EPA540-R-93-068
9200.0-14-2
PB93-963295
SUPERFUND ADMINISTRATIVE
IMPROVEMENTS
FINAL REPORT
JUNE 23, 1993
-------
June 23, 1993
SUPBRFUND ADMINISTRATIVE IMPROVEMENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. NEW AND ENHANCED INITIATIVES
A. Enhance Enforcement Fairness and Reduce Transaction Costs
1. Greater Use of Allocation Tools 3
t 2. Foster More Settlements with Small Volume
Waste Contributors 8
0, 3. Greater Fairness for Owners at Superfund Sites ... 11
4. Evaluate Mixed Funding Policy . . 14
B. Enhance Cleanup Effectiveness and Consistency
5. Streamline and Expedite the Cleanup Process .... 17
6. Develop Soil Trigger Levels 25
C. Enhance Meaningful Public Involvement
7. Implement an Environmental Justice Strategy for
Superfund Sites .27
8. Early and More Effective Community Involvement ... 31
D. Enhance State Role
9. "State Deferral" of Certain Site Categories .... 33
II. CONTINUING MANAGEMENT AND ENFORCEMENT INITIATIVES
10. Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model (SACM) 37
11. Construction Completions 38
12. Contracts Management 40
13. Enforcement First 42
14. Accelerate Cleanup at Base Closures 43
15. Promote Use of Innovative Technology 46
16. Compliance Monitoring 49
17. Improve the Effectiveness of Cost Recovery 50
-------
June 23, 1993
SUPERFUND ADMINISTRATIVE IMPROVEMENTS
INTRODUCTION
Superfund, the nation's hazardous waste cleanup program, is
now more than 12 years old. After 12 years, we have made
significant progress in reducing the risks posed to human health
and natural ecosystems. As a result of Superfund, the people of
the United States have received many benefits including the
elimination of the most serious health threats at contaminated
sites, the restoration of sites to productive use, advances jui
cleanup technology, and reformation of corporate and municipal
behavior towards the generation, disposal, and cleanup of
hazardous wastes.
However, EPA recognizes that certain aspects of the
Superfund program have also generated criticism. Specific
criticisms focus on the pace and cost of cleanup, the degree to
which sites are cleaned, the fairness of the liability approach,
the role of States in the process, and the role of local
communities, particularly disadvantaged communities.
This point in Superfund history presents the Clinton
Administration, Congress, EPA, and the public an opportunity to
evaluate how the program has worked over the last dozen years and
to make changes that will improve Superfund in the future. The
Agency is committed to making such changes, whether they are
administrative changes which can be implemented by EPA on its
own, or legislative changes that must be enacted by Congress.
To explore potential initiatives for making administrative
improvements to Superfund, an Agency-wide task force was
established, the Superfund Administrative Improvements Task
Force. Representatives from the Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response (OSWER), the Office of Enforcement (OE), the
Office of General Counsel (OGC), the Office of Policy, Planning
and Evaluation (OPPE), the Office of Administration and Resources
Management (OARM), the Office of Research and Development (ORD),
Region 2, Region 5, Region 9, and the Department of Justice (DOJV
participated in preparing and reviewing this report. Task Force
members met with many people, both inside and outside the
Agency, to develop options for consideration.
To oversee all Superfund administrative and legislative
issues, the Administrator established a Superfund Steering
Committee,. chaired by the Deputy Administrator, Robert Sussman.
The Steering Committee includes senior officials from OSWER, OE,
OGC, OCLA, OARM, ORD, OPPE and Region 2, Region 3, Region 6 and
DOJ. The Task Force recommendations were reviewed by this
Steering Committee which then advised the Task Force on the
-------
-2- June 23, 1993
appropriate initiatives to adopt. The results of the Steering
Committee and Task Force efforts are reflected in this report.
This report focuses on administrative improvements to the
Superfund program. It considers the issues of most concern to
the Administration, Congress, and the public. The improvements
included in this report can be achieved without changing the
statute. Priority was given to actions which can be implemented
before September 30, 1994, when the current Superfund legislation
expires.
Within that framework, the Task Force looked at Superfund
administrative improvements which: (a) enhance enforcement
fairness and reduce transaction costs; (b) enhance cleanup
effectiveness and consistency; (c) enhance meaningful public
involvement; and (d) enhance the State role in the Superfund
program. These new and enhanced initiatives are discussed in
the first portions of this document.
In addition, several significant initiatives were already
underway in the program. These continuing management and
enforcement initiatives have improved the efficiency,
effectiveness and fairness of the Superfund program. The
continuing efforts already underway in the Agency are discussed
in the latter portion of this report. Changes to the current EPA
Superfund removal effort were not evaluated in the Task Force
deliberations. This effort is one of the most successful
components of the Superfund program.
I. NEW AND ENHANCED INITIATIVES
The various initiatives identified can be categorized as
follows:
o Enhance enforcement fairness and reduce transaction
costs
Greater use of allocation tools
Foster more small volume waste contributor
settlements
Greater fairness for owners at Superfund sites
- Evaluate mixed funding policy
o Enhance cleanup effectiveness and consistency
Streamline and expedite the cleanup process by
implementing presumptive remedy guidance and a new
dense non-aqueous phase liquids (DNAPL) strategy.
Develop soil trigger levels
-------
-3- June 23, 1993
o Enhance Public Involvement
Implement an environmental justice strategy for
Superfund sites
Early and more effective community involvement
o Enhance State Role
State "deferral" of certain site categories
Each initiative is presented, suggestions for short-ter*m and
longer-term actions are discussed, and program implications are
addressed in this report. This report contains the
recommendations of the Task Force which have been approved b$ the
Superfund Steering Committee. The Agency will begin the
implementation of these initiatives for program improvement
immediately.
A. Enhance Enforcement Fairness and Reduce Transaction Costs
INITIATIVE 1: GREATER USE OF ALLOCATION TOOLS
Issue
The Superfund program has been criticized for the high
transaction costs that are incurred by PRPs in reaching
settlements and in litigating where settlement efforts are
unsuccessful. Several allocation tools that currently exist
could be used more widely to promote settlement and reduce the
transaction costs associated with achieving settlement. These
settlement tools fall into three general categories: 1) tools
that create proposed.allocations; 2) tools that facilitate the
sharing and development of allocation information; and 3) tools
that provide guidance on developing allocations.
Approach
A. Proposed Allocations: Alternative dispute resolution (AOR)
could be used on a more routine basis to facilitate the process
of allocating responsibility at sites. AOR involves a neutral
third party who serves, at the discretion of the parties, to
organize parties for negotiations (convening expert), facilitate
settlement deliberations (mediator), and/or provide an opinion to
the parties to a negotiation (arbitrator). An ADR professional
may be hired to serve EPA, the. PRPs, or both, to assist in
reaching an allocation of responsibility among the PRPs. At its
discretion, EPA may adopt, as its own allocation (or Nonbinding
Preliminary Allocation of Responsibility (NBAR)), the allocation
which is reached through the ADR process. An NBAR is EPA's
preliminary nonbinding allocation among PRPs of percentages of
total response costs at a site. We will be undertaking the
following initiatives:
-------
-4- June 23, 1993
1. Binding Allocation Pilot Project: EPA will seek to
pilot the arbitration of allocation determinations in
approximately three cases. In these pilot cases, the allocation
determination of the arbitrator will be binding on all PRPs
subject to the arbitration and will be incorporated into
appropriate settlement documents for the signature of the
parties. Further, in this pilot project, the Agency will agree,
subject to the limitations enumerated in
5 U.S.C. 5590, to accept the arbitrator's allocation
determination as the basis of settlement with the PRPs subject to
fche arbitration.
At the selected sites, an initial agreement regarding the
>.use of arbitration will be reached between high-level EPA
officials (including the Deputy Administrator) and corporate
officials authorized to speak on behalf of the corporate PRPs.
The corporate officials will be informed that the Agency will
establish, with the assistance of PRPs, an arbitration to
determine the allocation of costs among a group of PRPs
identified by the Agency. The Agency will make every effort to
identify and include the largest number of viable PRPs in the
group subject to the arbitration. To facilitate the selection of
an arbitrator, EPA will provide a list of approved third-party
neutrals from which the PRPs may select their preferred
arbitrator.
The arbitrator will be provided a specific time period in
which to reach an allocation determination. The Agency will
expeditiously provide the arbitrator with allocation-related
information in its possession, consistent with EPA's information-
release policy (see below), and all PRPs will be encouraged to
provide relevant information for the arbitrator's consideration.
Procedures for operation of the arbitration will be provided by
the Agency.
2. Demonstration Projects Utilizing ADR and, where
appropriate, NBARs: Over the next 12 months, approximately 20
sites with upcoming RD/RA negotiations (and additional cost
recovery cases and removal action negotiations as appropriate)
will be identified at which ADR will be offered to facilitate PRP
allocation deliberations. The ADR professional will be available
for the sole purpose of facilitating the attainment of an
allocation agreement among the PRPs. EPA's ADR Liaison will
provide support to Regional staff in identifying appropriate
candidate cases. Where possible^and appropriate, EPA may prepare
or adopt NBARs to. help promote settlement at the demonstration
project sites.
At those sites which are selected as demonstration projects,
the Agency will, subject to available HQ funding, offer the
following three step process. First, the PRPs will be provided
with the services of an external neutral ADR professional,
-------
-5- June 23, 1993
initially funded by the Agency, to assist in PRP organization and
the convening of settlement negotiations, including the selection
of an appropriate mediator if requested by the parties. Second,
if requested by the PRPs, the Agency will initially fund a
portion of the costs of neutral mediator services utilized by the
PRPs to arrive at an allocation agreement. The mediator selected
by the PRPs will be expeditiously provided information known to
the Agency regarding the waste disposed of at the site and PRP
practices, and the PRPs will be encouraged to provide any
additional information they deem relevant. A specific timetable
will be provided to the PRPs by EPA for conclusion of the
mediation process.
Third, if no agreement is reached among the PRPs at the*" end
of the specified period following initiation of mediation, EPA
may, at its sole discretion, establish a nonbinding arbitration
to develop a proposed allocation for the consideration of the
PRPs and EPA. The PRPs will be encouraged to participate in the
funding of arbitration services. The Agency will expeditiously
provide the arbitrator with allocation-related information in its
possession, consistent with EPA's information-release policy, and
all PRPs will be encouraged to provide relevant information for
the arbitrator's consideration. The arbitrator will be provided
a finite period of time to develop an allocation proposal for the
consideration of the PRPs and EPA. If the PRPs refuse to accept
the proposed allocation, EPA may, where possible and appropriate,
prepare an NEAR or adopt the arbitrator's proposal as EPA's own
NEAR; EPA may also proceed with partial settlements and/or issue
unilateral administrative orders and/or proceed with Fund-
financed response action.
3. In conjunction with the two efforts identified above,
EPA will perform outreach to the regulated community on the use
of ADR techniques to support the resolution of Superfund actions.
A workshop on the use of ADR in Superfund actions will be
convened in November 1993. The workshop participants will
include representatives from the regulated community, ADR service
providers, and Agency and DOJ staff. The workshop will explore
options for expanding and institutionalizing the use of ADR
techniques into the Superfund enforcement process.
