OSWER 9200.1-74
Guidance for Documenting and Reporting
Performance in Achieving Land Revitalization
The Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation (OSRTI)
and Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse Office (FFRRO)
-------
OSWER 9200.1-74
This page is intentionally left blank
-------
OSWER 9200.1-74
Table of Contents
1. Introduction 5
1.1 Purpose and Applicability 5
1.2 Overview 6
2. Universe Indicator for Superfund and Federal Facility Sites 11
2.1 Universe Indicator Definition 11
2.2 Determining Whether Acres are Eligible for the Universe Indicator 12
2.3 Reporting Property Boundary Acreage 14
3. Protective for People Under Current Conditions (PFP) Performance Measure 15
3.1 PFP Definition 15
3.2 Determining Whether a Site/Operable Unit (OU) is PFP 15
4. Ready for Anticipated Use (RAU) Performance Measure 18
4.1 RAU Definition 18
4.2 Determining Whether a Site/Operable Unit (OU) is RAU 18
5. Documentation and Reporting 22
5.1 Process for Documentation and Reporting 22
5.2 Avoiding Double-Counting of Acres 22
6. Calculations - Estimating Land Area at Sites 23
7. Optional Status and Type of Use Indicators 24
7.1 Status of Use Indicator 24
7.2 Type of Use Indicator 25
7.3 Benefits of Optional Indicators 27
8. Appendices 28
Appendix A: Sitewide Ready-for-Reuse Guidance 29
Appendix B: Relationship of Previous to New Performance Measures 3 5
Appendix C: Environmental Indicators Guidance 38
Appendix D: Glossary of Terms 54
-------
OSWER 9200.1-74
List of Acronyms
BRAC - Base Realignment and Closure
CERCLA - Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
CERCLIS - Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information
System
CPRM - Cross-Program Revitalization Measures
EPA - U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FFRRO - Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse Office
FOSL - Finding of Suitability to Lease
FOST - Finding of Suitability to Transfer
FOSET - Finding of Suitability for Early Transfer
FUDS - Formerly Used Defense Sites
FUSRAP - Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program
GIS - Geographical Information System
GPRA - Government Performance and Results Act
GPS - Global Positioning System
1C - Institutional Control
IMC - Information Management Coordinator
LTHHP El - Long-Term Human Health Protection Environmental Indicator
NCP - National Contingency Plan
NPL - National Priorities List
NTCRA - Non-time Critical Removal Action
OMB - Office of Management and Budget
OSRTI - Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation
OSWER - Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
OU - Operable Unit
PART - Program Assessment Rating Tool
PFP - Protective for People Under Current Conditions
POLREPS - Pollution Reports
PRE - Property Reuse Evaluation
RA - Remedial Action
RAU - Ready for Anticipated Use
RCRA - Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RD - Remedial Design
RfR - Ready for Reuse
RI/FS - Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
ROD - Record of Decision
RPM - Remedial Project Manager
SA - Superfund Alternative
SPIM - Superfund Program Implementation Manual
UST - Underground Storage Tanks
-------
OSWER 9200.1-74
1. Introduction
1.1 Purpose and Applicability
The purpose of this guidance1 is to provide technical direction to U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) managers and staff in fulfilling the Agency's responsibilities for
documenting and reporting accomplishments in achieving revitalization of land at Superfund and
Federal facility sites.
Specifically, this guidance covers the following types of sites:
1. Proposed, final, and deleted National Priorities List (NPL) sites, including
Federal facilities;
2. Superfund Alternative (SA) Sites;2
3. Non-time critical removal actions (NTCRA); and
4. Certain non-NPL Federal facilities and Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS).3
This guidance has been written to provide Agency personnel with a consistent framework
to identify, evaluate, document, and report accomplishments at sites being addressed under the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA).
Specifically, it sets guidelines for determining and documenting revitalized acres and sites when
entire sites or specific Operable Units (OUs) of sites meet the requirements of two key
performance measures, the "Protective for People Under Current Conditions" (PFP) measure and
1 This guidance is not a regulation itself, nor does it change or substitute for any regulations. Thus, it does not
impose legally binding requirements on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), States, Tribes, or the regulated
community. This guidance does not confer legal rights or impose legal obligations upon any member of the public.
Interested parties are free to raise questions and objections about the substance of this guidance and the
appropriateness of the application of this guidance to particular situations. EPA and other decision makers retain the
discretion to adopt approaches on a case-by-case basis that differ from those described in this guidance. This
guidance does not change any existing policies and practices for carrying out investigations and cleanups.
Furthermore, achieving any of the performance measures in this guidance does not provide any legal rights or
legally enforceable commitments regarding EPA's enforcement intentions or any party's potential liability at the site
and does not preclude EPA from taking any necessary enforcement action at the site. Additionally, any
determination made for the purposes of the measures described in this guidance is based on the information
available at the time the determination is made, and should change if the site's conditions change or if new or
additional information is discovered regarding the contamination or conditions at the site. As such, parties (e.g.,
land owners or developers) interested in finding out what uses would be protective for a particular property should
rely on site-specific cleanup documents and site-specific institutional controls for property-specific information.
More reuse-related information for interested parties is available at http://www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/recvcle.
2 SA Sites refer to those sites that are eligible to be placed on the NPL but are not listed. At these SA sites EPA
generally acts in accordance with the practices normally followed at sites listed on the NPL and strives for
equivalency in the absence of an NPL listing. EPA ensures that settlements covering S A response actions achieve
cleanup levels equivalent to those required at NPL sites, that EPA provide the States, Tribes, Federal natural
resource trustees, and communities the same opportunity for involvement as that provided at NPL sites, and that
EPA's enforcement approach is equivalent to its enforcement approach at NPL sites. For more information, see
http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/cleanup/superfund/rev-sas-04-trans-mem.pdf.
3 This includes those non-NPL Federal facilities (such as Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) or Formerly
Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) sites) and FUDS where EPA has signed/concurred on a
response action (at a minimum, completed a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS), removal action, or
other major cleanup decision document) or a property transfer.
-------
OSWER 9200.1-74
the "Ready for Anticipated Use" (RAU) measure.4 This guidance also explains how these two
new performance measures relate to previously existing performance measures.
1.2 Overview
1.2.1 History of Cross-Program Revitalization Measures
In 2004, EPA's Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation (OSRTI)
developed its first land revitalization performance measures. These performance measures are
described in the 2004 document entitled "Guidance for Documenting and Reporting the
Superfund Revitalization Performance Measures" (hereinafter referred to as the "2004
Guidance").5 Two performance measures were developed: "Acres Ready for Reuse" and "Sites
Ready for Reuse." These performance measures were designed to report program
accomplishments in making sites or portions of sites ready for reuse, and applied to proposed,
final, and deleted NPL sites, SA sites, and NTCRA sites. The 2004 Guidance was issued in
November 2004.
In May 2006, a new, third performance measure entitled "Sitewide Ready-for-Reuse"
(Sitewide RfR) was jointly developed by OSRTI and the Federal Facilities Restoration and
Reuse Office (FFRRO).6 This measure tracks final and deleted construction complete NPL sites
that are ready for reuse. The Sitewide RfR Guidance is included in Appendix A.
