UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
OCT 12 2005
OSWER 9355.0-105
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
Final National Strategy to Manage Post Construction Completion Activities at
Superftmd Sites
Michael B. C
Office of Su
ediation and Technology Innovation
les ij.-WboTlrdf Director
^ederal Facilities Restoration and Reuse Office
^
, Director
c
Susan
Office of Site RemediationJ&afereemeat
FederatFacilities Enforcement Office
Superfund National Policy Managers, Regions I-X
Director, Office of Environmental Stewardship, Region I
Director, Environmental Accountability Division, Region IV
Regional Counsel, Regions II, ffl, V, VI, VE, IX and X
Assistant Regional Administrator, Office of Enforcement, Compliance, and
Environmental Justice, Region VIE
Regional Enforcement Division Directors, Region I-X
Purpose
This memorandum transmits the final National Strategy to Manage Post Construction
Completion Activities at Superfund Sites (PCC Strategy).
-------
-2-
Background
The PCC Strategy is a framework designed to assure that remedies put in place under the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act continue to protect
human health and the environment over the long term. This strategy will help us focus efforts
during the next five years on activities to ensure human health and the environment are protected
at Super-fund sites after construction is complete.
Conclusion/Implementation
Efforts are already underway to implement the approaches recommended in this strategy,
and we appreciate the participation of regional staff in strategy implementation. The staff point
of contact for the PCC Strategy is Tracy Hopkins, hopJdns.tracy@epa.gov. 703-603-8788. The
strategy can be found at httD^/www^paLgov/superfund/action/po^tcoostniction^ndex.toni.
Attachment
cc: OSRTI Managers
Ed Chu, Land Revitilization Staff
Debbie Deitrich, OEM
Matt Hale, OSW
Linda Garczynski, OBCR
Scott Sherman, OGC
Eric Steinhaus, Super-fund Lead Region Coordinator, US EPA Region 8
NARPM Co-Chairs
OSRTI Documents Coordinator
-------
October 2005 OSWER 9355.0-105
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
National Strategy to Manage Post Construction Completion Activities
at Superfund Sites
Purpose of Strategy
This document sets forth the Environmental Protection Agency's (Agency) National Strategy to
Manage Post Construction Completion Activities at Superfund Sites (PCC Strategy). The PCC
Strategy is a management framework of goals, with recommended approaches and initiatives,
that is designed to provide greater assurance that remedies put in place under the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) remain protective over the
long-term. It is intended to be a national strategy to manage the PCC aspects of Superfund sites
generally, not a specific strategy for managing an individual site. The Agency anticipates
undertaking the projects outlined in this strategy over the next five years.
Except where noted, the strategy is designed for both National Priorities List (NPL) sites and
Superfund Alternative (SA) sites. Under existing guidance, the Agency considers SA sites to
include sites that the Region has determined would meet the criteria for listing on the NPL,
require long-term response, and have viable and agreeable potentially responsible parties.1
Products developed under this strategy may also apply to other Superfund cleanups and cleanups
under other programs.2
An Agency interoffice workgroup prepared this strategy, with input from regional workgroup
members and stakeholders. The PCC Strategy collects ideas from the Agency and its
stakeholders on PCC issues, highlights areas that warrant focused attention, and identifies
'"Revised Response Selection and Settlement Approach for Superfund Alternative Sites," OSWER 9208.0-
18, June 17, 2004, http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/cleanup/superfund/rev-sas-04-trans-mem.pdf
It should be noted that the Agency's Federal Facility Superfund program, the Department of Energy
(DOE), and the Department of Defense have initiated efforts broadly labeled as "long-term stewardship" (LTS).
DOE has created an Office of Legacy Management to manage post-closure responsibilities and ensure the future
protection of human health and the environment. This office has control and custody for legacy land, structures, and
facilities and is responsible for maintaining them at levels suitable for their long-term use. LTS components
generally include: O&M, site surveillance and maintenance; implementation, monitoring and enforcement of land
use controls; environmental monitoring; oversight and enforcement; information collection and dissemination; and
periodic evaluation of remediation systems, including availability of new technology. In addition, the Agency has
established aLong-Term Stewardship Task Force under the "One-Cleanup Program" initiative that has prepared a
report entitled, "Long-Term Stewardship: Ensuring Environmental Site Cleanups Remain Protective Over Time."