B. Information Sharing: EPA has recently issued a new policy
that encourages the sharing of information on allocation and
liability issues with identified PRPs early in the Superfund
process. Specifically, the policy provides that "information on
PRP waste contribution at CERCLA sites normally should be made
available to all PRPs as soon as practicable, preferably well
before special notice is issued." The policy details the
specific types of information (e.g., waste tickets, logbooks,
billing records) that should be provided, and expresses a
preference in favor of release even where the information is
potentially subject to claims of privilege or FOIA exemptions. A
-------
-6- June 23, 1993
follow-up memorandum will be issued indicating AA-level support
for sharing this information with PRPs, as well as referencing
the Agency's intent to assist PRPs in follow-up information
gathering activities where appropriate. Further, a concerted
effort will be made by the Agency to ensure that the information-
release policy is uniformly and promptly implemented by the
Regions.
C. Allocation Guidance: EPA will prepare a guidance identifying
factors to consider when allocating response costs among PRPs,
including in situations where there is an absence of volumetric
information. These factors would be employed by the Agency and
could be employed by" PRPs in reaching allocation decisions. The
.guidance could address allocation issues such as the relative
importance of toxicity and other waste characteristic factors in
determining allocations of responsibility. EPA will review the
results of the Clean Sites "Common Law of Allocation" to ensure
that all relevant factors utilized in prior allocations are
considered. The experience gained in the AOR demonstration
projects highlighted above will also serve as an information base
for this project. In addition, EPA will prepare a white paper
that will analyze: 1) the number of sites where volumetric
information is available; 2) the sites where the functional
equivalent of an NBAR has been performed (e.g., volumetric
allocations in the form of a waste-in list or transactional
database); and 3) allocations and settlements that resulted from
the development and release of such information.
FY93 ACTION ITEMS
Action Complete
Issue follow-up memorandum 7/93
regarding information release and
assistance to PRPs in follow-up
information gathering activities
Identify sites with upcoming 8/93
RD/RA negotiations where ADR
can be piloted
Identify and commence 9/93
implementation of binding
allocation at pilot sites
FY94 ACTION ITEMS.
Action Complete
Implement binding allocation and Ongoing
ADR at pilot sites
-------
-7- June 23, 1993
Identify sites with upcoming Ongoing
RD/RA negotiations where ADR
can be piloted
Conduct a Superfund ADR Workshop 11/93
Prepare white paper on availability 12/93
of volumetric information at sites
Issue guidance 3/94
identifying factors to consider
when allocating response costs
Program Implications
It is very difficult given the extreme variance in the
complexity and size of cases to estimate the Agency resources
required to support the binding allocation project and the
additional piloting of the use of ADR for select RD/RA, removal,
and cost recovery negotiations. Best estimates based upon the
experience of the Agency and private ADR providers are that the
cost to employ an outside neutral party to mediate and render an
allocation determination ranges from $15,000 to $200,000,
depending on the number of parties involved and the condition of
site data. It is anticipated that the per site cost of using ADR
in pilot cases will average $50,000. It is anticipated that the
Agency's total share of ADR costs (provision of convening
services and a portion of mediator/arbitrator costs) will average
30-40% of the total ADR costs at a sit^.
Assisting PRPs in reaching consensus on allocation schemes
is one of the only mechanisms by which EPA can impact the PRPs1
transaction costs associated with CERCLA negotiations. The
experience of PRPs indicates that the use of ADR professionals to
facilitate PRP allocation deliberations greatly increases the
likelihood of success and reduces PRP transaction costs. In the
short term, however, additional resources will be required to
perform these demonstration projects. The additional Agency
resources required to employ ADR techniques to reach allocation
agreements may, in some cases, be offset by savings associated
with more and/or faster settlements and reduced litigation. An
additional benefit that may accrue from this effort is an
increase in the overall number of parties participating in each
settlement. EPA does not intend for the use of ADR to delay
cleanup at any site.
Developing (and applying) the additional guidance on
allocating, response costs among PRPs may be difficult, given the
complexity of many of the issues involved and their relative
importance at particular sites. Although the guidance may not be
completed prior to reauthorization, the draft will promote a
-------
-8- June 23, 1993
discussion of the issues, which may in turn be useful in the
reauthorization process.
INITIATIVE 2: FOSTER MORE SETTLEMENTS WITH SMALL VOLUME WASTE
CONTRIBUTORS
Issue
Small volume waste contributors often complain that they
are not able to settle with EPA until very late in the remedy
process. Moreover, volumetric information (recommended under
EPA's pre-existing guidance) used for establishing eligibility
•>for a de minimis settlement is not comprehensive at many sites.
In addition, de minimis settlements can be time consuming and
resource intensive.
At several sites, there are some extremely small volume or
"de micromis" waste contributors that are increasingly finding
themselves subject to lawsuits commenced by major contributors at
a site ("contribution actions"). The de micromis parties are
parties whom, as a matter of enforcement discretion, the Agency
did not or would not normally pursue. De micromis parties have
requested EPA assistance in resolving these actions.
The Agency has also found that in resolving the concerns of
numerous parties in a de minimis settlement, many of the PRPs
(who may be small businesses) complain t-hat they spend
substantial amounts of money (i.e., "transaction costs") in
acquiring information about the Superfund process and
understanding the terms cf a proposed settlement. De minimis
parties believe EPA should be more proactive in communicating the
de minimis process.
Approach
To encourage more, early and expedited settlements and
reduce the transaction costs of all parties, the Agency plans to:
1) simplify our requirements for determining a PRP's eligibility
for a de minimis settlement and streamline the process for
settling; (2) issue guidance to the Regions on settling with
extremely small volume waste contributors ("de micromis parties")
while aggressively moving to settle with de micromis parties
subject to contribution actions; and 3) establish a communication
strategy to assist small volume waste contributors in further
understanding the. de minimis and de micromis process.
The Agency is implementing several actions to simplify its
requirements for determining a PRP's eligibility for an expedited
de minimis settlement. They include: allowing Regions to make de
minimis determinations based on an individual party's
contribution relative to an estimate of the overall waste at the
-------
-9- June 23, 1993
site; no longer requiring a waste-in list prior to settling; and
showing an increased willingness to settle with individual de
minimis PRPs and not solely with de minimis parties as a group.
In considering such settlements, Regions will make a reasoned
judgement regarding the effect of the settlement on non-de
minimis parties, recognizing that a certain amount of imprecision
is inevitable (particularly in light of the limited amount of
volumetric information available at many sites). Detailed
information and extensive supporting documentation are not
necessary for this determination. These settlements should also
not foreclose the Region's ability to pursue an enforcement*
action against the non-jje. minimis parties to perform or finance
the remedy.
<»
To streamline the de minimis process once a party is
eligible for a settlement, the Agency will be developing a model
payment matrix. The streamlining will also include standardizing
premiums relative to the scope of our covenant not to sue, and
authorizing Regions to use estimates of future site costs in
reaching settlements. EPA and the Department of Justice will
provide for rapid elevation of key decisions regarding the
implementation of the new de minimis procedures.
In a similar vein, EPA's approach to de micromis parties
will be to quickly establish eligibility for settlement based on
reduced informational requirements. Unlike the de minimis
discussion above, de micromis settlements will not involve
imposition of a premium or identification of a group of parties
able to perform or finance the remedy. EPA will be developing a
payment matrix to calculate the appropriate settlement amount.
The Agency will perform several actions in FY93 and FY94.
In FY93, we will direct the Regions to implement the new de
minimis settlement approach, complete ongoing de minimis
settlements, issue the de micromis guidance, institute
negotiations with de micromis parties at sites where PRPs have
brought contribution actions against those parties, and develop a
communication strategy to assist PRPs involved in the de minimis
and de micromis process (the Agency may pilot the use of ADR in
this effort). EPA expects to complete approximately 15 more de
minirois settlements in FY93 - there are already 12 final
settlements with more than 650 parties this year. Using the new
criteria, we can start negotiations at several additional sites
this fiscal year. In FY94, we believe that we can target more
minimis settlements using the new criteria. We estimate that we
can enter into approximately 35 de minimis settlements.
-------
-10- June 23, 1993
PY93 ACTION ITEMS
Action Complete
Inform Regions of new 7/93
de minimis approach and direct
implementation of new approach
Begin targeting 7/93
de minimis sites
Using new criteria
Issue de micromis guidance 7/93
4.'
Issue a communication 7/93
strategy Regions
should follow for
assisting de minimis
and de micromis parties
Complete ongoing 9/93
FY93 de minimis
settlements at
15 more sites
Identify sites/ Ongoing
commence negotiations
where de micromis
parties are subject to
contribution actions
FY94 ACTION ITEMS
Action Complete
Identify sites/ Ongoing
commence negotiations
where de micromis
parties are subject to
contribution actions
Ensure that Regions Ongoing
are using the new
communication strategy
Complete approximately 35 9/94
de minimis settlements
using new criteria
Complete settlements 9/94
with de micromis parties
-------
-11- June 23, 1993
Program Implications
These initiatives will allow more, earlier and expedited cje.
minimis settlements. They should also reduce the transaction
costs for both the government and de minimis parties. However,
increasing the number of de minimis settlements and the
completion of de micromis settlements will, in the aggregate,
require a greater allocation of Agency resources which might
otherwise be devoted to cleanup or other enforcement activities.
These actions, in particular the de micromis initiative*;
will send the message that EPA will act aggressively when other
parties bring nuisance contribution actions against extremely
small volume waste contributors. The actions will increase %
fairness for small parties.
Establishing a communication strategy will assist the de
minimis and de micromis parties in a greater understanding of the
settlement process and in the receipt of information. There
should also be a reduction in transaction costs for those
parties.
INITIATIVE 3: GREATER FAIRNESS FOR OWNERS AT SUPBRFUND SITES
A. ISSUE SUPPLEMENTAL FEDERAL LIEN GUIDANCE
Issue
PRPs have objected that before perfecting a Federal Lien
under CERCLA, EPA does not give property owners sufficient notice
and opportunity for comment.
Approach
EPA will issue supplemental Federal Lien procedures which
provide a site owner the opportunity to submit information or
meet with the Agency prior to EPA placing a Federal Lien on the
owner's property.
FY93 ACTION ITEM
Action Complete
Issue supplemental guidance 7/93
Program Implications
Issuance of the supplemental guidance will address concerns
regarding giving owners of property notice and opportunity to be
heard prior to perfecting a CERCLA lien. It will also increase
the administrative burden (time and resources) associated with
-------
-12- June 23, 1993
the perfection of liens and delay somewhat EPA's perfection of
liens on individual sites.
B. SETTING A STANDARD FOR "ALL APPROPRIATE INQUIRY11
Issue
To qualify for CERCLA's innocent landowner defense, a party
must have undertaken, at the time the land was acquired, "all
appropriate inquiry into the previous ownership and uses of the
property consistent with good commercial or customary practice in
an effort to minimize liability." EPA has not developed a
standard for "all appropriate inquiry," but has made
determinations of innocent landowner status site by site.
