svEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response DIRECTIVE NUMBER: 9345.2-01 TITLE: Pre-Remedial Strategy for Implementing SARA APPROVAL DATE: EFFECTIVE DATE: ^B 11 \m ORIGINATING OFFICE: OERR/HSED GO FINAL D DRAFT STATUS: REFERENCE (other documents): OS WER OS WER OS WER IE DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE ------- OSWER DIRECTIVE 9345.2-01 PRF-REMEDIAL STRATEGY FOR IMPLEMENTING-SARA This document establishes the strategy that the Environmental Protection Agency will follow to address the pre-remedial goals and requirements of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (S?*RA) enacted on October 17, 1986. In SARA, Congress clearly establishes the mandate to move ahead at an accelerated pace with the job of identifying those sites needing Superfund remedial ac- tion to more rapidly protect public health and the environment. In order to respond to that mandate, this strategy addresses the SARA pre-remedial production goals, program operations under the current Hazard Rank'.ng System (HRS), and program operations preparing for and following revisions to the HRS. It also discusses procedures for integrating into the pre-remedial program the newly created Environmental Priorities Initiative (EPI) to the extent that they are now known. This strategy does not provide the level of detail the Regions will need to fully implement it. It does identify future detailed implementation guidance that will be developed. Pending this more detailed guidance, Regions should strive to ensure that pre-remedial operations are consistent with this strategy wherever possible. I. BACKGROUND A. Sara 'Goals and Requirements SARA modifies certain pre-remedial portions of the Compre- hensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA). Specifically, it establishes the following pre- remedial goals and requirements: 1. Complete Preliminary Assessments (PAs) on all CERCLA Information System (CERCLIS) sites as of the date of SARA enactment (DSE) by January 1, 1988. 2. Complete Site Inspections (Sis), where necessary, on DSE sites by January 1, 1989. 3. Complete HRS scores, where necessary, on DSE sites by October 17, 1990. 4. Complete HRS scores on CERCLIS sites listed after DSE, where warranted, within four years of listing. 5. Complete PAs within one year of receipt of a petition, and promptly evaluate hazards if warranted. 6. Revise the HRS by October 1, 1988 to include an on- site pathway, potential air release, food chain route, and human exposure factors. ------- OSWEP DIFECTIVF 9345.2-01 7. Assure that Federal agencies conduct PAs for facilities on the Federal Aoency Compliance Docket by April 17, 19881 P. Evaluate and list, where appropriate, Federal facilities on the National Priorities List (NPL) by April 17, 1999. B. Ability to Meet SARA In early 1987, the Hazardous Site Evaluation Division . conducted a detailed analysis of the Agency's ability to meet the SARA goals and requirements. Information from FY 88 and 89 budget targets, CERCLIS, the Regions, the Field Investigation Team (FIT) contractors, and other historical program information were used in this analysis. Projections of the SARA pre-remedial workload were compared to resources needed and available under a wide variety of scenarios to meet this workload. From this analysis, the conclusion has been reached that the Agency can meet some, but not all, of the SARA pre-remedial goals. We can: 1. Conduct PAs on all CEFCLIS DSE sites by January 1, 198P. 2. Complete HRS scoring packages on CFRCLIS sites listed after the DSE within four years. 3. Complete PA petitions within one year of receipt. We can not: 1. Complete all Sis on CEFCLIS DSE sites by January 1, 1989. 2. Complete all HPS scoring packages on these sites by October 17, 1990. / 3. Assure that all Federal agencies conduct PAs by April 17, 1988. 4. Evaluate and list as appropriate on the NPL all Federal facilities by April 17, 1989. The analysis also indicates that the HRS revisions and schedule for implementing those revisions will profoundly affect our ability to address SARA SI and HRS goals. An overall sche- dule of the various pre-remedial activities, including Head- quarters rulemaking, training and guidance development, and Regional activity is found in Exhibit I. -2- ------- OSWER DIRECTIVE 9345.2-01 C. Environmental Priorities Initiative The EPI is an integrated CERCLA/PCRA management approach. It is designed to 1) identify problem sites needing corrective action, 2) set priorities for compelling the cleanup of our worst environmental problems first, and 3) target enforcement efforts at these sites using whichever authority or combination of CERCLA and RCRA authorities is available to achieve the most expeditious and environmentally protective cleanup. For the pre-remedial pr>gram, this means that CERCLA resources will be used to evaluate all RCRA Subtitle C storage and treatment facilities and closing RCRA land disposal and