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
-------
|