Concerns have been raised that the lack of a standard has
created uncertainty and has reportedly led to the following
situations: 1) lending institutions are wary about providing
loans for the purchase of property and accepting property as
collateral; 2) the private sector may be abandoning previously
developed land and developing virgin land; and 3) businesses may
be paying for inadequate property assessments.
Approach
After identifying some basic criteria regarding the meaning
of "all appropriate inquiry", the Agency will examine standards
already developed by private organization^ and other federal
agencies, and evaluate the need for EPA to clarify the
requirements of "all appropriate inquiry" under Section 101(35)
of CERCLA.
FY93 ACTION ITEMS
Action Complete
Identify criteria for 9/93
evaluating standards developed
by other organizations
Request standards from other 9/93
organizations
FY94 ACTION ITEMS
Action
Decide whether to clarify 12/93
the requirements of "all
appropriate inquiry" under
CERCLA
-------
-13- June 23, 1993
If appropriate, clarify 9/94
requirements
Program Implications
If EPA were to adopt a standard regarding the meaning of
"all appropriate inquiry", certainty would be provided to persons
(i.e.. individuals, industry, lenders) who want to purchase
property as to the Agency's position on the actions which are
necessary to appropriately inquire into previous uses of >
property, for purposes of the innocent landowner defense.
Development of a new standard by EPA might be resource?
intensive. Adopting a pre-existing standard would save Agency
resources, would be more likely to be embraced by the business
community and would result in more certainty for existing
environmental audits. At the same time, adopting an Agency
standard might exclude the standards being developed by other
groups or discourage the development of better property
assessment tools. Recognizing several acceptable pre-existing
standards would help address these issues. Any EPA standard
might be the subject of disputes.
C. EXPAND USE OF THE PROSPECTIVE PURCHASER GUIDANCE; DEVELOP
MODEL PROSPECTIVE PURCHASER AGREEMENT
Issue
At some NPL sites, prospective purchasers of contaminated
property are willing to conduct or finance some cleanup work in
return for a covenant not to sue from EPA. Our current policy
restricts the use of these agreements to situations where the
Agency is planning on taking an enforcement action at the site,
and where a substantial benefit (such as payment or performance)
not otherwise available would be received by the Agency for
cleanup of the site by the purchaser. At sites where these
conditions are not met, cleanups that could be partially
conducted or funded by private prospective purchasers may be left
to EPA to complete. In effect, contaminated property that could
be put to productive use may remain abandoned for an extended
period. This problem is of particular concern in some urban
areas.
Approach
We will expand the use of our prospective purchaser guidance to
show greater willingness to negotiate where it will facilitate or
assist in the re-use or development of contaminated or formerly
contaminated property. Further, EPA will prepare a Model
Prospective Purchaser Agreement to help expedite the approval
-------
-14- June 23, 1993
process. In addition, EPA will evaluate the "no action"
assurance policy criteria and application.
PY93 ACTION ITEMS
Action Complete
Develop criteria for 9/93
expanding the guidance
FY94 ACTION ITEMS
Action
•i
Issue supplemental 6/94
prospective purchaser
guidance
Issue model prospective 6/94
purchaser agreement
Program Implications
This initiative will result in the Agency being perceived as
being more fair in resolving the potential liability of parties
whose purchase of contaminated property would otherwise make them
PRPs. Expanded use of prospective purchaser settlements will
create economic incentives to develop contaminated or potentially
contaminated properties.
At the same time, with this initiative, it will become more
difficult for the Agency to remain outside of purely private real
estate transactions. Extensive use of prospective purchaser
agreements could be resource intensive.
INITIATIVE 4: EVALUATE MIXED FUNDING POLICY
Issue
The Agency uses mixed funding in situations where it is
appropriate to recover less than 100% of the site costs in a
particular settlement. There are three types of mixed funding:
preauthorization (where PRPs perform the work and the Agency
agrees to reimburse them for a portion of the costs), cashouts
(where the PRPs fund a portion of^. the work which EPA performs),
and mixed work (where the PRP and' the Agency perform different
aspects of the cleanup).
PRPs believe that the Agency's interpretation of its mixed
funding authority is too conservative and that mixed funding is
appropriate in other situations, particularly where inequities
exist or risks associated with remedy implementation are a
-------
-15- June 23, 1993
concern. In addition, PRPs believe that the application and
documentation requirements, as well as contracting requirements,
associated with preauthorization mixed funding are overly
burdensome and may actually create a disincentive to its use.
The Agency recently completed a fact-finding exercise
regarding mixed funding to obtain the current views of interested
organizations and individuals. The Agency was particularly
interested in perceptions of the advantages and disadvantages of
EPA's current policies and practices with respect to mixed »
funding; whether increased use of mixed funding should be
encouraged, and what.obstacles exist to such increased use; and
recommendations for policy or legislative changes. As a result
of this fact-finding, the Agency is currently conducting an
evaluation of mixed funding options, including potential cost
implications of expanding use of mixed funding.
Lastly, the Agency is interested in looking for ways to use
mixed funding to achieve added program benefits, such as use of
innovative technologies, faster cleanups, and addressing
environmental justice concerns.
Approach
During FY93, the Agency will conduct a two-part evaluation
of mixed funding. The first part will evaluate several different
mixed funding options and quantify the cost implications to the
Fund. The Agency expects to complete this phase of the
evaluation during July 1993. The second part of the evaluation
will explore options for streamlining the mixed funding decision
making process, and will also explore options available under the
current regulation (40 CFR Part 307) for streamlining the
application and documentation requirements associated with
preauthorization. This part of the evaluation is expected to be
completed in August 1993.
In order to better assist our evaluation effort and gather
data on mixed funding use, the Agency will be piloting several
mixed funding settlement demonstration projects in FY93 and FY94.
Candidate sites will be identified by July 1993. Negotiations
with PRPs for these mixed funding demonstration projects are
anticipated to begin by the end of FY93 and to be completed by
March 1994. The Agency will begin compiling information about
these negotiations in December 1993. Based on experience and the
evaluation of the mixed funding demonstration projects, EPA
will identify opportunities for streamlining preauthorization
procedures and requirements by March 1994. Based on the results
of studies and demonstration projects over the next year, EPA
will consider revising the mixed funding policy.
-------
-16- June 23, 1993
FY93 ACTION ITEMS
Action Complete
Evaluation of mixed funding options 7/93
Identify candidate sites for 7/93
demonstration projects
Explore options to streamline 8/93
0reauthorization procedures and
requirements. Utilize demon-
stration projects, as appropriate.
*
FY94 ACTION ITEMS
Action Complete
Complete negotiations for 3/94
mixed funding demonstration projects
Based on an evaluation of the 3/94
demonstration projects, recommend
measures to streamline preauthori-
zation procedures and requirements
Based on an evaluation of the 9/94
demonstration projects, consider
revising the mixed funding policy
Program Implications
Streamlining preauthorization procedures and requirements
will ease implementation of mixed funding. If EPA were to expand
the use of mixed funding/ the Superfund program might benefit
from more settlements and, in some cases, earlier cleanups, less
litigation and fewer CERCLA §106(b)(2) reimbursement petitions.
Further, the Superfund program may be perceived to be more fair.
Such increases in fairness must be balanced with the concepts of
joint and several liability.
At the same time, expanding the use of mixed funding could
create significant demands on the Trust Fund -- potentially
resulting in the delay of cleanups — and make negotiations more
difficult in those cases where the Agency feels the use of mixed
funding is inappropriate. Accordingly, the categories of cases
eligible for mixed funding will need to be carefully defined.
Given the ramifications of mixed funding, it will be important to
examine legislative aspects of this issue.
-------
-17- June 23, 1993
B. Enhance Cleanup Effectiveness and Consistency
INITIATIVE 5: STREAMLINE AND EXPEDITE THE CLEANUP PROCESS
INTRODUCTION
The Superfund program is criticized for taking too long to
decide upon remedies at sites and for the slow pace of achieving
cleanup. The program's site-specific decision making process is
often pointed to as a major source of delay. Making decisions on
a site by site basis also leads, at least on the surface, to*
criticism about the consistency of decisions nationwide.
In 1991, the Agency began efforts to standardize parts of
the remedy selection process and increased efforts to take
advantage of experience at sites across the country. Continuing
these efforts and expanding into new areas will improve
efficiency and accelerate the program. In particular/ the
current process of site characterization, evaluating the
feasibility of cleanup options, and design may be unnecessarily
complex, site-specific, and lengthy. The new and enhanced
efforts highlighted here represent improvements in these areas
which can save time and money, and will increase the national
consistency of Superfund cleanups.
A. PRESUMPTIVE REMEDIES
Issue
Current practice in implementing the RI/FS process has
resulted in extensive site-specific analysis being conducted at
similar sites across the country. EPA studies show that despite
this intensive site-specific effort, the same types of remedies
tend to be selected for certain categories of sites. This.
repetition of activities across the country to carefully do"cume>it
site-specific decision making is expensive and time-consuming ard
may be unnecessary to ensure that appropriate remedies are
chosen. •'•••••"
Approach
Agency work in the presumptive remedies area involves
developing guidance and demonstration/field studies that are
designed to recognize and capitalize on patterns in selection of
remedy decisions for specific site types. In this way, those who'
must deal with similar sites in the future can better focus data
collection efforts and limit feasibility analyses to those
remedial options holding the greatest likelihood of success.
We have begun to pilot presumptive remedies for municipal
landfills and are beginning pilot work on other presumptive
remedies for woodtreater sites, ground water contamination sites,
-------
-18- June 23, 1993
sites with volatile organic compounds in soils, coal gasification
sites, PCB sites and grain storage facilities.
FY93 ACTION ITEMS
Action Complete
Identify Presumptive Remedies,
Issue Guidance and Begin Demonstration
Projects on: 9/93
1) General Presumptive
Remedies
2) Municipal Landfills
*3) Volatile Organics in Soils
FY94 ACTION ITEMS
Action Complete
Identify Presumptive Remedies,
Issue Guidance on:
1) Groundwater Pump & Treat 1/94
(see discussion on DNAPLs)
2) Woodtreater Sites 6/94
3) PCB Sites 6/94
4) Coal Gasification Sites 6/94
5) Grain Storage Sites 6/94
Initiate Demonstration Projects: 9/94
Develop Evaluation Scheme
Evaluate preliminary MWLF pilots
Municipal Landfill Site
Groundwater Site, VOCs in Soils Site
Region 7 demonstration projects for
Coal Gasification, PCBs,
and Grain Bins
Program Implications
A substantial number of NPL sites have certain similar
attributes that will benefit from a standardized approach. For
the presumptive remedy categories noted, approximately 600 sites
currently on the NPL may benefit in some way. Of these sites,
approximately 350 involve ground water, 50 municipal landfills,
100 VOCs in soils, 30 woodtreaters and 70 PCB sites. There is
some overlap between the ground water and other categories.
Use of presumptive remedies is expected to create greater
consistency, certainty and quality of remedy decisions in the
near term, and time and cost savings are expected to increase
over time as additional sites from these categories are added to
-------
-19- June 23, 1993
the NPL. This initiative will also encourage consistency and
will assist in speeding cleanup at a substantial number of sites
that enter into voluntary cleanup programs or are regulated under
the RCRA corrective action program or are conducted by private
parties. Success is primarily expected in reduced time and cost
for the RI/FS.