-------
October 2005 OSWER9355.0-105
potential approaches. The PCC Strategy builds on previous efforts of the Agency, its regions,
and stakeholders to create a recommended "infrastructure" for PCC through guidance, fact
sheets, training courses and other efforts.
Through five goals, the PCC Strategy provides information to regions, federal agencies, states,
tribes, local governments, and stakeholders regarding the areas that may require continued focus.
Under each of these goals, the PCC Strategy identifies potential initiatives or, in some cases,
summarizes work that is already underway. Now that this strategy is final, the Agency is
developing a schedule of the products that the Agency will continue to work on or initiate over
the next five years, taking into consideration the potential beneficial impacts on the program,
resources, and other program priorities. Note that, separate from this strategy, an overall
workforce assessment for Superfund is being developed; consequently, PCC workforce issues
will not be addressed in this strategy.
This document provides information to Agency staff, the public, and the regulated community on
how the Agency intends to nationally manage PCC activities at Superfund sites. The document
does not, however, substitute for the Agency's statutes or regulations, nor is it a regulation itself.
Thus, it cannot impose legally-binding requirements on the Agency, states, or the regulated
community, and may not necessarily apply to a particular situation based upon the circumstances.
Post Construction Completion History
Until the late 1990's, the Superfund program was principally focused on getting NPL sites to the
milestone of site Construction Completion (CC). The Construction Completion category of the
NPL and Construction Completions List were first described in two Federal Register Notices.3
Generally, a site qualifies for the construction completion list when any necessary physical
construction is complete, whether final cleanup levels or other requirements have been achieved.
Achieving site Construction Completion has been the Superfund program's primary measure of
accomplishment, and it is a Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) target. Because
of its prominence in the Superfund program, the term "Construction Completion" is sometimes
mistaken to mean that site cleanup is complete. The reality is that, while physical construction is
complete, in most cases, additional activities are needed to achieve remedial objectives. Many of
the construction complete sites have remedies that only permit certain uses because of residual
contamination remaining on the site. In addition, many of the sites with ground water
contamination will require ongoing remediation over many years to achieve protective cleanup
levels.
In the late 1990's, the Superfund program started to group the body of work that occurs after Site
3FR Volume 55, No. 46, March 8, 1990; FR Volume 58, No. 29, March 2, 1993.
-2-
-------
October 2005 OSWER 9355.0-105
Construction Completion into what is now known as PCC. Since more than 62 percent of the
final and deleted NPL sites were Construction Complete as of the end of FY2005, the
management of PCC is becoming increasingly important The main purpose of PCC generally is
to ensure that response actions continue to provide for the long-term protection of human health
and the environment. PCC typically encompasses several activities that may be undertaken at a
site following the construction of a remedy. These activities may include, but are not limited to:
• Long-Term Response Action (LTRA): Generally applies to the first 10 years of Fund-
financed ground and surface water restoration.
• Operation and Maintenance (O&M): Includes the activities required to maintain the
effectiveness and integrity of the remedy. Also includes continued operation of ground
and surface water restoration remedies after LTRA.
• Five-Year Reviews: Required by statute to assure protectiveness for any remedial action
that leaves hazardous substances on a site above levels that allow for unlimited use and
unrestricted exposures. Five-year reviews are also conducted as a matter of policy in
other situations.
• Institutional Controls (1C): Using non-engineered instruments, such as administrative
and/or legal controls, that typically minimize the potential for human exposure to
contamination and/or protect the integrity of the remedy by limiting land or resource use.
Remedy Optimization: Performing reviews to improve the performance and/or reduce
the annual operating cost of remedies without compromising protectiveness.
NPL Deletion: Removing sites or portions of sites from the NPL because no further
response action is appropriate (not applicable to SA sites).
• Reuse: Working with the parties seeking to redevelop Superfund sites to ensure that their
activities do not adversely affect the implemented remedy.
A complete description of each of these PCC components, along with guidance and fact sheets, is
available at the Agency Superfund web site.4 The PCC Strategy is also available there.
The remainder of this document describes the five goals in the PCC Strategy and their
recommended implementation approaches. The goals and implementation approaches are not
listed in any particular priority order, as they are all considered priorities for the PCC Strategy.