incinerator facilities. Thes& evaluations will be conducted in the same manner and use the same criteria that are used to evaluate CERCLA sites. Headquarters has recently created a new task force under the Office of Waste Program Enforcement (OWPE) to develop implementation procedures for the EPI. The task force is expected to issue its plans shortly. Information in this strategy about EPI implementation must therefore be considered tentative until more definitive guidance is issued. D. Next Steps The Agency must change how it operates in the pre-remedial program to significantly accelerate our level of SARA compliance, our ability to accommodate HRS revisions, and our effectiveness in identifying the highest priority hazardous waste sites that require removal and remedial measures. The remainder of this document presents a strategy to do so. II. STRATEGY A. 'General We will maximize our compliance with the SARA goals by increasing the efficiency of our pre-remedial activities and by addressing our resources to the most hazardous sites. This will involve implementing program changes in three areas: 1. More effectively screening out sites that do not require Sis through improved PA procedures. 2. Adjusting the way we conduct Sis so that we are more efficient in applying resources appropriately. 3. Increasing the resources available to do PAs, Sis, and HRS scoring packages. This strategy reduces the overall pre-remedial workload while increasing resources available for the highest priority sites. It also attempts to provide for a smooth transition between the current and revised HRS. -3- ------- OSWER DIRECTIVE 9345.2-01 B. FY 88 - The Transition Year 1. Preliminary Assessments SARA Targets. Each Region has reviewed its data base and committed to conducting PAs on all CERCLIS DSE sites by January 1, 1988. In some cases, this necessitated completing more PAs than were in the Superfund Comprehensive Accomplish- ment Plan (SCAP) targets for the first quarter of PY 88. The August draft strategy stressed that unless the urgency of the situation dictated otherwise, PAs should not be conducted on post-CERCLIS DSE sites until it was certain DSE sites could be completed by January 1, 1988. Preliminary data show that the Regions met this completion goal. Having met the January 1, 1988 goal, we will focus PAs on sites that entered CERCLIS after DSE, so that it will be possible to complete Sis and HRS scoring, if warranted, within four years. It is important to note that like all other sites, PCRA DSE sites in CERCLIS also needed to receive PAs by January 1, 1988, and did in fact receive PAs. Regional pre-remedial staff were advised to contact RCPA staff to determine if adequate data were already available through RCRA facility assessments that were equivalent to PA data. If so, that data provided sufficient basis for a PA completion and should now be entered into CEPCLIS as such. The regions should now review the existing information to determine the SI re- commendation status and work closely with their RCRA counter- parts to use any existing data if an SI is needed. Level of Effort. The level of effort (LOE) for the "average" PA should be increased by 50% to about 75 hours. The increased LOF will accommodate an enhanced PA. The en- hanced PA will routinely include an off-site reconnaissance and apply a standardized preliminary HRS scoring procedure. These additional PA activities will allow us to make more accurate and consistent decisions on priorities for Sis. The States' role in conducting PAs continues to be at the Regions' discretion. More detailed guidance on the expanded PA process will be found in the "Preliminary Assessment "Guidance for FY 88" to be issued early in 1988. New Decision Criteria. The following new criteria are being established for assessing the need for and priority of . Sis using the results of the PA: 1) No Further Remedial Action Planned (NFRAP)*- those sites with no reasonable potential to score above the HRS cutoff; 2) medium priority- those sites * CERCLIS now uses the designation NFA (No Further Action). When OERR modifies CERCLIS in the spring of 1988, NFA will be replaced by NFRAP. Until that time, however, the NFRAP sites will be en- tered into CERCLIS as NFA. -4- ------- OSWER DIRECTIVE 9345.2-01 "with a potential to score above the HRS cutoff; and 3) hioh priority- those sites likely to score above the HRS cutoff. Note that the NFRAP designation does not mean that there are no environmental hazards at the site. There may be hazards but these hazards may not be of sufficient magnitude for NPL listing purposes. The results of PA evaluations will be entered into CERCLIS, and States should be informed of the SI recommen- dations of all sites and be provided with appropriate information on NFRAP sites upon request. Sites that would formerly have been rated low priority will now either be judged to have some potential of NPL listing or will be rated NFRAP. PA Reassessment