The benefits of the presumptive remedy approach will include
more focused data collection during the RI, including earlier
treatability studies and collection of data necessary to desjign a
remedy, the potential for a more streamlined risk assessment, and
evaluation of a narrower range of remedial options. These
principles can also be applied at sites on the NPL other than
those specific types targeted for presumptive remedy guidance,
which can expand the influence of this initiative and achieve
faster risk reduction as well as time and cost savings for more
sites.
Use of presumptive remedies affords the local community some
certainty that remedies are implementable and effective, and
establishes a reasonable expectation upfront about the level of
cleanup that can be achieved.
In spite of the benefits, in some cases, reliance on
presumptive remedies could retard the integration of innovative
technologies into the selection of remedies for certain
categories of sites. Some responsible parties have also
expressed concern that presumptive remedies may contain overly
conservative assumptions and could lead to unnecessarily
expensive remedies. EPA will therefore, need to be aware of
these specific instances, be careful not to exclude more
innovative approaches, and look carefully at its assumptions in
developing presumptive remedies.
It should be noted that the presumptive remedies are those
options which we will focus on most frequently for specific site
types; however, another alternative might be selected in
appropriate circumstances.
B. STANDARDIZED SPECIFICATIONS FOR USE DURING DESIGN
Issue
As more, remedial designs are completed, many different
specifications have been developed by the design community for
various construction components. These specifications can be
standardized and made available for use on future designs efforts
with minimal adaptation to site-specific conditions. Standard
specifications will save time and money for design development,
EPA and State review, and construction oversight.
-------
-20- June 23, 1993
Approach
EPA will, through an existing Interagency Agreement with the
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE), identify construction
components suited to application of standard specifications. The
USAGE will develop specifications and, after review, make them
available to the Federal, state and contractor community through
their existing Construction Criteria Base (CCB). The data base
will be periodically updated and revised with new specifications
and input from the field. Examples of specifications under
consideration or in development are air stripping systems, site
clearing and grubbing, thermal treatment systems, and health and
safety requirements.
»
FY93 ACTION ITEMS
Action Complete
Survey EPA Regions and 11/93
other Federal agencies
for already available
specifications and
opportunities to develop
specifications.
FY94 ACTION ITEMS
Evaluate which construction 12/93
components have the biggest
potential for high pay-back
from the use of specifications.
Using phased approach, 9/94
modify or develop
specifications and made available
through the database.
Program Implications
This effort could reduce costs required for remedial design
by eliminating the need to develop new specifications each time
for aspects that are common to many sites. The time required to
develop design packages as well as the EPA review time for
previously approved elements of design packages can also be
reduced. Guide specifications can also increase consistency and
efficiency in design development through a common understanding
of project expectations.
-------
-21- June 23, 1993
C. GUIDANCE AMD TRAINING FOR ADDRESSING DNAPL CONTAMINATION
Issue
The presence or absence of Dense Non-Aqueous Phase Liquids
(DNAPLs) at Superfund sites can control the ultimate success or
failure of qroundwater remediation. Because of the complex
nature of DNAPLs fate and transport, they may go undetected under
current site characterization strategies, leading to incomplete
site assessments, inadequate remedial design, and additional
costs during remedial action. The presence of DNAPLs complicates
remediation and in many cases, make complete aquifer cleanup,
infeasible with current technologies. In addition, the presence
of DNAPLs can extend negotiation times with PRPs due to the PRPs1
efforts to persuade EPA not to attempt to restore ground water to
drinking water quality.
EPA research indicates that about 85% of NPL sites have some
degree of ground water contamination, and that approximately 60%
of those have a high probability that DNAPLs are present. EPA
estimates that a similar percentage of RCRA corrective action
sites will also face DNAPL problems.
Approach
Under this initiative, EPA will develop the methodology for
quickly assessing the presence of DNAPLs, for characterizing site
contamination problems, and a remedial strategy for addressing
DNAPL contamination. At this time, the Agency is considering
several components to be key in an effective strategy for
addressing ground water contamination sites in general and DNAPL
sites in particular.
The strategy involves early evaluation of the likelihood of
the presence of DNAPLs, and, if DNAPLs are likely, design of the
site investigation and remedial actions to address two different
parts of the ground water contamination problem: 1) the
dissolved contaminant plume, and 2) subsurface DNAPL sources
within the plume. The investigation and remedial actions will
utilize a phased approach, which will include locating the extent
of the dissolved plume and subsurface zones where DNAPLs are
present; initiating early containment actions to prevent further
spread of contaminants; and, where practicable, ultimately
remediating the dissolved plume to achieve cleanup standards,
while containing, reducing and managing the subsurface DNAPL
source to minimize further release of contaminants. The use of
enhanced recovery or innovative technologies should also be
considered to remediate DNAPLs in the source zones.
As part of this initiative, the Agency will complete an
evaluation of the pervasiveness of the presence of DNAPL
-------
-22- June 23, 1993
contamination at N?L sites, present technology transfer seminars
to focus on technical as well as policy issues, and issue several
technical guidance documents. The Agency will also develop Model
Consent Decree language to address the technical impracticability
ARAR waiver issue for DNAPLs where Records of Decision do not
already address it.
PY93 ACTION ITEMS
Action Complete
"Complete study of pervasiveness 7/93
of DNAPLs at NPL sites.
'Complete training/policy 7/93
seminars in all Regions
Issue Model Consent Decree 7/93
language
Develop technical 9/93
and policy guidance on
characterizing DNAPL sites
and clarifying technical
impracticability waivers.
FY94 ACTION ITEMS
Action Complete
Issue DNAPL scrategy as 1/94
part of presumptive remedy
guidance for ground water
(see presumptive remedy discussion)
Issue Three Fact Sheets to 9/94
address (1) free phase DNAPL
removal, (2) field investigation
and (3) sampling issues
Evaluate progress related to 9/94
technical and policy guidance
implementation
Program Implications
This initiative will see direct benefits in both the RCRA
Corrective Action, and Superfund remedial programs, and will
assist in the evaluation of thousands of additional sites not
currently on the NPL. It will increase the consistency and
quality of decisions regarding DNAPL contamination and better
focus data collection. The training and policy workshops in the
Regions will bring state-of-the-science knowledge to those making
decisions at sites with DNAPLs.
-------
-23- June 23, 1993
However, once the presence of DNAPL is determined, some site
characterizations may take longer than currently anticipated,
and sites with active or proposed pump and treat systems may need
to be revisited in light of new knowledge of the difficulties in
remediating sites with DNAPLs using conventional methods. This
initiative may result in increased pressure for technical
impracticability waivers, but will also assist in making such a
determination.
O. LEAD INITIATIVE
Issue
Lead is a highly toxic metal, producing a range of adverse
health effects, particularly in children and fetuses. Effects
include nervous and reproductive system disorders, delays in
neurological and physical development, cognitive and behavioral
changes and hypertension. Adverse effects have been found at
lower and lower blood lead levels.
Lead is a common contaminant found at many Superfund and
RCRA sites, including approximately 25 Large Area Lead Sites,
which are primarily large mine tailing or smelting sites where
lead is a significant contaminant. Because of the pervasive
nature of this problem, there is a need for a national approach
to dealing with this issue.
Approach
The Superfund program is working in tandem with EPA's
overall lead strategy^ the goal of which is to reduce lead
exposures to the fullest extent practicable, with particular
interest in reducing the risk to children to avoid high blood
lead levels.
Specifically, the Agency is developing a revised Lead
Directive that will provide guidance on soil lead cleanup levels
at Superfund and RCRA sites. This guidance will aid risk
managers in making decisions about whether remedial action is
warranted and in selecting final soil lead cleanup levels that
are protective of human health.
The revised Directive will take into account the interests
and concerns of outside agencies ..such as CDC and ATSDR, as well
as the activities and requirements of other parts of the Agency,
such as the development of Title X of the Comprehensive Housing
and Urban Development Act of 1992, which requires EPA to
promulgate health-based standards for lead in-soil, paint and
dust. Development of the revised Directive is being coordinated
closely with work on formulating a strategy for Large Area Lead
Sites. Part or all of the strategy for Large Area Lead Sites may
-------
-24- June 23, 1993
be incorporated into the revised Directive. Results from EPA's
Three City Study, a six-year study of Boston, Baltimore and
Cincinnati to look at lead levels in soil and blood lead levels
in children, will also contribute to the revised Directive.
FY93 ACTION ITEMS
Action Complete
I^sue draft OSWER Lead 8/93
Directive, potentially
incorporating part or all of the
Large Area Lead Sites Directive
f>
FY94 ACTION ITEMS
Action Complete
Issue combined Title X 4/94
(lead paint) comprehensive
guidance
Program Implications
Approximately one third of NPL sites list lead as a
contaminant. Furthermore, lead is a concern at many RCRA sites.
Completion of the revised Directive and coordination on other
agency lead efforts will reduce lead exposures to the maximum
extent practicable, with particular benefit in reducing the risk
to children.
National consistency would be increased by setting cleanup
standards for lead, and the impact of this Directive will extend
to other non-Superfund sites as well.
E. CLARIFY THE ROLE OF LAND USE IN REMEDY SELECTION
Land use is an important consideration in determining the
extent of remediation appropriate for Superfund sites because it
affects the types and frequency of exposure which are likely to
occur. The remedies selected through the Superfund remedy
selection process determine the extent to which hazardous
constituents may remain at the site, and therefore ultimately
impact available land and ground-water use.
CERCLA does not explicitly address the issue of land use,
and the NCP only addresses land use in general^terms in the
preamble. Some stakeholders feel there should be a more explicit
assessment of future land use in the Superfund remedy selection
process.
-------
-25- June 23, 1993
The Agency has been criticized for making land use decisions
without input and involvement from local communities. In
addition, EPA has been criticized for making conservative land
use assumptions in selecting Superfund remedies, in part due to
the frequent assumption in practice that future land use would be
residential for many sites. Providing clearer direction on the
land use issue would further streamline the remedial process.
Approach
The Agency will develop a policy clarifying the role of land
use in the remedy se-lection process. Elements of this policy
which EPA is considering address interaction and consultation
with the public and local authorities in determining potential
future land use scenarios, and clarification of the expectations
concerning what land use assumptions are reasonable.
FY94 ACTION ITEMS
Action Complete
Issue land use policy 10/93
Program Implications
By clarifying the role of land use in remedy selection, EPA
could foster faster, more consistent cleanups because the land
use assumptions would be more explicit and predictable. In
addition, through improved interaction with local communities on
this issue, EPA would enhance community participation and
acceptance of our remedy selection decisions.
INITIATIVE 6: DEVELOP SOIL TRIGGER LEVELS
Contamination of soils occurs at virtually all sites
requiring remediation. Levels of concern and cleanup levels have
historically been set site-specifically through the risk
assessment process, which takes significant time and effort. In
addition, uncertainty about the hazards and the liability
associated with levels of contamination have dampened property
transfers.