The staff point of contact for the PCC Strategy is Tracy Hopkins, hopkins.tracy@epa.gov, 703-
603-8788.
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/action/postconstruction/index.htm
-3-
-------
October 2005 OSWER 9355.0-105
Post Construction Completion Strategy by Goal
Goal 1 Ensure that remedies remain protective and cost effective.
Section 121(b) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA) states:
"The President shall select a remedial action that is protective of human health and the
environment, that is cost effective, and that utilizes permanent solutions and alternative
treatment technologies or resource recovery technologies to the maximum extent
practicable."
When remedies are selected, the statutory requirements of Section 121 are addressed in part by
applying the nine criteria provided for in the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (NCP).5 At all stages of cleanup, especially the PCC phase after remedies
have been constructed, the focus should be on assuring protectiveness and achieving results in a
cost effective manner, consistent with the statute and the NCP.
The PCC phase of an NPL site cleanup typically involves the O&M, including monitoring, of
remedies. Engineered remedies that may require O&M include treatment, such as pump-and-
treat (P&T), bioremediation, air sparging, and soil vapor extraction; and containment, that may
involve vertical barriers (subsurface walls) and caps. To ensure the cost effectiveness and
protectiveness of these remedies often requires ongoing O&M, five-year reviews, monitoring,
periodic repairs, and, sometimes, replacement of remedy components. Other remedies, such as
monitored natural attenuation (MNA), principally involve monitoring (but can include O&M,
repair, or replacement of monitoring wells). All of these types of remedies may require
managing and evaluating large volumes of monitoring data, and tracking progress toward well-
defined requirements. Clear remedy requirements are important in order to assess ongoing
performance and the need for operational changes.
Remedies are selected, designed, and constructed based on the best knowledge of site conditions
and technology available at the time. It is expected that most remedies will have a dynamic
nature over time. This can be related to factors such as additional characterization data, changing
site conditions, engineering or operating issues, technological innovation, or regulatory changes
(e.g., regulatory standards such as MCLs). These factors may warrant a reevaluation of previous
documented decisions, such as the remedy, remediation objectives, methods for determining
achievement of objectives, system design and operation, and monitoring frequency or locations.
These decisions are typically documented in the ROD, remedial design, or Operations &
Maintenance (O&M) Plan for the remedy.
5NCP §300.430(f)(5)(i)
-4-
-------
October 2005 . OSWER9355.0-105
Existing program guidance allows for remedy changes when appropriate.6 The guidance states
that a Record of Decision (ROD) modification is generally appropriate where significant new
information has become available that supports the need to alter the remedy. Other guidance also
encourages the regions to take a close look at, and modify as appropriate, past remedy decisions
where those decisions are substantially out of date with the current state of knowledge in
remediation science and technology, and, thus, are not as effective from a technical or cost
effectiveness perspective as they could be.7 Remedy update types could include not only changes
in the remediation technology, but also modification of the remediation objectives, or
modification of the monitoring program. The objective of Goal 1 is to enable the program to
assess changing conditions over time, and to modify remedy decisions and approaches as needed
to maintain the protectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the remedy.
Recommended Implementation Approach
1.1 Develop approaches for improving remedy O&M, monitoring, performance, and
tracking.
To determine if an operating remedy continues to be both protective and cost effective
may require periodic evaluation of its operation and performance with respect to cleanup
standards. To assess progress toward achieving cleanup standards may require that the
reliable and necessary data be collected, managed, and analyzed on a regular basis.
Current program guidance is focused on five-year reviews8 and a few specific remedies,
such as monitored natural attenuation (MNA)9 and pump-and-treat10. Five-year reviews
are designed to assess the protectiveness of a remedy, but not necessarily whether it is
operating efficiently or making sufficient progress to meet cleanup levels. Detailed
evaluations (such as remedy optimization evaluations) for large systems may be necessary
to properly optimize performance for the least cost.