and Referral. Currently, there are at least 8,000 sites with completed PAs awaiting Sis. All of these sites have been given a high, medium, or low priority SI recommendation. These sites must now be reassessed against the new criteria described above in order to assure that the sites that are the most serious environmental problems, and thus the most likely to qualify for the NPL, are evaluated first. The timing and approach of this PA reassessment is at each Region's discretion. It may not be possible to actually calcu- late a preliminary HRS score for many of these sites using the procedure we will provide for new PAs. Therefore, Regions may need to apply the new criterion using their best technical judgement. Some Regions may feel that low priority sites present so little hazard that they can be easily designated as NFPAP. Similarly, hioh priority sites may be considered auto- matic candidates for Sis. Other Regions may feel that a brief review of all existing PAs is needed. Alternatively, Regions may feel that a site reconnaissance or complete re-do of some PAs is required. Headquarters has asked each Region to provide its strateay and timetable for reassessment by January 1, 1988. FIT resources may be used for the reassessment. As sites are reassessed, the appropriate designation should be entered into CERCLIS, i.e., NFRAP, medium, or high priority. States should be informed of the SI recommendation of all sites and appropriate information on NFRAP sites should be made available to the States upon request. We also recommend that, while reviewing PA documents, Regions attempt to identify those facilities that are subject to RCRA permitting requirements. Regional RCRA staff should be notified of the SI recommendation assigned to their sites, and data pertaining to NFRAP sites trans- ferred to them. 2. Site Inspections Setting Priorities. During FY 88, Regions must move ahead aggressively to complete Sis in accordance with the SCAP, using the current HRS and associated existing SI procedures. Because -5- ------- OSWEP DIRECTIVE 9345.2-01 of the larqe number of Sis to be done, it is important not to lose momentum in anticipation of a revised HRS. We will be providing transition guidance on new SI data elements associated with the revised HPS within a short time after proposal and analysis of public comments are completed. To identify which sites you will conduct an SI on, you should consider the following: 0 Sites that appear to score high enough for NPL listing under the current HPS will have to be rescored later for NPL listing using the revised HRS. This will probably mean revisiting these sites to gather addi- tional data elements. We suggest you continue to use an HPS score of 25.0 as a benchmark for identifyina those sites. 8 Sites that score below 25.0 should be designated as NFRAP and entered into CEPCLIS as such. This is con- sistent with our current policy of not submitting HRS packaaes with scores below 25.0 for OA. It is our general policy that these sites would not be rescored under the revised HRS. 0 As an exception to this latter consideration, you may choose to set aside (for subsequent evaluation under the revised HRS) a site that is found during the SI to involve substantial new data elements under the revised HRS that might cause the site to score hiah enough for listing. These new data elements will probably include an on-site pathway (direct contact), potential air release, statutorily protected ecosystem, and food chain exposure through surface water. Again, these exceptions should be infrequent and be based on evidence of a revised HRS data1 element impact. In selecting sites where Sis will be performed over the next year under this policy, two alternative approaches are suggested. One is to focus on medium priority sites that have some potential, but not a high likelihood, of scoring above the 25.0 cutoff point under the current HRS. This will minimize the need to return to sites later since some of thes.e sites will not score above 25.0. (Sites where newly revised HRS data elements are suspected to predominate would be better deferred until later.) We believe this medium priority focus should be favored in the interim period prior to promulgation of the revised HRS. The second alternative is to focus SI activity on high priority sites - that is, those likely to score above the 25.0 cutoff point on the current HRS. The objective of this approach is to confirm that a site is a high priority and to establish -6- ------- PRE - RFMEDIAL PLANNING HFAnOHARTERR RULE MAKINHR GUIDANCE/ TRAINING REGIONAL ACTIVITY FY 'R7 3rd Final NPL List *3/4 Submit OA Packages for Pro- posal #7 4th FY '88 1st 2nd Proposed HRS Proposed #7 PR Strategy PA Guid. SI/HRS Bullitins Moo*- SARA PA (V»lR ^^^^ < KT^lv *J^W^ ~JT\ \^JO^O (Mo HRS Packages] )______ . ^»— 5 Review Support Document for Final #5 Submit OA Packages for Proposal I7(a) 3rd Final *5 Special Fed . Fac . Proposed f7(a) Review Support Document for Final 16, 17 4th Fir FY '89 1st lal HRS Final 16, 17 Final r Training on revised HRS procedures '(a) SI Guid. SSA Guid. Submit OA Packages for Pro- posal 18 2nd Proposed 18 , 3rd Review Support fl_i _L m_ I_TLIL| Document for Final 18 4th Final 18 __ — _ _ — — __» — ._ _/^n» w1il*~4- OlVfi r*n nv\rm*lH t "PIX T TO «»«^k«-4«^M — Vrf**n iuu%« v. r n»j v-n <^nj>wMo«*«^ JSSS*1cnL.