EPA recognized that there was a need to establish a similar, consistent set of measures
that could be applied across all of the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER)
cleanup programs.7 Accordingly, in October 2006 EPA issued a document entitled "Interim
Guidance for OSWER Cross-Program Revitalization Measures" (hereinafter referred to as the
CPRM Guidance).8 The CPRM guidance established three indicators and two performance
measures:
4 It is recommended that OUs be used to document the progress of portions of a site. Acreage should not be reported
until appropriate criteria have been met for the entire land area comprising an OU. For the purpose of this guidance,
the term "parcels" as used for Federal facility sites is equivalent to the term "OU." At property transfer sites (e.g.,
BRAC facilities), EPA may evaluate property transfer parcels, instead of OUs, within a property transfer document,
such as a Finding of Suitability to Lease (FOSL), Finding of Suitability to Transfer (POST), and Finding of
Suitability for Early Transfer (FOSET). If OUs are not yet defined, or if communicating information in terms of
OUs is not applicable, then the number of acres that meet the CPRM criteria for indicators and measures should be
documented.
Guidance for Documenting and Reporting the Superfund Revitalization Performance Measures, OSWER 9202.1-
26, November 5, 2004.
6 Guidance for Documenting and Reporting the Superfund Sitewide Ready-for-Reuse Performance Measure,
OSWER 9365.0-36, May 24, 2006. The guidance is located at
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/recvcle/tools/pdfs/sitewide a.pdf.
7 OSWER cleanup programs include Brownfields, Superfund, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
Corrective Action, Underground Storage Tanks (UST), Federal Facilities, and Emergency Response Programs.
8 The Interim Guidance for OSWER Cross-Program Revitalization Measures is located at
http://www.epa.gov/oswer/landrevitalization/docs/cprmguidance-10-20-06covermemo.pdf.
-------
OSWER 9200.1-74
Indicators:
• Universe
• Status of Use (optional)
• Type of Use (optional)
Performance Measures:
• Acres "Protective for People Under Current Conditions"
(PFP)
• Acres "Ready for Anticipated Use" (RAU)
The CPRM guidance established the overarching framework for these measures, but
directed each of the individual OSWER programs to develop companion guidance outlining
program-specific implementation. This guidance addresses the implementation of the three
indicators and two performance measures under the Superfund Remedial and Federal Facilities
Response Programs within OSWER. In order to be consistent with OSWER's cross-program
effort, this guidance renames the previous two measures described in the 2004 Guidance to
reflect the language used in the CPRM Guidance. In addition, the 2006 Sitewide Ready-for-
Reuse performance measure is now to be called "Sitewide Ready for Anticipated Use" (Sitewide
RAU).
7.2.2 Tracking and Reporting these Performance Measures
The cross-program measures described in this guidance do not replace or add to any of
the program-specific measures currently in the Agency's Strategic Plan or being used in
program-specific Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Program Assessment Rating Tool
(PART) evaluations. Furthermore, the Agency is not establishing targets for these performance
measures at this time. To avoid the redundancy and confusion of maintaining multiple measures,
the Superfund Remedial and Federal Facilities Response Programs will no longer report on acres
or sites "Ready for Reuse," but rather will track and report the measures described in this
guidance, beginning late in fiscal year 2007. As noted previously, the Sitewide RfR measure
will continue to be reported, but under the new name Sitewide RAU. The existing targets for the
newly named Sitewide RAU measure remain in place, and this measure will continue to have
targets for the foreseeable future.
In implementing the performance measures, EPA will request that Regions report
information in the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability
Information System (CERCLIS) no later than the 5th working day of October of each year, and
that in addition Regions fill out a PFP and RAU Checklist for each site with eligible land area, as
measured in acres. This PFP and RAU Checklist is currently under development. The PFP and
RAU Checklist will also document information for the two optional indicators, "Status of Use"
and "Type of Use," which are described in Section 7 of this guidance. Regions should document
the results of these evaluations and report site and acreage information in CERCLIS. The
reporting requirements will be described in the Superfund Program Implementation Manual
(SPIM). After the initial October reporting in 2007, information for these measures and
indicators should be updated quarterly.
-------
OSWER 9200.1-74
1.2.3 New Super/and and Federal Facility Revitalization Performance Measures
This guidance supersedes the 2004 Guidance and establishes the following new
indicators and performance measures:
• Indicators:
- Universe Indicator: This indicator is designed to capture the full universe of
potential sites and land area, as measured in acres, to be addressed by the CPRM
measures. It includes:
1. Proposed, final, and deleted NPL sites, (including Federal facilities);
2. SA sites;9
3. NTCRA sites; and
4. Certain non-NPL Federal facilities and FUDS10
- Status of Use Indicator (voluntary):11 This indicator captures information about
whether a site or any land area therein, as measured in acres, is being used. Sites
and acres will be classified as either unused, in continued use, reused, or planned
for reuse. Superfund site acreage will be determined by OU while Federal
facility site acreage will be determined by OU or property transfer parcel.12
- Type of Use Indicator (voluntary): This indicator describes the specific use at a
site or any land area therein, as measured in acres, at the point in time when the
Status of Use determination is made. Sites and acres will be classified under one
of the following six primary categories: Commercial and Public Service, Green
Space, Industrial, Military and Other Federal, Mixed, and Residential. Superfund
site acreage will be determined by OU while Federal facility site acreage will be
determined by OU or property transfer parcel.
• Performance Measures:
- Protective for People Under Current Conditions (PFP): This new measure is
based on the existing Human Exposures Under Control Environmental Indicator
and reports sites and land area, as measured in acres, that are protective for
people under current conditions. Superfund site acreage will be determined by
OU, while Federal facility site acreage will be determined by OU or property
transfer parcel.
- Ready for Anticipated Use (RAU): This new measures replaces "Acres of Land
Ready for Reuse" as well as "Sites Ready for Reuse" as defined in the 2004
Guidance. This RAU measure also includes the land area, as measured in acres,
at sites that meet the 2006 Sitewide RfR (now renamed "Sitewide RAU")
Guidance for continued and anticipated use, as well as any other acres that meet
9 See footnote 2.
10 See footnote 3.
1 Although reporting on the Status and Type of Use is currently optional, Remedial Project Managers (RPMs) and
Information Management Coordinators (IMCs) are strongly encouraged to collect and enter such data in order to
report these indicators.
12 See footnote 4.
-------
OSWER 9200.1-74
RAU criteria. Superfund site acreage will be determined by OU while Federal
facility site acreage will be determined by OU or property transfer parcel.
1.2.4 General Relationship of New Measures to the Previous Measures
Figure 1 and Table 1 show the general relationship of the previous performance measures
to the measures established by the CPRM guidance and implemented through this guidance.