"A Guide to Preparing Superfund Proposed Plans, Records of Decision, and Other Remedy Selection
Decision Documents," OSWER 9200.1-23P, EPA 540-R-98-031, July 1999,
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/resources/remedy/rods/index.htm
7"Superfund Reforms: Updating Remedy Decisions," OSWER 9200.0-22, Sept. 27, 1996,
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/reforms/reforrns/3-2.htm
8"Comprehensive Five-Year Review Guidance," OSWER 9355.7-03B-P, EPA 540-R-01-007, June 2001,
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/resources/5year/index.htm
'"Performance Monitoring of MNA Remedies for VOCs in Ground Water," EPA 600-R-04-027, April
2004, http://www.epa.gov/ada/pubs/reports.html
'""Elements for Effective Management of Operating Pump and Treat Systems," OSWER 9355.4-27FS-A,
December 2002, http://www.epa.gov/superfund/resources/gwdocs/per_eva.htm
-5-
-------
October 2005 OSWER 9355.0-105
Priority efforts already underway and those that may be initiated in the future include:
A. Continue to provide tools to review and improve O&M (e.g., capture zone
guidance and training, O&M check list).
B. Continue implementation of the "Action Plan for Ground Water Remedy
Optimization."11
C. Develop and implement tools to manage and analyze monitoring data.
D. Clarify and supplement current guidance on establishing intermediate and final
remedy cleanup levels, ways to measure progress toward cleanup levels, and how
to verify that they have been achieved (i.e., "exit strategy").
E. Continue to provide tools to improve the five-year review process.
F. Develop and implement tools to ensure that monitoring requirements at sediment
sites are implemented.
G. Continue implementation of long-term monitoring optimization efforts for
monitoring systems.
H. Continue to compile and prepare case studies of remedy cost and performance.
I. Provide additional PCC classroom and internet training to regions and states.
J. Focus technical support (e.g., Technical Support Centers) for remedial project
managers on PCC activities.
1.2 Encourage improved regional management of PCC sites.
This effort is intended to help the regions, states, and other federal agencies create
processes to manage more effectively the increasing number of PCC sites. Regional,
state, and other federal agency staffs may be responsible for managing and overseeing
multiple complex site cleanups in the PCC phase. Effective management of these
cleanups may require expertise in data management, system performance evaluation,
system optimization, and innovative technologies. Some regional offices already have
created special procedures for PCC sites. For example, Region 10 staff members prepare
short written updates of the status of PCC sites and brief an internal team on progress and
issues. Region 8 has a team of staff assigned to manage PCC sites. Region 3 is working
with Headquarters to create a regional optimization and evaluation team consisting of
technical staff, senior managers, and others to track and manage LTRA sites.
The activities in PCC may lend themselves to the application of an Environmental
Management Systems (EMS) approach.12 An EMS typically involves a continual cycle of
planning, reviewing and improving the processes and actions that an organization
""Action Plan for Ground Water Remedy Optimization," OSWER 9283.1-25, August 25, 2004,
http://www.epa.go v/superfund/action/postconstruction/action_plan.pdf
http://www.epa.gov/ems/
-6-
-------
October 2005 OSWER 9355.0-105
undertakes to meet its business and environmental goals.
Priority efforts already underway and those that maybe initiated in the future include:
A. Document regional processes for managing PCC sites.
B. Work with any regions that would like assistance to develop new procedures or
improve their current procedures for managing PCC sites.
C. Develop a conceptual model of the PCC process to determine how the EMS
process may be applied.
D. Pilot using an EMS approach for selected PCC sites.
1.3 Ensure proper consideration of PCC requirements in enforceable agreements with
responsible parties and federal facilities.
Some of the model documents associated with Superfund may not have fully anticipated
issues emerging in PCC. These issues should be contemplated and planned for
throughout the remedial process, and could include considerations associated with
financial assurance, O&M, institutional controls, and reuse. The model language may
need to be revised to include PCC considerations that may not have been included in
previous versions.
Priority efforts already underway and those that maybe initiated in the future include:
A. Continue to revise model enforcement documents.
B. Continue to ensure language addressing operation and maintenance (including any
engineered and institutional control portion of the remedy) is included in future
Federal Facility Agreements.
Goal 2 Ensure that institutional controls required as part of the remedy are
implemented and effective.