™'~""*"""^—^~~^'*'~— "• •^B— — — •— — • — \**ji n-iu\^ u Develop Preliminary HRS Packages ^Tr/T°Tn .,,,.. OXo/ LOXS — L-"" ••««•—•*'—••- — ——^—-•—^^^•" •-••i-^i- •»•! ^Develop HRS PaCKtt^G ------- OSWER DIRECTIVE. 9345.2-01 its priority relative to other high priority sites. This will enable Regions to begin new SI activities under the revised HRS at the worst sites already having acquired a significant amount of information. Under this approach, however, most sites will have to be revisited once the revised HRS is final. Expanded Site Inspections (ESI). The ESI Workgroup has developed a guidance document entitled "ESI Transitional Guidance for FY88". ESIs currently underway will continue to be performed according to the ESI concept paper and the PY 88 guidance document. Current ESI work coupled with forthcoming SI/HRS Bulletins (see Section III) will provide a headstart on SI data collection for the revised HRS. HRS Scoring. Formal HRS scoring packages using the current HRS should no longer be developed. HRS scoring packages using the revised HRS can be developed after the revised HRS is pro- mulgated. Training will be provided on new scoring package procedures. 3. Federal Facilities EPA Headquarters has established a Federal Facilities Task Force under OWPE to focus on CERCLA and RCRA issues as they relate to Federal facilities. The Task Force has communicated to Federal agencies that the information required from them for HRS evaluation is equivalent to an existing EPA PA and SI. The Agency will propose a separate NPL update under the current HRS for Federal facility sites early in the third quarter of FY 88. 4. FIT Resources To make more FIT resources available to implement this strategy, we will do two things. First, we will work with the FIT Zone Program Managers in implementing measures to reduce FIT overhead hours by'about 10%". This includes instituting efficiencies in training^ general technical assistance, eauip- ment calibrations, and program management. Second, we will exercise future FIT LOE options now. This could increase FIT LOE by up to 25% on a national basis. In addition, all Regional managers of FIT have already begun to minimize support of non-pre-remedial programs to the fullest extent possible. The FIT contract must be primarily used to conduct PA/SI/HRS related activities. This is a depar- ture from past practices of actively supporting other programs with FIT resources. In some Regions, other program support has accounted for over 30% of the FIT LOE. In light of the substantial pre-remedial workload this should not continue. -7- ------- OSWER DIRECTIVE 9345.2-01 This FY 88 strategy does not involve doing a substantially greater number of PAs an^ Sis. It does involve improving the quality of these efforts. Surplus FIT LOE hours made available through these measures must be dedicated to this objective. C. FY 89 and Beyond 1. Transition The transition between the FY 88 and FY 89 strategies will probably not occur at precisely the break between the two fiscal years but instead will happen when enough is known about the revised HRS to affect the way the Agency conducts Sis. We anticipate this to happen in mid 1988 after the HRS revisions have been proposed, the nature of comments can be ascertained and initial decisions can be made on how to revise the way we do Sis. An overall schematic of the long term strategy is found in Exhibit II. 2. Preliminary Assessments PAs on post-CERCLIS DSE sites can begin after January 1, 1988. PAs will be of the expanded variety explained earlier and will address the additional data elements of the revised HRS. As stated earlier, the rate at which PAs are conducted (within one year of CERCLIS entry is recommended) must allow these sites to be scored, if warranted, within four years. With a historical discovery rate of about 2000 sites per year. Regions should have little difficulty in meeting this goal after the pre-SARA backlog is eliminated in 1987. PA petition sites must always be conducted within one year of receipt. The States' role in conductina PAs continues to be at the Regions' discretion. PA information will continue to result in either NFRAP, medium priority, or high priority recommendations for an SI. The re- sults of PA evaluations will continue to be entered into CERCLIS, and States should continue to be informed of the SI priority designation of all sites and provided with appropriate NFPAP information upon request. 