Figure 1: Previous and New Land Revitalization Performance Measures
Previous
Performance Measures
Performance Measures
Protective for People Under Current
Conditions fFFF): A mew performance
measure b ased on the e mting Current
Human Exposure Under Control
Environmental Indicator
Acres Ready for Reuse
Sites Ready for Reuse
(2004)
Ready for Anticipated Use (RAU): A new
performance measure that replaces the 2004
measures and captures the acreage within
sites or OUs that meet specific RAU criteria
Satisfies criteria for Ready for
Anticipated Use
Srtewide
Fieady-for-Reuse
(2006)
Srtewide Ready for Anticipated Use
Some key points should be emphasized. First, although the 2004 Ready for Reuse
measures and the new RAU measures are very closely related, there are some differences in how
these terms are defined. Despite these differences, however, it is expected that most of the acres
previously reported using the 2004 Ready for Reuse definition will satisfy the criteria for the
RAU measures.13 Second, the acres associated with the Sitewide RAU will in all cases satisfy
the acres and sites RAU criteria. This is because the Sitewide RAU was developed specifically
13 The 2004 Ready for Reuse measures tracked the number of acres of land at Superfund sites that are ready for
reuse and the number of Superfund sites with acres ready for reuse. Acres previously reported using the 2004 Ready
for Reuse definition would not satisfy the criteria for the RAU measures if: 1) all required institutional controls are
not yet in place; 2) the acreage was reported because it was already in reuse, regardless of whether cleanup goals had
been attained; and 3) if the acreage reported does not comprise an OU or property transfer parcel (i.e., a land area
smaller than an OU or property transfer parcel).
-------
OSWER 9200.1-74
for construction-complete NPL and deleted NPL sites; the RAU measure applies to a broader
universe of sites but is otherwise consistent with the RAU criteria laid out in this CPRM
Guidance. Further discussion of the relationship between the previous and new performance
measures is provided in Appendix B.
Table 1: Previous and New Land Revitalization Performance Measures
Universe
Unit(s) of
Measure
Definition
2004: Ready for
Reuse
Private and non-
Federal sites proposed
for or listed on the
NPL; SA sites; and
NTCRA sites where
the removal was
completed
Sites and portions of
sites, as measured by
acres
Sites or acres
considered ready for
reuse if any of the
following apply:
- The site or a portion
of a site already in
use;
- Superfund response
actions were
unnecessary for the
site or portion of
the site as a result
of an investigation
of the property, and
the Agency was not
aware of other
EPA, State, Tribal,
or local government
environmental or
land use
restrictions;
- Cleanup goals
established for the
site or portion of
the site have been
attained
2006: Sitewide
Ready-for-Reuse
(now RAU)
Final or deleted
construction
complete NPL sites
Sites
The number of final
and deleted
construction
complete NPL sites
where, for the entire
site:
- All cleanup goals
in the ROD or
other remedy
decision
document(s) have
been achieved for
media that may
affect current and
reasonably
anticipated future
land uses of the
site, so that there
are no
unacceptable
risks; and
- All institutional or
other controls
required in the
ROD or other
remedy decision
document(s) have
been put in place14
2007: CPRM
PFP
Proposed, final, and
deleted NPL sites,
(including Federal
facilities); SA sites;
NTCRA sites; and
certain non-NPL
Federal facilities and
FUDS
Acres
Superfund site acreage
determined by OU or
property transfer parcel
At a minimum, all
identified human
exposure pathways
from contamination at
the site or individual
OUs are under control
or possible exposures
are below health-based
levels for current land
and/or ground water use
conditions
RAU
Proposed, final, and
deleted NPL sites,
(including Federal
facilities); SA sites;
NTCRA sites; and
certain non-NPL
Federal facilities and
FUDS
Acres
Superfund site acreage
determined by OU or
property transfer parcel
The RAU performance
measure captures the
acreage within sites or
OUs that are PFP and
meet the following two
additional criteria:
- All cleanup goals
have been achieved
for media that may
affect current and
reasonably
anticipated future
land uses (or
decision documents
confirm
uncontaminated
acres) for the site or
OU such that there is
no unacceptable
risk, and
- All institutional or
other controls
identified as part of
the response action
to help ensure long-
term protection have
been put in place15
14 Definition taken from the 2006 Sitewide Ready-for-Reuse Guidance.
15 -
' Definition taken from pages 8-9 of this guidance.
10
-------
OSWER 9200.1-74
2. Universe Indicator for Superfund and Federal Facility Sites
2.1 Universe Indicator Definition
The Universe Indicator tracks the number of sites and surface areas actually or potentially
contaminated, or previously contaminated. It includes land, wetlands, surface water, and/or
sediments where the Superfund or Federal Facilities Programs have had or currently have a
documented oversight role for any necessary assessment, response action, and/or property
transfer. EPA's involvement may be at the entire facility, such as at property transfers (e.g.,
BRAC facilities), or only for a portion of the site, such as at active military bases.
The Universe Indicator attempts to capture the overall scope and scale of the Programs'
oversight responsibilities for contaminated and potentially contaminated sites. It also serves as a
baseline for measuring the Programs' progress in achieving the PFP and RAU performance
measures. For the purposes of Superfund and Federal Facilities reporting, the Universe Indicator
does not include land areas which are addressed „
by other EPA programs16 or where EPA does
not have an oversight role.
The reported acreage at a given site for
the Universe Indicator may be the same as the
entire acreage within the property boundary,
such as at Superfund sites and BRAC facilities
where EPA will or has concurred on the
property transfer of the entire site, or may be
different, such as certain large Federal facilities
or active military ranges where EPA has not
assessed all the acreage within the facility
boundary. Because the Universe Indicator and
property boundary acreage both provide useful
information about EPA 's involvement at sites,
both metrics will be reported in CERCLIS.
The number of sites and acres tracked
nationally or regionally by the Universe
Indicator will likely change over time due to the
listing of additional sites on the NPL, the
discovery of new acres or sites subject to
CERCLA oversight, changes in data collection
protocols or implementation, and increased
accuracy as the methodology evolves. The
Universe Indicator is based on the areas
investigated, rather than the areas remediated.
Useful Definitions for Reporting Acreage
• Property boundary acreage: all acreage
within the property lines of the site or
facility.
• Site acreage: the acreage of contaminant
investigation or remediation, as
delineated in a RI/FS or another action
document. Note that the site acreage
may include acreage that is outside of the
property boundary. Site acreage should
equal the acreage reported for the
Universe Indicator.
• Operable unit acreage: the acreage
within the portion of a site delineated in
the Record of Decision (ROD) as an
operable unit.
• Property transfer parcel acreage: the
acreage within a portion of a Federal
facility delineated in a property transfer
document. Property transfer parcels are
the unit for reporting Universe, PFP, and
RAU acres at Federal facilities where
property transfers outside the Federal
government (e.g., BRAC facilities).
16
Other OSWER programs would instead report on those land areas that they are addressing.
11
-------
OSWER 9200.1-74
However, acres would not be subtracted from the Universe Indicator in situations where they
were found through proper investigation to be clean or because they were remediated.
2.2 Determining Whether Acres are Eligible for the Universe Indicator
The Universe Indicator seeks to count the total number of acres and sites that have been
investigated at all sites since program inception. In order to be included in the Universe
Indicator, the site should be eligible for investigation under CERCLA, or as the result of EPA's
involvement at BRAC facilities.
