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-
------- |