The Agency generally defines institutional controls (ICs) as non engineered instruments, such as
administrative and/or legal controls, that help to minimize the potential for human exposure to
contamination and to protect the integrity of a remedy by limiting land or resource use.13 ICs are
frequently used in hazardous waste cleanups to ensure that remedies remain protective over the
long-term. As the cleanup pipeline has matured, many of the early assumptions about the
effective identification, evaluation, selection, implementation, monitoring, reporting and
"Institutional Controls: A Site Manager's Guide to Identifying, Evaluating and Selecting Institutional
Controls at Superfund and RCRA Corrective Action Cleanups," OSWER 9355.074FS-P, September 2000,
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/action/ic/guide/index.htm
-7-
-------
October 2005 OS WER 93 5 5.0-105
enforcing of ICs have come into question. This has resulted in significant internal and external
concern about the long-term reliability of certain remedies and associated ICs. The fundamental
challenge presented by ICs is that, although the Agency frequently relies on ICs to ensure
protectiveness, the responsibility for implementation, monitoring, and enforcement is often under
the jurisdiction of other levels of government and private parties.
ICs normally are used specifically to ensure protection of human health and the environment, as
well as to protect the integrity of the remedy. The most critical aspects of ICs that affect
protection of human health and the environment typically are related to implementation,
monitoring and enforcement. Durable and effective ICs are critical to long-term protectiveness
and may enable more sites to return to productive use sooner.
One key challenge for ICs is ensuring coordination and cooperation outside the Agency. The
Agency, other federal agencies, states, tribes, local government, and industry need to work
together to ensure acceptable long-term effectiveness and durability of ICs.
Recommended Implementation Approach
Note that the Agency has separately developed a strategy to ensure institutional control
implementation.14 The approaches described below are consistent with the 1C strategy.
2.1 Develop and ensure continued effectiveness of a national 1C Tracking System (ICTS).
An initial round of preliminary 1C data entry for Agency analysis was completed in the
summer of 2004 for all of the construction complete sites on the NPL. This initial effort
likely will be augmented as the tracking system is developed further.
Priority efforts already underway and those that may be initiated in the future include:
A. Continue to establish an approach and appropriate time line for population,
continual updates, and maintenance of ICTS.
B. Work further with federal facilities, states, tribes, local agencies and industry to
establish the exchange of 1C information.
2.2 Ensure the effective implementation of ICs.
Priority efforts already underway and those that may be initiated in the future include:
A. Use ICTS data and other site information to prioritize further evaluation of ICs at
14"Strategy to Ensure Institutional Control Implementation at Superfund Sites," OSWER 9355.0-106,
September 29, 2004, http://www.epa.gov/superfund/action/ic/strategy.htm
-8-
-------
October 2005 OSWER 9355.0-105
applicable sites.
B. Continue to develop an approach for ensuring that ICs are successfully
implemented at applicable sites.
C. Continue to evaluate and address 1C issues at applicable sites.
D. Develop approaches to update decision documents to reflect selection and
implementation of ICs.
2.3 Identify and implement process improvements to increase the reliability of ICs.
Priority efforts already underway and those that may be initiated in the future include:
A. Continue to improve PCC processes (e.g., remedial design, five-year reviews,
O&M plans) to better ascertain overall 1C effectiveness.
B. . Develop policy on how to critically evaluate the effectiveness of ICs both at the
remedy evaluation stage and post implementation.
C. Continue to provide training so that Agency staff, and external partners better
understand ICs, ICTS, and related topics.
D. Continue to educate, inform, and involve additional parties (e.g., local
governments, communities) to support efforts to identify and resolve 1C issues.
2.4 Undertake other activities targeted at improving the use of ICs.
Priority efforts already underway and those that may be initiated in the future include:
A. Continue to develop guidance, "A Guide to Preparing Institutional Control
Implementation Plans and Assurance Plans at Superfiind, Brownfield, Federal
Facilities, Underground Storage Tanks, and Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act Cleanups."
B. Develop guidance, "Calculating the Full Life-Cycle Costs of ICs."
C. Continue to work with Common Ground Alliance or other groups to develop a
best practices guide for residual contamination, sub-surface remedy components,
and excavation restrictions.
D. Continue to support "one call" demonstration pilots.15
15One call is a state system to notify excavators of the location of underground facilities. The "one call"
pilots are designed to study the inclusion of the location of subsurface remedy components and contamination and
use restrictions to the one call notification system.