Approach
EPA has initiated the soil trigger levels effort as an
important screening tool to identify contaminant levels below
which there is no concern and above which further site-specific
evaluation would be warranted. When exposure pathways at a site
correspond to those for which soil trigger levels have been
-------
-26- June 23, 1993
established (i.e., ingestion, inhalation and migration to ground
water), the trigger level could also be used as a cleanup level.
EPA will develop soil trigger levels to accelerate
investigation of soil contamination at sites, streamline the
baseline risk assessment, and improve consistency in soil
cleanups between the RCRA Corrective Action program and
Superfund.
?Y93 ACTION ITEMS
Action Complete
n>
Issue guidance 9/93
presenting soil trigger
levels for 30 frequently
found contaminants
FY94 ACTION ITEMS
Action Complete
Identify trigger levels for 6/94
an estimated 60 additional
chemicals
In second quarter, initiate 9/94
demonstration projects to
field test trigger levels at
sites in three different
phases of cleanup
Program Implications
Use of soil trigger levels will save money and time by
facilitating more rapid identification of problem areas of sites
and limiting the need for a full soil exposure pathway risk
assessment in many cases. The levels may serve as cleanup levels
for simple sites with limited exposure pathways, when pathways
correspond to those for which trigger levels have been
established.
This initiative will bring consistency to the Superfund and
RCRA corrective action programs and may promote more voluntary
cleanups by indicating a level below which the Agency would have
no further concern, thereby affecting a universe of sites well
beyond the NPL and RCRA hazardous waste facilities.
Some difficulty in applying these soil trigger levels may
arise because they may conflict with those that have been
established by States. In addition, since trigger levels were
not developed entirely for use as cleanup levels, there may be
-------
-27- June 23, 1993
initial confusion between the use of tne soil trigger levels and
the continuing need at many sites to establish cleanup levels for
actions.
c. Enhance Meaningful Public Involvement
INITIATIVE 7: IMPLEMENT AM ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE STRATEGY FOR
SUPERFUND SITES v
Issue
Some studies indicate that people of color and the poor^may
be exposed to greater health risks than the general population.
These communities are often affected by multiple sources of
environmental risk including industrial pollution, vehicle
emissions, proximity to hazardous waste sites, and often, lead-
based paint. Certain sociological factors, such as poor
nutrition and limited access to health care may make residents of
these communities even more susceptible to the effects of
environmental hazards. Language and cultural differences and
lower education levels make access to information a particular
problem in multi-cultural and low income communities. Lack of
information has a direct impact on the degree to which people can
effectively participate in cleanup decision-making.
Approach
A number of issues have been raised with respect to
environmental justice in Superfund cleanup. EPA will undertake a
variety of activities to better assess potential areas of
inequity and identify appropriate solutions. Using the knowledge
gained, EPA will develop a proactive strategy for environmental
justice at Superfund sites.
EPA will review all Superfund sites where equity issues have
been raised. We will also work closely with State and tribal
governments to actively identify potential hazardous waste sites-
in minority and low income areas. EPA will examine in depth the
history and details of the issues, the ways in which the issues
were handled, and successful and unsuccessful issue resolution
strategies. By the end of this summer, EPA will complete a
preliminary analysis of populations living near 200-300 listed
Superfund sites which will link minority and site variables, and
identify ethnic populations living near multiple sites.
Collection of this data is a critical first step in developing a
proactive strategy for dealing with Superfund equity issues.
By the end of FY93, EPA will identify demonstration sites in
each Region at which environmental justice is of concern. The
Regions will assess the key issues and take proactive measures to
deal with them effectively which may include a multi-media team
approach. By next spring, EPA will catalog "lessons learned"
-------
-28- June 23, 1993
from these efforts, which, along with the data and analysis
described above, will form the basis of the Superfund
environmental justice strategy.
Region IV has already identified a demonstration site in a
very poor county in rural Georgia where the degree of exposure
and risk is still unclear. The Region will devote substantial
resources to educating local residents about chemical exposure
and potential health effects early on in the Superfund process.
They will work closely with ATSOR to assure that any required
health assessment and monitoring is done in a way acceptable to
the community. They will also try to identify additional public
health options available to the community beyond the limits of
'Superfund.
EPA will foster partnerships with other Federal agencies to
leverage the benefits of a Superfund cleanup with the work of
other agencies such as HUD, where a Superfund site is in a
community receiving a block grant, or with the Department of
Labor which might offer job training funds. We will also
investigate drawing in the resources of the ATSDR and the Public
Health Service in areas where the public health problems extend
beyond the scope of Superfund cleanup authorities.
To improve the flow and quality of useful information to
culturally diverse communities, we will assign site project
managers and community relations staff with appropriate language
skills and cultural sensitivities. EPA will simplify
instructions on applying for Technical Assistance Grants and
publish them in English and Spanish this summer. We will also
place special emphasis on working closely with low income and
minority communities to help them through the grant process.
EPA will continue to translate documents into non-English
languages and provide translators for public hearings in multi-
cultural communities. We will also investigate alternatives to
public hearings as potentially more effective ways to share
information in multi-cultural^-^nd low-income settings. These
will include informal meetings in local churches and private
homes, briefings for local health officials, and use of minority
media outlets, such as non-English radio stations.
We will develop a program for involving local retired
community residents in community relations at sensitive Superfund
sites. These "Superfund Seniors" will be valuable assets in
maintaining open lines of communications between the community
and EPA during the Superfund cleanup. We will also investigate
the feasibility of using the proposed National Volunteer Service
Corps to improve outreach to multi-cultural communities. College
graduates representing broad racial and cultural diversity will
act as local ombudsmen in Superfund communities in partial
repayment of their college loans. This will serve to interest
-------
-29- June 23, 1993
young idealistic persons of color and minorities in environmental
issues, fill the employment pipeline with experienced and
dedicated environmental professionals, and develop a cadre of
well informed citizens who care about the environment and are
empowered to lead and fully participate in environmental
decision-making.
Other Environmental Justice Initiatives
In addition to the initiatives, EPA is working on several
other concepts designed to improve understanding of environmental
and public health issues and bring more people of color into'
environmental careers and policy-making. This summer, EPA will
pilot a teachers' institute at an historically black college,
specially targeted at teachers in low income and multi-cultural
communities. The curriculum is designed to improve teachers'
understanding of environmental issues in general, with particular
emphasis on how they can empower their communities to fully
participate in waste cleanup decision-making. Evaluation of this
first major national pilot will be completed this fall, and three
additional institutes will be scheduled at other locations next
summer.
During the winter of 1993, we will work with three
communities where military bases will be closing. Base closures
that will significantly affect employment in multi-cultural
communities will be chosen for these demonstrations. We will
assist the Department of Defense in working with these local
communities to retrain DOD workers in environmental restoration
skills for immediate employability on those bases, and for future
opportunities with other environmental contractors.
FY93 ACTION ITEMS
Action Complete
Review equity issues raised 6/93
to date
Complete analysis of population 8/93
demographics
Identify 10 Regional sites 8/93
for environmental justice action
with possible multi-media
approach
Publish simplified TAG materials 8/93
National meeting sponsored by 9/93
NACEPT to hear citizens' ideas
on environmental justice
-------
-30- June 23, 1993
Identify opportunities for 9/93
coordination at sites with HUD,
DOL, PHS, etc.
FY94 ACTION ITEMS
Action Complete
In-depth analysis of equity case 1/94
.studies with definition of environ-
mental justice sites
*,
Develop "Superfund Seniors" program 6/94
.*'
Compile "lessons learned" from Regional 6/94
demonstration sites
Develop national college
volunteer program 9/94
Draft equity strategy for future
Superfund sites 9/94
Publish Superfund documents 9/94
including TAG information
in Spanish
Program Implications
These initiatives address important issues of equity and
justice in the Superfund program, help assure a fully
representative, culturally sensitive, and qualified environmental
workforce, leverage the benefits of Superfund cleanup where our
actions can be taken in conjunction with the program of other
Federal agencies such as HUD, DOL, and ATSDR, and help improve
the degree and quality of involvement by all communities in
Superfund site solutions. These initiatives also underscore
EPA's commitment to correcting environmental inequities by
devoting the resources necessary to accomplish the activities
described. This approach may also impact other similar Agency
programs such as RCRA corrective action.
It is important to note, however, that the responsibilities
for meeting-these commitments will be met, for the most part, by
Regional community relations coordinators and remedial project
managers. These people are already seriously over-committed in
the caseload that they currently carry. Experience to date has
indicated that each environmental justice site, especially if a
multi-media approach is planned, will require a significant
resource commitment.
-------
-31- June 23, 1993
INITIATIVE 8: EARLY AND MORE EFFECTIVE COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT
Issue
A critical problem in the Superfund program is the lack of
support for the cleanup among the communities around Superfund
sites, citizen groups and communities are often dissatisfied
with both the pace and the results of cleanup actions. Specific
community relations problems include difficulties in obtaining
Technical Assistance Grants (TAGs), difficulties in obtaining and
interpreting health studies, and inaccessibility to both key,
information and site decision makers.
r
Public participation is critical to the effective and speedy
implementation of cleanups at Superfund sites. As we look for
ways to streamline and accelerate the pace of cleanups at
Superfund sites, EPA must increase its efforts to achieve earlier
and more effective community involvement at each site. EPA must
clearly identify the expectations and needs of communities
affected by hazardous waste sites and focus national attention on
the importance of public participation.
Approach
The EPA has held a series of four Superfund Revitalization
Public Forum meetings. These meetings have been held in a
variety of locations to solicit input on improvements to the
Superfund program from a wide cross section of Superfund
stakeholders. Topics discussed have covered a wide range of
issues including increased citizen participation. The first
action item will be to review the comments received at these
meetings on increasing public participation and assess the
potential of each comment to improve public participation at
Superfund sites. The next item will be to use the NACEPT
sponsored forums to solicit additional input on earlier and more
effective public involvement at Superfund sites.
In addition, the Office of Federal Facilities Enforcement
will work with other Federal agencies to monitor their
improvements in public participation in their cleanup programs.
Specifically, OFFE will issue guidance on implementation of
citizen Site-Specific Advisory Boards at Federal sites.
The Agency's effort will culminate in the development and
implementation of an improved Superfund public participation
plan. Issues to be addressed in the plan are what aspects of
cleanups are most important to communities (i.e., speed, economic
development, aesthetics, ecological restoration), how to ensure
broad community representation, the development of an information
availability policy, alternatives to the Technical Assistance
Grant (TAGs) program, the role of the Agency for Toxic Substances
-------
-32- June 23, 1993
and Disease Registry (ATSDR), and the possibility of developing
Site-Specific Advisory Boards.
In order to further encourage community involvement in,
decision-making, the Agency will identify Superfund sites where
innovative community involvement approaches and techniques are
being applied and will be applied. Site activities will include
the standard and innovative approaches currently being used by
the Regions, as well as additional innovative techniques
identified in the NACEPT process.
FY93 ACTION ITEMS
^Action Complete
Conduct a review of 6/93
Superfund issues raised at
EPA public forums and
assess potential changes.
Issue guidance on 9/93
implementation of citizen
Site-Specific Advisory
Boards at Federal facility sites.
Status report on DOE efforts to 9/93
establish 5 citizen Site-
Specific Advisory Boards.
