Community outreach and public involvement throughout. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ------- 2. REGIONAL MANAGEMENT TEAMS Unite management experience - removal, remedial, enforcement, assessment, community relations, State involvement. Serve as "traffic cop" for sites moving to Early Action or Long-Term Action List. Prioritize workload to achieve common goal of risk reduction, Help develop standard cleanups and technologies. •® U.S. Environmental Protection Agency OSWER/OERR ------- 3. EARLY ACTIONS All immediate threats to public health and safety will be eliminated. Public will be notified when Early Action starts and notified when work is complete. • Substantial risk reduction in a short timeframe will be our primary measure of success. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency OSWER/OERR ------- 4. LONG-TERM ACTION Long-term actions: - extensive mining sites - ground-water remediation - estuarine/bay sites - incineration. • These would be published in FR on the Long-Term Action List. The public would know long-term actions require years to clean up, but pose no immediate threat. • Allows more reasoned evaluation of restoration benefits and costs. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency OSWER/OERR ------- WHAT'S DIFFERENT? ALL SITES OR RELEASES with Superfund cleanup action are "Superfund sites." We stopped seeing Superfund as separate programs: - Removal/Remedial - Fund/Enforcement - NPUNon NPL. No separate list of removal actions and remedial actions. One simple goal of prioritized risk reduction from all Superfund cleanups. u s Environmental Protection Agency OSWER/OERR ------- ADVANTAGES Rapidly reduces majority of risk from Superfund sites - to people and the environment. More money dedicated to cleanup - versus support/study function, • Efficient and effective - geared for results. Cost and time efficient - emphasizes standard remedies and innovative technologies. Realistically achievable - commit and deliver. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency OSWER/OERR ------- BENEFITS Measures success by risk reduction, not NPL completions. Makes long-term restoration a separate activity. Builds public confidence: - Substantial risk reduction in early actions - "Worst first" approach - Cleanup at a large number of sites. In sync with Agency management themes. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency OSWER/OERR ------- THE NEW STREAMLINED PROCESS Public Notification of Early Action Start Early Action To Reduce Risk (<5 Years) I Issue Order/ Negotiate All Sites Start PRP Search Site Screening & Assessment No Action Public Notification Issue Order/ Negotiate Early Action Completed Regional Decision/Management Team Long-Term Hazard Ranking RCRA or Other Authority Long- Term Action for Media Restoration (>5 Years) Delete Long-Term Cleanup Completed Enforcement Activities State/Public Participation/Community Relations 13 ------- NEXT STEPS FOR ACCELERATED MODEL Outreach to interested groups. Revitalization Team guides Regional efforts. Deploy on pilot basis in several Regions. i U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ^y OSWER/OERR ------- |