-9-
-------
October 2005 OSWER 9355.0-105
Goal 3 Assure adequate financing and capability to conduct post construction
completion activities.
Obtaining adequate financing for PCC activities at a site can be essential to ensure the long term
protectiveness at that site. These activities may include operating and maintaining leachate
collection systems or ground water contamination treatment systems. In other cases, the
activities may be more passive and may simply require adequate financing to be confident that
residual contamination (that is contained or requires land use restrictions) is managed in a way
that ensures the long term effectiveness of the remedy.
With the exception of active restoration of ground and surface water for a 10-year period
(LTRA), the Agency is limited by CERCLA with regard to conducting O&M activities at NPL
sites. Thus, Superfund relies upon state governments, responsible parties, and federal facilities
for ensuring the O&M at sites. Nonetheless, the Agency is keenly interested in making sure that
implementation of the remedy at sites is supported by the community, the state, the federal
facility and responsible parties, and that all these players can be confident that long term
financing will continue to be available to maintain protectiveness at these sites.
Two factors may point to the need to further address financing of long term activities at sites: (1)
the budgetary constraints facing local, tribal, state, and federal governments may affect their
capability to maintain and oversee remedies at sites, and (2) as more sites are entering the PCC
phase of cleanup, the potential scopes of O&M costs are increasing.
State governments are required by CERCLA to assure that long term O&M is conducted at Fund-
financed sites. They are not required to provide all required O&M funding from state funds prior
to the start of O&M. This statutory feature can complicate long term O&M planning at sites,
since a stable long-term funding source often is needed to continue O&M. The Agency and its
partners, the state and local governments, have just begun to identify a full complement of
funding mechanisms for financing sites. Innovative approaches and collaborative efforts need to
be explored and developed to promote a variety of ways to achieve reliable long-term O&M
funding.
Recommended Implementation Approach:
3.1 Work to assure that Potentially Responsible Parties fulfill their O&M responsibilities.
Priority efforts already underway and those that maybe initiated in the future include:
A. Continue to revise model financial assurance provisions in enforcement
agreements and orders.
B. Continue to develop sample letters of credit, bonds, and trusts.
C. Develop approaches to implement different financial assurance mechanisms.
-10-
-------
October 2005 OS WER 93 5 5.0-105
3.2 Help states develop capacity to assure Superfund state cost share and O&M and
methods to creatively finance both.
Priority efforts already underway and those that maybe initiated in the future include:
A. With support of states, evaluate current state efforts to develop long-term O&M
funding. Identify obstacles to funding and share findings.
B. Revise model Superfund State Contract to better describe PCC considerations that
may not have been included in previous versions.
C. Identify future O&M workloads for states, and associated funding needs.
Goal 4 Support appropriate reuse of sites while assuring remedy reliability.
The Superfund Redevelopment Program is designed to improve consideration of potential reuse
so that communities affected by some of the nation's worst hazardous waste sites can return them
to safe and productive uses. Likewise, other federal agencies envision reusing contaminated
properties and, in some cases, transferring properties outside of the federal government. While
cleaning up sites and making them protective of human health and the environment, the Agency
is working with communities and other partners to consider anticipated future land use in the
cleanup process. The benefits of reuse are most visible during the PCC phase, when remedies
have been constructed to be compatible with expected future use. Through the current
coordinated national effort, the Agency and its partners can better determine what the future use
of a site is likely to be, so that protective remedies are selected consistent with planned reuse,
where practical and feasible.
Recommended Implementation Approach
4.1 Reexamine sites to eliminate barriers to reuse wherever possible.
Restrictions on site access and use are necessary at some, but not all, of the construction
complete and deleted NPL sites. In some cases, fences, warning signs, or other access
and use controls, may be modified over time as we leam more specifically what is
necessary to protect the engineered remedy, human health, and the environment.
Furthermore, at some of these sites, public perception and a misunderstanding of the
remedy may be precluding productive reuse. Under a new initiative, known as "Return to
Use,"16 the Agency intends to systematically look at sites where real or perceived barriers
may exist and work to overcome those barriers. This can be done by sharing information
or, when necessary, making modifications to the remedy through the administrative
process (e.g., ROD Amendment or Explanation of Significant Difference) to change the
way it is implemented.