National meeting sponsored 9/93
fay NACEPT to hear citizens'
ideas on public participation.
Identify sites/projects where 9/93
other innovative techniques will
be initiated.
FY94 ACTION ITEMS
Action Complete
Prepare and implement new 12/93
Superfund public
participation plan.
At the same time, assess impact to 3/94
other programs, particularly RCRA
corrective- action.
Continued work with DOE and 9/94
DOD to begin Site-Specific
Advisory Boards.
-------
-33- June 23, 1993
Program Implications
Increased efforts to achieve earlier and more effective
public involvement will enhance community buy-in and increase
equity and fairness. In the long term, effective community
involvement will speed-up the Superfund process by involving the
community early in the process and resolving possible conflicts.
It will also increase the Agency's credibility with communities
around Superfund sites. Increases on the emphasis of publicv
involvement will add to the workload and require additional FTEs
or a reduction in emphasis in other areas.
D. Enhance state Role
INITIATIVE 9: "STATE DEFERRAL" OF CERTAIN SITE CATEGORIES
Issue
EPA and the States have long agreed that the universe of
hazardous substance sites potentially requiring cleanup was
larger than either level of government could address alone in the
near future. At current budget levels, EPA will be unable to
address the environmental threats at some sites for years,
leaving potentially responsible parties (PRPs) in doubt about
their CERCLA liability and local communities at risk from some
unremediated sites and without the productive use of the affected
land. This delay, and the attendant uncertainty, led responsible
parties to choose between: cleaning up their sites without
Federal involvement (at the risk of having EPA propose the site
anyway for the National Priorities List (NPL) and require
additional response action at the site); or, waiting for EPA to
assess the site for listing on the NPL, with no assurance whether
or when that might happen.
The current and potential universe of CERCLA sites include:
(1) NPL sites, (2) NPL-caliber sites, i.e., sites that have a
high probability (based on initial assessments) of achieving a
Hazardous Ranking System (HRS) score of at least 28.5, (3)
removal actions, i.e., high-risk sites requiring a short term
Federal response, and (4) non-NPL-caliber sites that do not
require a Federal removal action. In addition, many hazardous
substance sites and activities are addressed by other
authorities, such as RCRA, TSCA and State programs. The "State
Deferral" initiative focuses on category #2 (NPL-caliber sites)
and proposes a negotiated division of responsibility between
States and EPA for NPL-caliber sites that have not yet been
proposed for listing. This initiative would not alter the
current EPA programs for categories #1 and #3--sites that have
already been listed on the NPL and sites addressed under EPA's
removal program, nor would it alter activities conducted under
non-CERCLA authorities (EPA and State authorities). Note that a
-------
-34- June 23, 1993
significant number of States (about 15) have voluntary cleanup
programs to address category #4, non-NPL-caliber sites that do
not require a Federal removal action. EPA encourages the
development of these State voluntary cleanup programs.
Approach
EPA will encourage earlier environmental cleanup by openly
enlisting the States' participation in a complementary cleanup
program. Over the past several years, many States have been
developing increasingly sophisticated and experienced programs.
EPA has helped the States develop their programs by providing
money and technical assistance, under the Core Program begun in
1987, as well as under RCRA grants. In addition, many States
have (or are developing) voluntary cleanup programs for non-NPL-
caliber sites, and many have been authorized to implement RCRA
corrective action programs. As a result, several States are
already cleaning up significant numbers of non-NPL sites. By
expanding the State role to address NPL-caliber sites, EPA will
take fuller advantage of the combined strength of the Federal
program and of the State capabilities we have helped develop.
State deferral will encourage qualified, interested States
to address under State laws, the large number of sites now in
EPA's NPL listing queue, thereby accelerating cleanup, minimizing
the risk of duplicative State/Federal efforts, and offering PRPs
a measure of confidence that only one agency will address the
site. EPA and individual States will openly negotiate a
division of responsibility for NPL-caliber sites, to determine
which agency would address any given site. The National
Contingency Plan (NCP) requires EPA to hold annual planning
discussions with the,States to assign "lead Agency" roles for NPL
sites. Under this approach, EPA-State discussions will be
enlarged to include NPL-caliber sites.
These "deferrals" will stipulate that States have the
initial responsibility to cleanup certain NPL-caliber sites.
These would be low- or medium-priority NPL-caliber sites, i.e.,
sites that EPA would not be able to address for several years.
While EPA will defer these sites from NPL listing as long as
satisfactory progress is made, EPA will retain the incentive of
NPL listing as leverage to motivate reluctant responsible parties
to clean up under State supervision. EPA will consider concerns
raised by the public during this process.
EPA will continue to focus Federal resources on (a) removal
activities at high-risk sites requiring a short-term response,
(b) early actions at high-priority NPL-caliber sites (see also
Initiative #10, Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model), and (c)
remedial activity for sites on the NPL. The NPL will list sites
that meet NPL criteria and that a State is unwilling or unable to
-------
-35- June 23, 1993
clean up. EPA will not propose sites for the NPL that are being
satisfactorily cleaned up under State "deferrals.11
States might implement their expanded cleanup programs using
State trust funds to pay for cleanups, State enforcement
authorities, and/or voluntary cleanups performed by PRPs. EPA
will implement this initiative by publishing a policy describing
the kinds of sites States may address, the capabilities
interested States will have to demonstrate, the conditions and
circumstances under which EPA will enter into "deferral" with a
State, and. answering essential questions, such as: *
o Generally what types of sites will be State-lead?
o What cleanup process or standards will EPA want the State to
adopt?
o What kind of oversight role will EPA have for the State
program generally, or for the State's site-by-site
decisions?
o What financial and other assistance will EPA offer to States
wanting to take on this partnership?
o How can State "deferrals" best be coordinated with the
existing policy for deferring to RCRA corrective action
authorities?
The Agency has identified several States to pilot an
expanded State role. In these demonstration pilots, the State
will take the lead for selected low- and medium-priority NPL-
caliber sites that EPA would not be able to propose for the NPL
or otherwise address in the near term. These would be sites for
which the State has identified viable PRPs. In these pilots, EPA
will provide oversight for the State program to ensure that the
overall cleanup process and standards for NPL-caliber sites are
consistent with CERCLA and NCP standards. These pilots will also
provide an opportunity to define an appropriate, targeted level
of EPA oversight for site-specific decisions.
FY93 ACTION ITEMS
Action Complete
Establish HQ/Regional Work Group 7/93
to address key implementation
questions, and assess early State-
lead experiences
Identify source of funds 9/93
for State program support (not
remedial action funds) and
-------
-36-
June 23, 1993
initiate deferral pilots
with Regions III (MD),
VI (NM) and VII (KS)
FY94 ACTION ITEMS
Action Complete
Identify additional States 12/93
which might be willing to
enter into deferrals
with EPA
Monitor ongoing pilot Ongoing
States to identify issues
Issue interim guidance setting 3/94
criteria and process, and
inviting States to enter into •
deferrals with EPA
Program Implications
EPA has finished PA/SI work on 6,000 sites which now await
further decisions towards potential NPL proposal, with an
additional 3,000 or so sites approaching this status, yet program
resources are likely to allow for preparation of HRS scoring
packages on only approximately 100 si^ea per year. While we have
historically proposed for the NPL only a small proportion of the
sites we review, all 9,000 of these sites can only remain clouded
by uncertainty until EPA can act on them. The great majority of
these could potentially be addressed sooner through State
deferral with willing, capable States, while ensuring that (1)
EPA and the States do not duplicate each other's efforts; (2)
EPA's limited resources are focused on the remaining sites; and
(3) States are able to credibly manage and implement cleanups so
as to provide a measure of confidence to the PRPs and communities
that EPA will not reverse the State's cleanup determinations at
some unforeseeable future time.
-------
-37- June 23, 1993
II. CONTINUING MANAGEMENT AND ENFORCEMENT INITIATIVES
Over the past several years, EPA has initiated and
implemented a series of reforms to improve the effectiveness,
efficiency and equity in the Superfund program. These changes
have had a beneficial impact and are expected to continue
bringing improvements to the program.
This section of the report will focus on several of the
major changes currently undergoing implementation. Included in
the discussion are: (10) the Superfund Accelerated Cleanup -
Model, (11) construction completions; (12) improvements to
contract management; (13) "Enforcement First"; (14) accelerating
cleanup at base closures. Also discussed are: (15) promoting
the use of innovative technologies; (16) compliance monitoring;
and (17) improving the effectiveness of cost recovery. The
following discussions also include action items and program
implications of these continuing initiatives.
INITIATIVE 10: SUPERFUND ACCELERATED CLEANUP MODEL (SACK)
Issue
Superfund was first designed with the expectation that a
small number of contaminated sites existed and those would
receive total cleanup to pristine conditions. Experience has
brought us to a new environmental equilibrium. The Agency has
identified thousands of potential sites in the Superfund
universe. We now recognize that the Agency must balance cleanup
resources with the need to tackle worst pollution sources first
and reduce risk to people and the environment. This, along with
the desire to quickly reduce risk, is the intent of SACM.
Approach
SACM focuses Superfund on the very substantial risk
reduction that is now being a'cnieved and still achievable by
using all elements of the Superfund program to expedite response.
No longer will Superfund's success be measured solely by how many
sites are eliminated from the National Priorities List (NPL).
SACM will achieve appropriate cleanup at as many sites as
possible, in order to reduce risk to people and the environment
posed by hazardous waste. SACM is currently being implemented iti
the Regions through pilots and Regional Decision Teams have been
formed in each Region. Preliminary guidance on implementation
has been issued and we are applying SACM principles to all phases
of work to ensure a smooth transition to full implementation in
Fiscal Year 1994.
-------
-38- June 23, 1993
7Y93 ACTION ITEMS
Action Complete
Issue detailed operational guidance 9/93
for full implementation of SACM
Evaluate results of pilot projects 9/93
vPY94 ACTION ITEMS
AAction Complete
'Begin full implementation
of SACM in each Region Ongoing
Program Implications
The Superfund program expects that full implementation will
cut years off the process by eliminating delays and rework,
combining separate, yet similar, stages of site assessment. We
also expect that SACM will improve consistency, reduce costs and
increase the speed with which hazardous waste sites are
remediated by developing presumptive remedies which use cleanup
techniques that have been effective in the past at similar sites
in the future. (SACM will also be married with other streamlining
efforts as they are adopted, such as the decision to use soil
trigger levels). Regions are finding that the resource
implications of SACM implementation include the need to
concentrate resources at the front end of the process. This will
create a minor impact on the traditional remedial process in
FY94. However, use of SACM will provide results the public will
value by focusing on the worst sites first to quickly reduce
short-term risks through early actions and to restore the
environment through long-term actions.
INITIATIVE 11: CONSTRUCTION, COMPLETIONS
Issue
In the early years of Superfund, the Agency focused on
getting sites into the cleanup "pipeline." More recently, the
Agency's priority at Superfund sites was to select remedies and
secure private-party implementation of the remedies. Now that
the program has matured, attention has moved to sites near the
end of the "pipeline," and completing remedy construction has
become an important measure for the success of the program. As a
consequence, the Agency has intensified its efforts to increase
the number and rate of completions.