3. Site Inspections The SI process under the revised HRS will be conducted in two phases. All sites will receive a screening SI to 1) collect additional data beyond the PA to enable a more refined prelimi- nary HRS score, 2) establish priorities among sites most likely to qualify for the NPL, and 3) identify the most critical data requirements for the listing SI step. A screening SI will not have rigorous data quality objectives (DQOs). Based on the refined preliminary HRS score and other technical judgement -8- ------- BIT II PRE-REMEDIAL PROGRAM STRATEGY PA RESULTS LISTING Sis HIGH PRIORITY MEDIUM PRIORITY NO FURTHER REMEDIAL ACTION PLANNED h SCREENING Sis NO FURTHER REMEDIAL ACTION PLANNED INFORMATION PROVIDED TO STATES NPL RESPONSE BY OTHERS RCRA SUBTITLE C & D SMCRA STATES ASSESSMENT FOR REMOVAL ACTION ------- OSWER DIRECTIVE 9345.2-01 III. FUTURE GUIDANCE Fully implementing this strategy recruires detailed guidance. This is the job of the Site Assessment Branch in the Hazardous Site Evaluation Division. Penelope Hansen (FTS-475-8103) or Jim Jowett (FTS-475-8195) are the Headquarters lead contacts for pre-remedial guidance. Although Headquarters will take the lead in developing needed guidance, extensive Regional . involvement is essential. Accordingly, input will be solicited as guidance documents are being developed. You can expect to be asked to participate in reviewing draft documents, attend workgroups, and even participate in Headquarters rotational assignments to assist in developing specific guidance topics. We will develop and issue guidance on the following pre-remedial topics: 1. PA Guidance. Specific guidance on the enhanced PA addressing the process, content, and disposition of sites. Requirements for off-site reconnaissance and a preliminary HRS scoring procedure will be included. will also include PA reassessment and PA petition procedures. 2. Site Screening Analysis. An automated model and users manual for preliminary HRS scoring and HRS upper limit scoring of sites after the PA and SSI stages. 3. Revised SI/HRS Bulletins. Interim advisories on potential changes in SI data collection requirements as a result of probable revisions to the HRS. 4. SI Guidance. Final Screening SI and Listing SI data collection requirements and procedures under the revised HRS. 5. Environmental Priorities initiative. Guidance on how the pre-remedial program will implement the EPI. 6. Revised HRS Scoring Packages. Guidance on'how to assemble scoring packages under the revised HRS. 7. ESI Transition Guidance. Guidance to explain the procedures for conducting ESls in FY 88, as a bridge to Sis under the revised HRS. Focus is on their role in providing data necessary to do an RI/FS workolan. Your suggestions are always welcome on guidance topics needed in addition to those identified in this strategy. -10- ------- OSWEP DIRECTIVE 9345.2-01 factors, the site will then either be designated as NFRAP, or carried forward as an NPL listing candidate. A listing SI will not automatically be done on these sites, however. First, they will go through a management evaluation to determine whether they can be addressed by another authority, such as PCRA. The final form of the management evaluation process is pending the new NPL deferral procedures being proposed in the revised NCP. Sites that are designated NFPAP or deferred to other statutes are not candidates for a listing SI. The listing SI will address all the data requirements of the revised HRS using field screening and NPL level DQOs. It may also provide needed data in a format to support remedial investigation workplan development. Only sites that appear to score high enough for listing and that have not been deferred to another authority will receive a listing SI. You may elect to skip the screenina SI and go directly to a listing SI in certain limited cases. Candidates would be sites that are clearly NPL candidates based on PA information, and that have little or no potential to be deferred from listing. 4. Expanded Site Inspections We will not use the term "expanded site inspection" in the future. Listing Sis will take the place of ESIs. We intend that a listing SI serve the dual function of supporting NPL listings and providing information to support development of a Remedial Investigation workplan. However, the cost of a listing SI may be somewhat less than the ESIs currently being conducted. 5. Hazard Ranking System New HRS scoring packages can be developed as soon as the revised HRS is promulgated. These packages must use the revised HRS. 6. State Resources Additional funds for State Cooperative Agreements may be made available in FY 89. These funds could be used to conduct more PAs and Sis. The role of States in conducting PAs and Sis continues to be at the Regions' discretion. The PAs and Sis conducted by States must be of sufficient quality to enable Regions to make good ranking decisions. Regions should provide additional funds to States only if they take steps to produce quality PAs and Sis that are consistent with this strategy. -9- ------- |