For sites that are proposed for, listed on, or deleted from the NPL, or for SA sites, acres
included in the Universe Indicator should be investigated in a manner consistent with the
Guidance for Conducting Remedial Investigations and Feasibility Studies Under CERCLA.17
Similarly, NTCRA sites should be investigated in a manner consistent with Guidance on
Conducting Non-Time-Critical Removal Actions Under CERCLA.ls Both remedial and NTCRA
sites and acres where initial investigations indicate that no unacceptable risks exist, and therefore
no further action is required, should be included in the Universe Indicator.
The Universe Indicator and performance measures apply to the following contaminated
or potentially contaminated media - land, wetlands, surface water, and/or sediments - provided
that media is subject to Superfund and Federal facilities remedial investigation, oversight, and/or
response action. However, the acres captured under the Universe Indicator do not include land
areas overlying a ground water plume where those land areas are not intended to be assessed
consistent with applicable EPA guidance. For example, if a plume extends under a land area and
EPA has no intention of investigating these acres of land for contamination unrelated to the
plume, then those land acres would not be included in the acreage reported by the Universe
measure. By extension, a site with only ground water contamination would not be captured by
the Universe Indicator. Note that there may also be exceptions in which sites with areas of
surface water, sediments, and/or tidal basins will not automatically be included due to site-
specific circumstances. These types of sites will be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.
The Superfund Remedial and Federal Facilities Response Programs are still considering
different strategies for tracking revitalization progress at ground water-only sites and OUs
through a separate measure. In the future, the Programs may expand the Universe Indicator and
performance measures to include surface acres associated with ground water plumes. At this
time, however, EPA will continue to use the Migration of Contaminated Ground Water Under
Control Environmental Indicator19 to document whether ground water contamination falls within
safe levels, or if not, whether migration of contaminated ground water is stabilized.
17 Guidance for Conducting Remedial Investigations and Feasibility Studies Under CERCLA (OSWER Directive
9355.3-01). The guidance states that the purpose of the Remedial Investigation is to "collect data to characterize site
conditions; determine the nature of the waste; assess risk to human health and the environment; and conduct
treatability testing as necessary to evaluate the potential performance and cost of the treatment technologies being
considered to support the design of selected remedies." The guidance is located at
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/resources/remedv/pdf/540g-89004-s.pdf.
18 Guidance on Conducting Non-Time-Critical Removal Actions Under CERCLA (OSWER Directive 9360.0-32).
19 For more information about the Superfund Migration of Contaminated Ground Water Under Control
Environmental Indicator, refer to http://www.epa.gov/superfund/accomp/ei/gw.htm.
12
-------
OSWER 9200.1-74
Non-NPL BRAC sites and other non-NPL Federal facilities or FUDS where EPA has, at
a minimum, been involved with the completion of a RI/FS document (or equivalent action), an
action further along in the cleanup process, or a property transfer would also be eligible for
inclusion in the Universe Indicator. Sites that have received a Preliminary Assessment/Site
Inspection would not be included in the Universe, as often EPA may not concur or may defer
investigations and remedial actions to other entities. Sites further along in the cleanup process
may also be included in the Universe Indicator, such as sites where EPA was not involved in the
RI/FS but did sign off on the removal or property transfer action. Uncontaminated parcel
determinations may be included in the Universe Indicator once EPA has signed/concurred on a
Finding of Suitability to Transfer (FOST), Finding of Suitability to Lease (FOSL), or Finding of
Suitability for Early Transfer (FOSET) document. If EPA was, at one time, involved in a site,
concurred on a major cleanup document, but then ceased involvement (i.e., the Department of
Defense stopped funding EPA's involvement or the site was deferred to another program), then it
would still be included in the Universe Indicator, with the understanding that the site or OU and
associated acreage may never meet either PFP or RAU, depending on when EPA involvement
ended, and that because EPA's involvement ceased, neither the Superfund nor Federal Facilities
Programs are responsible for ensuring that the requirements of PFP and RAU are achieved at the
site or OU.
Acreage for the Universe Indicator, as well as the PFP and RAU measures, should be as
accurate as possible. (See Section 6 for further information on estimating acreage.) In
circumstances in which it is not feasible or practical to obtain acreage data (e.g., at some FUDS),
contact Headquarters for assistance on how to proceed.
All acreage counted toward the Universe Indicator should be documented and reported in
CERCLIS. Acreage from a portion of a site should be based on designated OUs at the site
(except for Federal facilities property transfers, such as BRAC facilities, which should be based
on parcel designations, as applicable).
The flow chart in Figure 2 provides a guide for determining whether acres at sites qualify
for inclusion in the Universe Indicator.
13
-------
OSWER 9200.1-74
Figure 2: Site Universe Flow Chart
The following questions will assist in determining if a site is covered under the CPRM measure framework.
Is the site final on or
deleted from Ihe
NPL?
Is the site a non-NPL
Federal facility
or FUDS?
Is the site proposed to the NPL. a
Supcrfund Alternative Site, or has a
non-time critical removal action been
completed at Ihe site?
Site is NOT:
In CPRM Universe Indicator
Yes
Site is:
In CPRM Universe Indicator
Yes
Go to acres flowchart to
determine universe of acres for
this site
Has EPA concurred or signed off on
a RIIFS or other major cleanup or property
transfer document (i.e.. RA, RD. ROD.
FOST, FOSL. and FOSET)?
Site is NOT:
In CPRM Universe Indicator
Site is:
In CPRM Universe Indicator
Yes
Go to acres flowchart to
determine universe of acres for
this site
2.3 Reporting Property Boundary Acreage
For all sites that are included in the Universe Indicator, Regions are requested to report
the total acres within the boundary of the property (or the fenceline of a facility) in addition to
reporting the specific acreage that is included in the Universe Indicator. This is because at some
point in the future, the Superfund Remedial and Federal Facilities Response Programs may be
asked to quantify acreage for those portions of sites where the Superfund Remedial and Federal
Facilities Response Programs are not involved. For example, the Superfund or Federal Facilities
Programs may not assess the entire site at larger facilities or active military bases where the
Programs are only involved in a portion of the site. In addition, the Superfund Remedial and
Federal Facilities Response Programs may be involved at part of a site, but may defer another
section of that same site to another cleanup program or entity (i.e., a state). For purposes of
reporting consistency, those "deferred" acres should not be captured by the Universe Indicator,
but should be counted as part of the reported property boundary acreage. For many non-Federal
facility Superfund sites and BRAC sites, however, Superfund Remedial and Federal Facilities
14
-------
OSWER 9200.1-74
Response Programs are typically involved throughout the entire property and the Universe
Indicator and property boundary acreage will be the same.
3. Protective for People Under Current Conditions Performance Measure
3.1 PFP Definition
The PFP performance measure reports the number of sites and acres at which there is no
complete pathway for human exposures to unacceptable levels of contamination, based on
current site conditions. Reporting on a particular site for this measure should be based on an
understanding of current conditions, presence and toxicity of contamination, routes of
contaminant migration (e.g., ground water, vapor), and routes of exposures to humans (e.g.,
dermal, inhalation, ingestion).
Achieving the PFP measure means, at a minimum, that all identified human exposure
pathways from contamination at the site are under control or possible exposures are below
health-based levels for current land and/or ground water use conditions. "Under control" means
that adequately protective controls are in place to prevent any unacceptable human exposure
under current land and/or ground water use conditions. Achieving the PFP measure does not
involve consideration of future use conditions or ecological receptors.