-------
-39- June 23, 1993
Approach
In FY92, the Agency established national targets to more
than double the number of National Priorities List (NPL)
construction completions by the end of FY92 from 63 to 130 and to
more than triple completions by the end of FY93 to 200. To
maintain this pace, EPA completes construction at NPL sites at a
rate of more than one a week.
The Agency initiated several activities to ensure reaching
the national NPL construction completion targets. A $
collaborative approach was undertaken where the Regions and
Headquarters work jointly to achieve the national targets without
holding each Region responsible for a specific number of
completions. The elements of the collaborative approach include:
developing a comprehensive list of all potential construction
completion candidates; tracking and communicating the status of
each of these sites through the Lead Region for Superfund
(currently Region 8); holding monthly conference calls with the
Regional Waste Management Division Directors; streamlining the
requirements for completions; and clarifying the completion
procedures for EPA project managers.
Currently, NPL construction completions total 165 sites and
the Agency expects to meet the FY93 goal of 200 sites. Further
refinements to the construction completion process will occur
during FY93.
FY93 ACTION ITEMS
Action Complete
Issue "Construction Completion 6/93
Care Package" which compiles all
relevant guidance and policy
documents for Regional project
managers
Issue guidance clarifying declaration 7/93
of construction completion at soil
vapor extraction and certain
bioremediation sites.
Complete construction at 200th 9/93
NPL site
Conduct monthly conference calls Ongoing
with Regions
-------
-40- June 23, 1993
Program Implications
As a result of the national attention on construction
completions, Superfund achieved a total of 149 completions,
significantly exceeding the FY92 goal of 130 completions. The
focus on construction completions has had an impact on Regional
cleanup priorities. In order to reach the national targets, the
Regions emphasized work on potential construction completions,
resulting in a shift of attention from sites in other parts of
the pipeline. The future rate of construction completions will
inevitably be affected by any changes to Superfund's cleanup
priorities.
1
INITIATIVE 12: CONTRACTS MANAGEMENT
Issue
From the inception of the Superfund program, the majority of
work has been contracted out. Superfund contracts currently
constitute the majority of all EPA contracts (by dollar volume).
No other program in EPA had been structured to manage large,
intricate contracts for the extremely complex work of handling,
analyzing, studying and cleaning up hazardous waste. As the
Superfund program grew, the amount of work contracted also grew
and the management problems attendant with this growth also
multiplied. By 1989, it was apparent that Superfund contracting
required a restructuring and probler^ brought to light in 1991 in
the management of the Alternative Remedial Contracts Strategy
(ARCS) contracts and the Contract Laboratory Program (CLP)
demanded reform.
Approach
The centralized approach to contract management which had
served the Superfund program in the past became archaic and an
impediment to most field activities and in late 1989, the program
developed a Superfund Long-Term Contracting Strategy which is
restructuring all new Superfund contracts over the next decade
according to function (e.g., architectural/engineering, rapid
cleanup response) rather than by program area (e.g., removal,
remedial, etc.). This strategy will have all new field contracts
managed by the Regional offices rather than centrally managed by
Headquarters, improving the efficiency and direct management of
the contractors. In addition, the management problems brought to
light under the ARCS and CLP contracts led to major reforms in
the management controls of Superfund contracts. In the case of
ARCS, 28 of the 32 recommendations made by the Task Force to
improve ARCS management have been adopted. They encompass items
such as the development of independent government cost estimates
for all work assignments in excess of $25,000, limiting
expenditures for contract management, reforms to the award fee
-------
-41- June 23, 1993
process and formation of Regional Management Teams to oversee
contract management in the Regions. Similar reforms have
occurred in the management of the CLP.
FY93 ACTION ITEMS
Action Complete
Issue solicitation for Response 6/93
Action Contracts
Issue Remedial Independent 6/93
Government Cost Estimation Guidance
Issue Remedial Contracts Cost 8/93
Management Manual
START Procurement Package to 8/93
0AM
FY94 ACTION ITEMS
Action Complete
Issue START contract solicitation 10/93
Award Enforcement Support Contracts 10/93-2/94
(1 contract per Region)
Issue RESAT contract solicitation 8/94
Award START Contracts 9/94
Program Implications
Superfund has taken concrete steps to improve contract
management and assuage many of the criticisms engendered by past
practices. A limitation to additional improvement of the
Regional management of contracts is the lack of contracting
officer resources in the Regions. Resources to develop guidance
and improve oversight have already been invested by the program
and need to continue to see the benefits of cost efficiency and
effective contract management. The Superfund Long-Term
Contracting Strategy will see smaller contracts, managed by the
personnel in the offices where the work is conducted. In
addition, the opportunity for smaller firms to compete for many
of these contracts are increased due to the smaller size and
Regional location, rather than large national or other geographic
coverage requirements. Superfund is beginning to see the
benefits of investing in good management practices by cost
savings in areas such as program management and in improved
performance by our contractors.
-------
-42- June 23, 1993
INITIATIVE 13: ENFORCEMENT FIRST
Issue
In the early days of the Superfund program, EPA's efforts
were concentrated on initiating the study phase of Superfund. As
the program developed, the ability to identify responsible
parties grew. Rather than expending fund money to finance study
and cleanup of sites, it became clear that the burden should be
"shifted to the responsible parties under Agency oversight.
)
Approach
r,
The 90-Day Study of Superfund, completed in 1989, made a
number of recommendations to strengthen enforcement and increase
private party response. These recommendations involved increased
use of enforcement and settlement authorities, better integration
of enforcement and Fund-financed cleanup activities, improved
case management and case support, stronger responsible party
oversight and cost recovery, and better intergovernmental
coordination.
Based on these recommendations, the Administrator shifted
the emphasis of the program to "Enforcement First" and added
resources to the enforcement program. As a result, the portion
of remedial actions conducted by PRPs increased from 30 percent
in FY87 to 70 percent in FY92. During that same time period, the
value of CERCLA settlements increased from less than half a
billion a year to almost $1.5 billion. EPA will continue to
evaluate Regional enforcement performance on a variety of
grounds, including RD/RA negotiation completions, the number of
civil judicial referrals of RD/RA settlements and cost recovery
actions, unilateral orders in compliance, the value of response
actions, and the number of enforcement actions to compel
compliance with existing orders and decrees.
Program Implications
The continued importance of enforcement and maximization of
PRP involvement in remedial and removal activities was re-
emphasized by the Acting Assistant Administrator for the Office
of Solid Waste and Emergency Response and the Office of
Enforcement in a memo dated February 2, 1993.- More recently, the
Administrator has reinforced the "polluter pays" principle in
testimony before Congress and reaffirmed EPA's commitment to
enforcement first.
As EPA tests out new ways to increase enforcement fairness,
reduce transaction costs, and accelerate cleanups, the Agency
will continue to use its enforcement authorities to encourage
PRPs to conduct investigations and cleanups. EPA believes the
-------
-43- June 23, 1993
initiatives outlined in this report are consistent with the
"enforcement first" approach and EPA's commitment to the
principle of site-specific polluter liability.
INITIATIVE 14: ACCELERATE CLEANUP AT BASE CLOSURES
Issue
The cleanup challenge at Federal facilities is heightened at
closing or realigning installations because of pressure for (
expeditious transfer of property to non-Federal interests for
economic development. State and local communities are «
understandably concerned about the impact of base closure and
realignment on their economies. The timely reutilization of
these installations is essential if the Federal government is to
minimize the economic dislocations to these communities. There
are two facets to this problem: identifying areas of closing
bases that are not contaminated or are otherwise suitable for
transfer, and identifying ways to accelerate cleanup on those
areas of closing bases that are contaminated.
In October, 1992 Congress passed the Community Environmental
Response Facilitation Act (CERFA), which directs the Department
of Defense (DOD) to conduct a review of its real property on
closing bases to identify parcels that are uncontaminated. EPA
must concur in the identification for property on the NPL. CERFA
also amended CERCLA Section 120(h)(3) to allow for property
transfers by deed at the point when cleanup remedies are
constructed, installed and demonstrated to EPA to be properly and
successfully operational. This provision was not limited to
closing or realigning-bases on the NPL.
Approach
There are three major efforts underway by DOD and EPA to
expedite land transfers and accelerate cleanups at closing bases
and other Federal installations. DOD has the lead to develop
guidances on base closures, and EPA is developing policies to
address future land use at Federal Facilities, and to apply the
Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model (SACM), as appropriate.
With respect to base closures, DOD currently has the lead on
two guidances to expedite the transfer of property by deed or by
lease. These are the guidances on "Finding of Suitability to
Transfer" (FOST) and "Finding of Suitability to Lease" (FOSL).
These guidances will define a process to identify parcels of land
suitable to transfer or lease (criteria will differ somewhat);
ensure that transfers or leases do not interfere with cleanup
actions being conducted under Federal Facility Agreements; and
assure compliance with applicable environmental requirements.
-------
-44- June 23, 1993
For both guidances, OOD and EPA are working towards a final
policy deadline of September 30, 1993. EPA is working to
facilitate this process, without compromising the substance of
environmental protection. This is an opportunity for all
involved parties to work together cooperatively and defuse the
conflicts that are often seen between economic development and
environmental protection.
EPA will develop guidances for Federal facilities in two key
areas, to facilitate cleanup of closing bases (as well as other
^Federal installations) as follows:
fi) Future Land Use at Federal Facilities
EPA and other Federal agencies have debated various me^ns to
include future land use assumptions within the risk assessment
process. In practice, EPA has often taken a conservative
approach to land use (i.e., residential) when making remedy
decisions. Other Federal agencies have long argued that many of
their contaminated areas will not have public access or
residential use and will have restricted access. In the case of
closing bases, future land use is frequently known early in the
RI/FS process. The NCP and relevant EPA guidances have some
flexibility to allow for reasonable assumptions about future land
use to be made.
Early resolution of this matter is especially critical where
future land use and redevelopment will minimize the economic
impact of base closings. EPA will develop an issue paper on
land-use options at Federal facilities and possibly a subsequent
land use policy particular to Federal facilities. This will be
coordinated with the land use directive to be issued under
Initiative Number 5."~
fii) Accelerated Cleanup Policy
Since the announcement last summer of the Superfund
Accelerated Cleanup Model (SACM), other Federal agencies have
been requesting EPA guidance on the scope and limits of
accelerated cleanup efforts at their installations. Although
certain components of SACM are readily transferable, CERCLA
Section 120 and Executive Order 12580 limit EPA's role at NPL and
non-NPL sites. EPA is now drafting a policy which endorses the
application of SACM along with installation-wide joint planning,
identification of cleanup standards based on land use; concurrent
review of documents; intensive' in-person review of documents and
resolution of issues; overlapping phases of. the CERCLA process;
identification and implementation of interim response actions and
removal actions; reduced levels of oversight/less document
review; utilization of innovative technologies; and improvements
of contracting procedures. In addition, because of EPA resource
limitations which may delay site clean up, EPA is considering
-------
-45- June 23, 1993
deferring oversight responsibility to the States. EPA is already
working with other Federal agencies to identify demonstration
projects/sites for these approaches.