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/recycle/rtu/index.htm
-11-
-------
October 2005 OSWER 9355.0-105
4.2 Implement the Ready for Reuse guidance to answer questions about a site's suitability
for reuse.
Some Superfund sites are on prime land. The location of industry and facilities that have
prompted contamination problems is often at the nexus of transportation, utility and
employment centers. The locations of these properties often warrant beneficial reuse, and
such reuse may serve to provide active management of residual wastes over the long
term. The "Ready for Reuse"17 determination is designed to give possible developers a
user-friendly report on the environmental status of sites and portions of sites that are
ready for specified uses. This effort will be accomplished concurrent with or in addition
to the five-year review and does not require NPL site deletion or partial deletion.
The Agency will continue its ongoing efforts to delete and partially delete sites as soon as
they qualify for deletion. Sites typically can be fully or partially deleted from the NPL
after all appropriate response actions have been implemented. It is important to note that
sites may be "Ready for Reuse" long before NPL deletion. Ground water restoration
remedies, for example, may take many years to achieve cleanup levels; however, it may
be possible to allow for reuse of surface lands once site construction is complete even if
the site is still on the NPL.
Goal 5 Improve site records management to better ensure remedy reliability.
Many records associated with Superfund sites are needed for long into the future. In those cases
where wastes are left on site above levels allowing for unrestricted use and unlimited exposure,
the records generally are critical for ensuring that the presence of these wastes is known. Agency
strategies for identifying, capturing, managing and providing access electronically are currently
being designed, and the Superfund Program is playing a leading role. Any electronic systems
should complement, and in certain cases replace, paper-based processes. The Agency is moving
toward capturing and preserving records online through the Superfund Document Management
System (SDMS). SDMS is already in use in all 10 regional offices and will soon become
available for Headquarters use.
The Agency is working on a range of options that are designed to foster mutually agreeable data
exchange formats and procedures between the Agency's and states' information systems. The
Agency is prepared to address any concerns states may have directly and in an open dialogue to
achieve results that do not place undue burdens on those submitting records, or on internal
systems management. When electronic records are transferred from one organization to another,
standardized authentication and chain of custody procedures may need to be established specific
to digital media.
17"Guidance for Preparing Superfund Ready for Reuse Determinations," OSWER 9365.0-33, February 18,
2004, http://www.epa.gov/superfiind/programs/recycle/rfrguidance.pdf
-12-
-------
October 2005 OSWER 9355.0-105
Recommended Implementation Approach
5.1 Develop a standard methodology nationwide for record keeping, including electronic
record keeping, that conforms both to Superfund program needs and the Agency's
enterprise content management architecture.
The Agency is embarking on a major information technology investment known as the
"Enterprise Content Management System (ECMS)." This is a very significant
undertaking to electronically manage nearly all Agency information, including records.
OSRTI is a key partner in the ECMS project and intends to link SDMS to ECMS. Most
Superfund records initially will be captured into SDMS. The aim of the linkage between
SDMS and ECMS is to fundamentally transform the manner in which information is
managed by the Agency. OSRTI is currently working to develop a strategic plan for
records management. SDMS can already offer much of what will become ECMS.
5.2 Establish effective content "migration " strategies to assure accessibility to records in
light of rapid and persistent changes in information technologies.
Among the challenges facing records production, capture, and management in this age is
maintaining methods and practices that keep pace with rapidly evolving information
technologies. When records are captured into digital systems it becomes critical to ensure
that the content - often irreplaceable ~ is refreshed often enough to preserve its
accessibility and use. Among the strategies for preserving access is reducing the
complexity of what must be managed in the first place. For text documents, it is
generally feasible to save the document into an Adobe Acrobat Portable Document
Format (PDF). This single step can greatly ease the task of migrating content from one
hardware platform, and software version, to the next. Additional standards are pending
for other records formats, such as tabular data, geographic information systems outputs,
web pages, and audio-visual. Another effective strategy for reducing file format
complexity is modifying contract language to submit deliverables in specified formats,
such as PDF. Guidance is currently being drafted to address both strategies discussed.
Additional measures will be determined as we move forward toward implementation of
electronic content in the Agency.
-13-
------- |