The PFP measure can be achieved through temporary solutions based on current
conditions and associated exposures at a given point in time, and does not necessarily require
that all cleanup goals be met at a site or OU.
For the purposes of this measure, the entire site or individual OUs at a site can be counted
so long as the criteria discussed below are met for those areas. At property transfer sites (e.g.,
BRAC facilities), EPA may evaluate property transfer parcels, instead of OUs, within a property
transfer document, such as a FOSL and FOSET. Such sites should meet PFP, as often the FOSL
and FOSET address immediate, not necessarily long-term, property use.
3.2 Determining Whether a Site/OU is PFP
For the purposes of this measure, a site or OU will achieve the PFP performance measure
when it can be determined that the entire site or OU meets any one of the three possible
designations for the current Human Exposures Under Control Environmental Indicator,20 which
currently apply to NPL sites only.21 The current Environmental Indicators Guidance is included
in Appendix C. The three designations in the existing Human Exposures Under Control
Environmental Indicator that ensure acres meet PFP include:
20 Draft Super fund Environmental Indicators Guidance Manual: Long-Term Human Health Revisions, January
2006. Available at http://www.epa.gov/superfund/accomp/ei/eiguidance.pdf. This guidance document is scheduled
to be renamed the Long-Term Human Health Protection Environmental Indicator (LTHHP El) in 2007. EPA
intends to update this guidance when the new LTHHP El Guidance is available.
21 The current Human Exposures Under Control Environmental Indicator designations currently apply only to NPL
sites; however, for the purposes of determining whether a site or OU achieves the PFP performance measure, the
criteria of this Environmental Indicator may be applied on an OU basis to all sites to which this guidance applies.
15
-------
OSWER 9200.1-74
• Current Human Exposures Under Control;
• Current Human Exposures Controlled and Protective Remedy in Place; or
• Long-Term Human Health Protection Achieved.
Note that an OU or entire site may meet PFP if the ground water is contaminated yet no
human exposure pathways exist, and the soil above the plume has been assessed to ensure it
meets PFP, or is safe for human exposure. It should also be noted that a site may have several
OUs with different designations, some of which have met PFP criteria, some of which have also
met RAU criteria, and some of which do not meet either performance measure (i.e., are not
protective).
The following guidelines should be
observed when making the PFP determination:
• An LTHHP El evaluation should be made
looking at all actions that have been
completed and all media across the entire
site or OU.
• This evaluation should be made with
"reasonable certainty" and should be
supported by a major cleanup document
(i.e., based on the most current data
available for the site). Documents such as
risk assessments, Records of Decision
(RODs), Action Memoranda, Pollution
Reports (POLREPS), Remedial Action
Reports, Close-out Reports, and Five-Year
Reviews are good sources of data and
often provide the information necessary
for making an evaluation with reasonable certainty. Evaluations can be revised as new
information becomes available.
• This evaluation is intended to be a realistic, risk-based assessment centered on actual land
and ground water uses. The exposure scenarios considered in this evaluation should be
consistent with risk-based decisions for the site.
The Environmental Indicators Guidance provides a step-by-step process and worksheet to
assist in making an evaluation of the appropriate LTHHP El category, and therefore PFP
determination. The flowchart in Figure 3 (included below) can also assist in decision-making
about a site or OU's LTHHP El status.22 Only those questions and outcomes depicted by the
white boxes on the following flow chart are eligible for inclusion in the PFP measure.
At a Glance - Human Exposures Under
Control Environmental Indicator:
The Human Exposures Under Control
Environmental Indicator will become
the LTHHP El, which will remain a
site-wide indicator for NPL sites.
The PFP performance measure
however, will apply the LTHHP El
criteria on an OU basis, where
applicable, at all sites included in the
Universe Indicator. Application of the
LTHHP El criteria to OUs and non-
NPL sites and will not affect the GPRA
reporting for the official site-wide
LTHHP El.
22 The previous section and following flowchart have been excerpted from page 15-16 of the Environmental
Indicators Guidance.
16
-------
OSWER 9200.1-74
Figure 3: Environmental Indicators Flowchart - How to Make PFP Determinations Using
the Long-Term Human Health Protection Environmental Indicator
23
1.) Is enough information
available to evaluate the
status of human exposure
control using this indicator?
2 ) Have all human exposure-
related cleanup goals been
met for me entire site?
3.) Are there complete human
exposure pathways between
contaminated groundwater.
surface water, soil, sediment
or air media and human
receptors such that exposures
can be reasonably expected
under current conditions9
6.) Is the site Construction
Complete, is the remedy
operating as intended, and are
engineering and institutional
controls, if required, in place
and effective?
Insufficient data to determine
human exposure control
5 | Have any actions been
taken since EPA first
exercised removal or remedial
authority at the site thai have
significantly reduced the level
of previously unacceptable
human exposure under
current conditions?
Yes
Current human exposures not
Current human exposured not
controlled but some exposure
control achieved
4.) Are the potential human
exposures associated with
complete pathways within
acceptable limits under
current conditions?
Current human exposures
controlled
Current human exposures
controlled and protective remedy
in place
Long-term human health
protection achieved
The determination that an OU achieves the PFP measure can occur at any particular point
in time and the OU's reported status should be revised if the site's conditions change or if new or
additional information is discovered regarding the contamination or conditions at the site (e.g.,
contaminant occurrence, migration, toxicity levels for specific contaminants, and exposures). If
at the time of the determination or at any other time, EPA becomes aware of other environmental
problems that pose unacceptable risk relevant to the site or reuse (including risks addressed
under other cleanup or public health authorities) the site should not be reported under the PFP
measure. Documentation that OUs achieve the PFP measure should be changed accordingly if,
or when, information becomes available that would bring into question whether the OU
continues to meet the PFP definition. Those specific acres associated with the site in question
should only be re-recorded as meeting the PFP measure if and when the land area once again
meets the PFP definition.
The total number of sites with one or more OUs meeting the PFP measure will be
determined from information recorded in CERCLIS and routinely reported for management and
communication purposes.
' If the decision process results in a gray box, then the site or OU is not PFP.
17
-------
OSWER 9200.1-74
4. Ready for Anticipated Use Performance Measure
4.1 RAU Definition
The RAU performance measure captures the acreage within sites or OUs that are PFP
and meet the following two additional criteria:
• All cleanup goals have been achieved for media that may affect current and reasonably
anticipated future land uses (or decision documents confirm uncontaminated acres) for
the site or OU such that there is no unacceptable risk., and
• All institutional or other controls identified as part of the response action to help ensure
long-term protection have been put in place.
The definition of this measure as it applies to an entire site is consistent with the Sitewide
RAU measure. Therefore, all sites and acres counted toward the Sitewide RAU measure will
also count toward the RAU measure. In addition, the RAU measure described here may also
include individual OUs and a broader universe of sites (i.e., SA, NTCRA, certain non-NPL
Federal facilities, FUDS, etc) than was used for the Sitewide RAU measure.
4.2 Determining Whether a Site/OU is RAU
Following are some key considerations in determining whether a site or OU qualifies for
inclusion in the RAU measure.