FY93 ACTION ITEMS
Action Complete
DOD, with EPA input, 9/93
issue final guidance for
policy on Finding of
Suitability to Transfer
(FOST) clean parcels
DOD, with EPA input, 9/93
issue final guidance for
policy on Finding of
Suitability to Lease
(FOSL) clean parcels
NOTE: FOST and FOSL policies and guidance are DOD deliverables
Issue policy on 9/93
Accelerated Cleanup
at Federal facilities
Identify Federal facility 9/93
sites for accelerated
cleanup demonstration projects
Monitor quarterly progress Ongoing
of demonstration projects
Develop issue paper on land use 10/93
at Federal facilities
Program Implications
The FOST and FOSL policies will provide for the timely
identification of properties for transfer by deed or lease.
Without the policies, EPA could become a bottleneck in the
transfer process. The accelerated cleanup guidance and the
Federal facility land use policy will clarify policy issues and
will not delay property transfers. Expedited cleanup will results
in faster and more cleanups, and possibly cost savings in the
long term.
-------
-46- June 23, 1993
INITIATIVE 15: PROMOTE USE OF INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY
A. Promote Use of innovative Technology at Orphan sites and
Federal Facilities through Accelerating Public/Private
Partnership
Issue
Technology development and evaluation are hampered by a
shortage of facilities where larger-scale testing can be
'conducted using actual hazardous waste. "Orphan" sites and
5Federal facilities are excellent candidates for larger-scale
testing. PRP-lead sites may also be suitable for such purposes
"under appropriate circumstances.
Approach
In FY93, the Agency will mobilize an additional 4 Federal
facilities with up to 28 private parties where larger-scale
testing of innovative technologies can be conducted. After
selecting the candidates and establishing evaluation criteria,
the Agency will initiate these demonstration projects.
The Agency will also be continuing efforts to work with OOO
and DOE to develop public/private technology initiatives.
FY93 ACTION ITEMS
Action Complete
Continue DOD McClellan Ongoing
Partnership
Develop Policy 8/93
re: Fed Facilities
as Test Centers
Mobilize Private Firms to 9/93
Participate in Additional
Partnerships at a Conference with
Deputy Administrator and
Senior EPA Officials
Conclude Agreement with DOE 9/93
on Pinellas facility
Develop Policy re: 9/93
use of innovative
technology'in agreements,
orders and lAGs
-------
-47- June 23, 1993
FY94 ACTION ITEMS
Action Complete
Develop Evaluation 10/93
Methodology
Develop Procurement Ongoing
Package(s)
Initiate demonstration Ongoing
projects
Prepare for and 1/94
Conduct Conference
on Barriers to Use of
Innovative Technology
Program Implications
Activity in this area will accelerate the development of
promising innovative technologies. The pilot projects will
provide increased confidence that the tested technologies will
work at larger scales and through a range of operating
conditions. As a result, the pilot projects will provide
information useful in remedy selection decisions (including cost
data) at other sites.
The testing of innovative technologies may cause cleanup
delays and increased costs at the pilot sites. Successful
implementation of partnerships will be affected by availability
of resources for evaluation.
B. Assess Adequacy of Innovative Technology Data Bases
Issue
Information on remedial technology performance is currently
limited. Whether treatability study information or the results
of full-scale remediation efforts, it is essential that this
information be collected and made readily available through data
bases and/or other appropriate mechanisms to Federal and State
site-specific decision-makers and program managers, and to other
interested parties.
Approach
Technology performance and cost information will be acquired
from EPA, other Federal agencies such as DOD and DOE, state lead
cleanups, and private sector activities. EPA currently has data
bases which contain some information on remediation technology
performance including the Alternative Treatment Technology
-------
-48- June 23, 1993
Information Clearinghouse (ATTIC) and the Vendor Information
System of Innovative Treatment Technologies (VISITT). EPA is in
the process of developing the Decision Document Data Base (3-DB)
to. address many of the information management shortcomings which
have been identified by internal and external studies.
The Agency will undertake the following activities to
implement this option:
1) Assess existing mechanisms for acquiring information with
particular focus on EPA data and information from other
Federal agencies. Merge EPA efforts with those of the Air
Force to collect cost and performance data. Investigate
mechanisms to improve acquisition of information from State
and private sector activities.
2) Assess existing and proposed data bases - Areas to be
investigated include currency and utility of information and
ease of access and use.
3) Institute improvements as necessary in information
acquisition and dissemination mechanisms.
FY93 ACTION ITEMS
Action Complete
Ensure that treatment 9/93
technology information is
provided to repositories
FY94 ACTION ITEMS
Action Complete
Assess existing and potential 1/94
technology data bases
. *.*•*.'•'
Upgrade data bases if 8/94
necessary _
Program Implications
Comprehensive, readily accessible treatment technology
information improves timeliness and consistency of remedy-
selection. It also facilitates implementation of initiatives
such as presumptive remedies. Lastly, it reduces risk associated
with emerging technologies. Reviewing and upgrading the data
bases will require a commitment of new resources to this area.
-------
-49- June 23, 1993
INITIATIVE 16: COMPLIANCE MONITORING
Issue
We have been very successful in our efforts to get PRPs to
clean-up sites. In FY92, PRPs signed consent agreements (or were
in compliance with unilateral orders) totaling approximately $1.5
billion. The total value of PRP obligations is now $7.5 billion.
As the number and total dollar value of PRP commitments increase,
monitoring PRP compliance with these agreements and orders *
becomes increasingly important. Fully 70% of all new remedies
are enforcement-lead, and this level is expected to continue". An
aggressive program of compliance monitoring and enforcement will
ensure that enforcement-lead cleanups progress in a timely
fashion.
In FY92, OSWER defined national milestones for the terms
and conditions of compliance with CERCLA orders and decrees. The
Regions are free to develop their own procedures for compliance
monitoring and enforcement so long as these procedures provide
for clearly defined roles and responsibilities for program and
ORC staff; routine documentation of non-compliance; documentation
of recommended responses to non-compliance; management review and
concurrence with recommended responses to non-compliance; and
notification of Regional financial management staff when a
stipulated penalty assessment is made. OSWER has not mandated
any particular compliance monitoring arrangement and intends to
continue with this approach so long as significant Regional
progress continues to be made in implementing compliance
monitoring programs.
Approach
OSWER is currently working with the Regions to develop
Regional compliance monitoring and enforcement procedures. Draft
procedures are expected to be substantially completed by
September 1993. Concurrent with the development of these
procedures, Regional program offices will install enhanced
compliance tracking systems based on the FY92 terms and
conditions milestones, and will begin entering compliance data
into these systems for FY92 and FY93 orders and decrees.
During FY94, terms and conditions data for all remaining
orders and decrees will be entered into compliance tracking
systems, and Regional compliance monitoring and enforcement
procedures will be revised and finalized. During the second
quarter of FY94, OSWER will work with the Regions to develop
reporting and success measures for compliance monitoring and
enforcement. In addition, Regional compliance monitoring and
enforcement procedures should be revised and finalized by June
1994.
-------
-50- June 23, 1993
FY93 ACTION ITEMS
Action Complete
Develop Draft Regional Procedures 9/93
PY94 ACTION ITEMS
Action
.Define Reporting Measures 3/94
t
.3egin Entering FY92 and FY93 Order 3/94
and Decree Data
Finalize Regional Procedures 6/94
Enter pre-FY92 Order and Decree Data 9/94
Program Implications
Assuring compliance with CERCLA orders and decrees will send
a strong message to the PRP community that the Agency is
aggressively monitoring compliance with its consent agreements.
By having procedures in place in all ten Regions, the Agency will
also be signaling to the PRP community that it intends to enforce
against non-compliers. As a result, PRP cleanups should be
conducted in a more timely fashion. Implementation of a
compliance monitoring program will, however, take a significant
investment in time and resources to extract and enter compliance
data for the approximately 1300 orders and decrees that are
currently active.
INITIATIVE 17: IMPROVE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF COST RECOVERY
There has been criticism that EPA has not been actively
recovering federal money spent in the Superfund program and is in
danger of missing its opportunities in certain cases due to the
statute of limitations. To address these concerns, EPA is
currently undertaking several initiatives including: integrating
financial and Superfund information systems, and promulgating the
cost recovery rule.
A. IMPROVE INTERACTION BETWEEN THE FINANCIAL AND SUPERFUND
INFORMATION SYSTEMS
Issue
The information systems used by the Financial Management
Division (FMD) and by Superfund record different information on
Superfund sites. The Superfund information system does not
-------
-51- June 23, 1993
receive current Agency obligation and disbursement information
from the FMD financial system. Because of this, the cost data
maintained by FMD and the obligations and planning data
maintained by Superfund are sometimes difficult to match. There
has not been a system-wide reconciliation between the two
systems, and as a result, it is very difficult to combine data
from the two systems to obtain a full report for cost recovery
activities.
Approach
Establish automated reports that effectively merge data from
the two systems. Resolve certain issues related to comparability
of identifiers and general access to data.
FY93 ACTION ITEMS
Action Items Complete
Develop an SOL report that uses 7/93
CERCLIS planning data, CERCLIS
obligations and IFMS actual past
costs to present a complete picture
of both past and future SOLs, and
their respective past costs
Develop a general cost recovery 9/93
report that uses CERCLIS planning
data, CERCLIS obligations and
IFMS actual past costs to present
a complete picture of recoverable
past costs and the status of
all efforts to address those costs.
FY94 ACTION ITEMS
Action Items Complete
Engage FMD in developing permanent 9/94
links between CERCLIS and IFMS
implications
Improving data systems will allow better .matching of site
activity and actual costs and matching of settlements and receipt
of settlement funds. In this way, the program can base case
targeting on actual past cost data rather than planned
obligations, and substantially reduce staff time devoted to data
verification.
-------
-52- June 23, 1993
B. COST RECOVERY RULE
Issue
Several operational issues concerning cost recovery were not
fully defined in CERCLA or the NCP. These issues include:
identifying the types of costs included in indirect cost rates
and the methodology used to calculate them; clarifying the types
of documentation that the government will provide as part of a
, cost recovery case; and interpreting how CERCLA's Statute of
"Limitations (SOL) is to be applied to sites with multiple
} response actions. As a result, the cost recovery program risks
^ considerable transaction costs from case-by-case disputes on
these points. Promulgation of a rule clarifying these matters
should, in the long term, reduce transaction costs.
Approach
The proposed rule has been published in the Federal Register
and the public comment period has closed. Consideration of
comments received has been a collaborative effort involving a
number of EPA offices and DOJ. Work continues to review public
comments and incorporate revisions as appropriate.
FY93 ACTION ITEHS
Action Items Complete
Continue reviewing comments Ongoing
and drafting revisions to
proposed rule, as appropriate
FY94 ACTION ITEMS
Action Items Complete
Decide whether to promulgate 12/93
Cost Recovery Rule
Program Implications
The final Cost Recovery Rule will address several important
issues, including cost documentation requirements and how the
statute of limitations applies at sites with multiple response
actions. While most provisions could be implemented without the
rule, each case would, in the absence of the rule, still be
subject to case-by-case challenges.
------- |