Do all cleanup It is not necessary to achieve all cleanup goals, only those that ensure that
goals need to be there are no unacceptable risks affecting current and reasonably anticipated
met? future land uses. Uncontaminated acres that have documentation of an
assessment to ensure that no unacceptable risks exist would be counted under
RAU.24 EPA recognizes that sites or OUs can be protective for these
identified uses even in situations where long-term remedial goals have not
been achieved (e.g., ground water cleanup goals have not been met but ICs or
engineering controls are in place to prevent these exposures.)
It should be noted that if cleanup goals for ecological exposure were
established in a ROD or other remedy decision document(s),25 they should
also be met for sites and/or OUs to qualify for RAU. The determination that
the cleanup goals have been achieved so that there are no unacceptable risks
affecting current and reasonably anticipated future land uses should be
derived from a major cleanup document (e.g., no further action
memorandum, remedial action complete, preliminary close-out report, final
close-out report, Five-Year Review, etc.) or property transfer document (e.g.,
FOST, uncontaminated parcel determinations) and documented in CERCLIS.
24 To avoid potential double-counting of acres, uncontaminated parcel determinations made at BRAC installations
should only be counted as RAU once EPA has signed/concurred on the FOST document.
25 For non-time-critical removal action sites, this refers to the Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis Report.
18
-------
OSWER 9200.1-74
Which media
should be
considered?
What is meant by
having ICs or
other controls in
place?
Do we include
land areas
overlying a
ground water
plume?
How do we
address ground
water only sites?
What about
Federal facilities
(both NPL and
non-NPL sites)
with property
transfers?
Any media that may affect current and reasonably anticipated future land
uses should be considered when applying the definition of sites/OUs ready
for anticipated use. The National Contingency Plan (40 CFR 300.5) defines
"on-site" to mean "the areal extent of contamination and all suitable areas in
very close proximity to the contamination necessary for the implementation
of a response action." All of these areas should be evaluated before a RAU
determination is made. If media such as wetlands, surface water bodies,
sediments, and ground water pose an unacceptable risk to current and
reasonably anticipated future land use, cleanup goals for these media should
be set and met before declaring that the site meets the definition of RAU.
In order for a site or OU to qualify under the RAU measure, all controls
(engineered as well as institutional) that are part of the justification that the
site or OU is ready for anticipated use should be in place. Depending on the
type of ICs used, the term "in place" could include the enactment of
ordinances (e.g., land use or ground water use restrictions) by local
government; recording of legal instruments in the chain of title for a
property; issuance by a regulatory authority of enforcement tools or permits;
agreements between the regulatory authority and the property owners or
facility operators; listing of property on a state registry of contaminated sites;
recording of deed notices or hazard advisories in local land records; and for
active military bases, publication of a base master plan, instructions, orders,
and establishment of a dig permit system.
If 1) ICs are in place, but determined not to be protective for the anticipated
land use; or 2) sites have 1C requirements that have not been implemented
but that are listed in documents other than decision documents, then these
sites or OUs are NOT ready for anticipated use.
As we discussed in Section 2.2 relating to the Universe Indicator, EPA is not
including these land areas unless they have been adequately investigated and
found to meet the PFP or RAU definition.
Sites or OUs that have only ground water contamination, where EPA has not
assessed any land surface, should NOT be counted in the universe or as PFP
or RAU at this time.
Where sites will transfer outside the Federal government (e.g., BRAC
facilities), EPA will evaluate property transfer parcels instead of OUs. Any
acres contained within a document such as a FOST, or a similar property
transfer document, should meet the RAU measure, regardless of whether the
acreage falls entirely within OU boundaries. Note that EPA should have
formally concurred on this action by signing the property transfer document.
19
-------
OSWER 9200.1-74
Do sites that
have all future
use prohibited
meetRAU?
Any ICs included in the property transfer document must be in place for
acreage to meet RAU. Acreage covered by a FOSL and FOSET will not be
considered RAU.
Sites or OUs that will not support any form of future use should NOT be
designated as RAU. This includes sites or OUs with ICs that prohibit all
future use. However, sites where human use is prohibited but a ROD
designates ecological use as the anticipated use could meet the RAU measure
if all applicable criteria are met.
How do we count Sites or OUs that have been deferred to other programs, or where it is
sites that have
been deferred to
other programs ?
expected that other programs will perform aspects of cleanup, should NOT
be counted as RAU. This includes No Action RODs at sites where the State
has taken on the oversight role. However, if EPA investigated the site or
OU, determined that no remedial action was necessary, and has documented
in a decision document that there are no unacceptable risks affecting current
and reasonably anticipated future land uses, then the site or OU may be
considered RAU.
Sites or OUs can achieve RAU even in situations where long-term remedial goals have
not yet been achieved. For example, a site or OU could qualify for the RAU measure even if a
long-term ground water remedy has yet to achieve its cleanup goals, provided that engineered
and institutional controls identified as part of the response action are in place to ensure long-term
protection.
The flow chart in Figure 4 can help determine whether sites or OUs qualify for the RAU
measure.
20
-------
OSWER 9200.1-74
Figure 4: Ready for Anticipated Use Flow Chart
The following questions will assist in determining where sites and associated acres should be placed in the
CPRM Measures framework.
Is the site a
Federal facility where
property has transferred
outside the Federal
government?
Is site and its associated
acres eligible for inclusion in
the CPRM Site + Acres
Universe Indicator?
category. Determine
Stop Here. Site not in Universe
Have all cleanup goals been
achieved for media thai may
affect current and reasonably anticipated
future land uses of the site, so that there a
no unacceptable
risks, for the entire site?
Have all appropriate institutional or
olher controls required been put in
place for the entire site?
Site'parcel cannot be
Has EPA concurred on a
POST or simitar property
transfer document (FOSL or
FOSET are not eligible)?
category. Determine
Include site and ail
associated acres in
RAU category.
ndude site or parcel
and associated
acreage in RAU
category.
OU(s) cannot be
included in RAU
category. Determine if
OU(s) can be considered
PFP.
For one or more OUs of the site
have all appropriate institution
or other controls required
been put in place?
Include Otl(s) and
associated acres in
RAU categofy.
The determination that an OU achieves the RAU measure can occur at any particular
point in time and the OU's reported status should be revised if the site's conditions change or if
new or additional information is discovered regarding the contamination or conditions at the site
(e.g., contaminant occurrence, migration, toxicity levels for specific contaminants, and
exposures). If at the time of the determination, or at any other time, EPA becomes aware of
other environmental problems that pose unacceptable risk relevant to the site or reuse, including
risks addressed under other cleanup or public health authorities, the site should not be reported
under the RAU measure. Documentation that OUs achieve the RAU measure should be changed
accordingly if, or when, information becomes available that would bring into question whether
the OUs continue to meet the RAU definition. Those specific acres associated with the OU in
21
-------
OSWER 9200.1-74
question should only be re-recorded as meeting the RAU measure if and when acres once again
meet the RAU definition.
The total number of sites with one or more OUs meeting the RAU measure will be
determined from information recorded in CERCLIS and routinely reported for management and
communication purposes.
5. Documentation and Reporting
5.1 Process for Documentation and Reporting
In order to assist with documentation and reporting of the performance measures, a new
PFP and RAU Checklist for documenting all performance measures is being created. While the
information will be collected in CERCLIS, Regions should continue documenting the
information using the new checklist once available so that copies of the checklist can be included
in administrative records.
In October 2006, FFRRO and OSRTI began discussing the need for a redesigned acreage
module in CERCLIS. In light of incorporating this new guidance and the new Sitewide RAU
(former Sitewide RfR) measure, FFRRO and OSRTI both recognized the need to redesign the
acreage module in CERCLIS to more effectively and efficiently capture reuse data.
The goal of this new module is to have one recognizable module where all Superfund and
Federal facilities can be entered. Current development is underway and the module is
anticipated to go into the production version of CERCLIS in June 2007. Regions are expected to
have all reuse data entered into CERCLIS by the end of fiscal year 2007. Additionally, OSRTI
will conduct training for the Regions.
Once the requirements for this new module are complete in Spring 2007, FFRRO and
OSRTI will finalize the checklist and will create CERCLIS quick reference guides and
frequently asked questions to assist the Regions with data entry.
5.2 Avoiding Double-Counting of Acres
Facilities are sometimes regulated by more than one EPA program. Each OSWER
program will report the number of acres for the sites and facilities in their universes. Based upon
data availability and other program specific factors, each program defines which acres should be
collected somewhat differently. OSRTI and FFRRO have been coordinating with other OSWER
cleanup programs to determine where there may be overlap. When EPA reports national totals,
EPA will adjust the national total to eliminate or minimize, to the extent possible, double
counting of acres.
22
-------
OSWER 9200.1-74
26
6. Calculations - Estimating Land Area at Sites
There are a number of ways to estimate site land area. Different methods may be used at
different sites, depending on the nature of the site and the availability of data. Regions should
use the most reliable data available at a site when estimating the land area for measures presented
in this guidance. Personnel reporting land area for any of the measures should document and
record the value in acres and the source(s) of information.27
As the programs gain more experience in implementing the measures, more sophisticated
systems to track the data may be developed. Those information systems should also provide a
field for source(s) of information. The following is a list describing sources and approaches to
developing acreage estimates for the measures described in this guidance.
• Use Existing Documents: In many cases, the acreage of a site or OU may be available in
existing site documents, such as the ROD, Remedial Design (RD), or property transfer
(i.e., POST, FOSL, orFOSET) documents.
• Consult the Assessment or Cleanup Contractor: The contractor conducting the
assessment or remediation of the site may have detailed maps of the site and, therefore,
may have reliable information on the site's acreage readily available.
• Work With the Property Owner or Lead Federal Agency (at Federal facilities): Property
owners, or the lead Federal agency, will generally have reliable information on the size of
their property. The property owner(s) of a site will often have a copy of a land survey or
plat that has been prepared for their property, typically at the time of purchase. The
survey or plat will provide the exact coordinates of the property, and will include the total
area of the property expressed in either acreage or square feet. This approach will be
most effective for sites where the area being investigated encompasses the entire
property. In the cases where the documents address only a portion of the property, other
methods for obtaining acreage information will likely be warranted.
• Consult Tax Assessor or Other Local Government Records: Local governments will
likely have records that indicate the acreage of the property(ies) in question. In most
cases, these will be located in either the tax assessor or planning office of the local
government. The local government may ask for "parcel numbers" in order to provide this
information. Parcel numbers are used by local governments to identify the specific
properties for taxation and zoning purposes. Generally, a street address will suffice in
place of a parcel number. If there is no street address for one or more properties, they
may be identified on a tax assessor or zoning map by becoming familiar with major
26 Modified from Guidance for Documenting and Reporting the Superfund Revitalization Performance Measures,
September 2004.
27 The CPRM Guidance notes "EPA currently does not have a data standard that would dictate the needed quality for
measuring acres. However, the following three basic elements of the Agency's Measure Data Standard are
applicable to acre-based measurements in this guidance: 1) measure numerical value; 2) unit of measurement (such
as acres); and 3) measurement qualifiers used to identify issues that could affect the results (e.g., source of acre
information)."
23
-------
OSWER 9200.1-74
landmarks at or near the site. These maps are sometimes available online, although it
may be necessary to visit the local government office.
• Use a Geographical Information System (GIS): If polygonal data that accurately
delineates the boundary of the site is available, the land area may be easily calculated by
the use of a GIS. If these data are not available, there are a number of methods that may
be used for gathering them (i.e., consult a Regional GIS expert). Also, access to hand-
held Global Positioning System (GPS) receivers may enable the acquisition of location
coordinates at key points on the perimeter of the property or site. The area may be
calculated by entering these coordinates into a GIS.
• Calculate Using Measurements from Maps: In those instances where the land area is not
readily available, land area can be calculated using scaled maps.
• Building Footprint: When recording the land area of a building that has been remediated
(as documented through a major cleanup action) or made ready for use outside of the
Federal government (as documented in a property transfer, i.e., POST or FOSL), only the
actual plot (or footprint) of the building, in acres, should be recorded.
7. Optional Status and Type of Use Indicators
The following two optional indicators have been introduced to help describe
revitalization-related accomplishments in terms of whether and how sites and OUs are being
used. Information collected for these indicators can help give context to the performance
measure data, describe national trends, focus program resources, and communicate program
impacts and benefits. The CERCLIS database will be revised to include data entry for both
optional indicators. Regions are requested to provide sources of information, if possible, for the
data gathered on the optional indicators.
7.1 Status of Use Indicator28
The Status of Use Indicator refers to how the acres29 of the sites and OUs included in the
Universe Indicator are being used at the point in time when the determination is made for the
PFP and RAU performance measures. The Status of Use Indicator has the following sub-
indicators:
• Continued Use: Acres in continued use refer to areas that are being used in the same
general manner as they were when the site became subject to the Superfund or Federal
Facilities Programs.
The Status of Use Indicator is one of the optional indicators in the CPRM Guidance. The definition, criteria, and
implementation were taken directly from the CPRM guidance dated October 20, 2006 and modified to pertain only
to the sites covered by this guidance.
29 While acres are used as the unit of measurement for the Status of Use Indicator, the programs could also count the
number of sites in the defined Status of Use categories.
24
-------
OSWER 9200.1-74
• Reused: Acres at a site identified as in reuse refer to a site or OU where a new use, or
uses, are occurring such that there has been a change in the type of use (e.g., industrial to
commercial), or the property was unused and now supports a specific use. This means
that the developed site or OU is actually used for its intended purpose by customers,
visitors, employees, residents, or fauna, in the case of ecological reuse.
• Planned Reuse: Acres in planned reuse include sites or OUs where a plan for a reuse is in
place, but reuse has not yet begun. This could include conceptual plans, a contract with a
developer, secured financing, approval by the local government, or the initiation of site
redevelopment.30
• Unused: Acres identified as unused include sites or OUs not being used in any
identifiable manner. This could be, for example, because site investigation and cleanup
are ongoing, operations have ceased, the owner is in bankruptcy, or cleanup is complete,
but the site remains vacant.
The Status of Use Indicator is independent of the status of response action because it
recognizes that sites or OUs could be in various stages of use at various stages of cleanup and
because use and reuse can change.
7.2 Type of Use Indicator31
The Type of Use Indicator describes how acres32 at sites or OUs included in the Universe
Indicator are used at the point in time when the PFP or RAU determination is made. Information
on the type of use at a site or OU should be classified under one of the following six primary
categories:33
Commercial and Public Service
• Commercial Use: Commercial use refers to use for retail shops, grocery stores, offices,
restaurants, and other businesses.
• Public Service Use: Public service use refers use by a local or State government agency
or a non-profit group to serve citizens' needs. This can include transportation services
30 In the CPRM guidance, OSWER acknowledges that the "Planned Reuse" category may be difficult to capture
with certainty; nonetheless, OSWER believes it is important to distinguish sites with "in place" plans for reuse as
compared to sites categorized as unused.
31 The Type of Use Indicator is one of the optional indicators in the CPRM Guidance. The definition, criteria, and
implementation were taken directly from the CPRM guidance dated October 20, 2006, and modified to pertain only
to the sites covered by this guidance.
32 While acres are used as the unit of measurement for the Type of Use Indicator, the programs could also count the
number of sites in the defined Type of Use categories.
33 With the exception of Military and Other Federal Uses, the bolded primary categories are based on the types of
uses currently identified in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)-approved Brownfield Property Profile
Form available at http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/pubs/ppf without.pdf. The Military and Other Federal Uses
category has been included in this guidance since it would address acres that typically would not be addressed by the
types of uses associated with Brownfield Grant recipients.
25
-------
OSWER 9200.1-74
such as rail lines and bus depots, libraries and schools, government offices, public
infrastructure such as roads, bridges, utilities, or other services for the general public.
Green Space
• Agricultural Use: Agricultural use refers to use for agricultural purposes, such as
farmland for growing crops and pasture for livestock. Agricultural use also can
encompass other activities, such as orchards, agricultural research and development, and
irrigating existing farmland.
• Recreational Use: Recreational use refers to use for recreational activities, such as sports
facilities, golf courses, ballfields, open space for hiking and picnicking, and other
opportunities for indoor or outdoor leisure activities.
• Ecological Use: Ecological use refers to areas where proactive measures, including a
conservation easement, have been implemented to create, restore, protect, or enhance a
habitat for terrestrial and/or aquatic plants and animals, such as wildlife sanctuaries,
nature preserves, meadows, and wetlands.
Industrial
• Industrial Use: Industrial use refers to traditional light and heavy industrial uses, such as
processing and manufacturing products from raw materials, as well as fabrication,
assembly, treatment, and packaging of finished products. Examples of industrial uses
include factories, power plants, warehouses, waste disposal sites, landfill operations, and
salvage yards.
Military or Other Federal
• Military Use: Military use refers to use for training, operations, research and
development, weapons testing, range activities, logistical support, and/or provision of
services to support military or national security purposes.
• Other Federal Use: Other Federal use refers to use to support the Federal government in
Federal agency operations, training, research, and/or provision of services for purposes
other than national security or military.
Mixed
Mixed Use: Mixed use refers to areas at which uses cannot be differentiated on the basis
of acres. For example, a condominium with retail shops on the ground floor and
residential use on the upper floors would fall into this category. When selecting Mixed
Use, the individual types of uses should be identified, if as possible.
Residential
Residential Use: Residential use refers to use for residential purposes, including single-
family homes, town homes, apartment complexes and condominiums, and child/elder
care facilities.
26
-------
OSWER 9200.1-74
7.3 Benefits of Optional Indicators
Recording the type and status information for these optional indicators will be valuable
both for Regional and Headquarters staff in gaining a more thorough understanding of the extent
and type of reuse currently happening at NPL, SA, Federal facilities, and NTCRA sites. Status
of use information can help measure the actual reuse of properties and focus program resources
on those sites that are unused. Information from these indicators could be particularly beneficial
in terms of planning, when combined with information from the other performance measures.
The Type of Use Indicator can help identify and promote future revitalization-related
partnerships with stakeholder groups that have been key to reuse at other sites. Type of use
information can also help the program gain a more thorough understanding of its reuse related
accomplishments by adding a layer of detail on the reuse activities currently taking place at the
site or OU. Understanding the type and status of use can also help evaluate the effectiveness of
ICs that have been put in place to ensure that the site or OU remains protective during reuse.
27
-------
OSWER 9200.1-74
8. Appendices
Table of Contents for Appendices
Appendix A: Sitewide Ready-for-Reuse Guidance
Appendix B: Relationship of Previous to New Performance Measures
Appendix C: Environmental Indicators Guidance
Appendix D: Glossary of Terms
28
-------
OSWER 9200.1-74
Appendix A: Sitewide Ready-for-Reuse Guidance
OSWER 9365.0 - 36
Attachment A
Guidance for Documenting and Reporting
the Superfund Sitewide Ready-for-Reuse Performance Measure
Note: Upon issuance of the Guidance for Documenting and Reporting Performance in
Achieving Land Revitalization, the Sitewide Ready-for-Reuse measure is renamed "Sitewide
Ready for Anticipated Use" (Sitewide RAV).
I. Purpose
The purpose of this guidance is to assist EPA managers and staff in fulfilling the
Agency's GPRA responsibilities for documenting and reporting Superfund accomplishments in
making National Priorities List (NPL) sites ready for reuse. It provides information for
identifying, documenting and reporting construction complete Superfund NPL sites where the
entire land portion of the site is being used, or has been made ready for use in the future, in a
protective fashion.
II. Overview
The Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation (OSRTI), in
coordination with the Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse Office (FFRRO), has developed a
new performance measure to report the Superfund program's accomplishments in making land
ready for reuse at construction complete sites. This measure is included along with other
Superfund measures as part of the Environmental Protection Agency's FY 2006 - 2011 Strategic
Plan. All such performance measures have both annual and long-term cumulative targets.
The new Sitewide Ready-for-Reuse Superfund performance measure is:
The number of final and deleted construction complete National Priorities List (NPL)
sites where, for the entire site,
(1) All cleanup goals in the Record(s) of Decision or other remedy decision document(s)
have been achieved for media that may affect current and reasonably anticipated
future land uses of the site, so that there are no unacceptable risks; and
(2) All institutional or other controls required in the Record(s) of Decision or other
remedy decision document(s) have been put in place.
The Sitewide Ready-for-Reuse measure was developed to comply with the Agency's
responsibility to report long-term outcome-based accomplishments under the Government
Performance and Results Act (GPRA). The introduction of this measure also reflects the high
priority EPA places on land revitalization as an integral part of the Agency's cleanup mission for
29
-------
OSWER 9200.1-74
the Superfund program, as well as the priority EPA is now placing on post-construction activities
at NPL sites.
Regions will begin documenting this information and reporting on the Sitewide Ready-
for-Reuse measure in CERCLIS in FY 2007, as sites are identified in accordance with this
guidance.
III. Background
EPA places a high priority on land revitalization as an integral part of its Superfund
response program mission. The Agency's policies have increasingly addressed the issue of
making Superfund NPL sites protective for current and future users. For example, one of EPA's
key responsibilities under CERCLA is to ensure that contaminated property owned by the
Federal government is environmentally suitable for transfer or lease. EPA has been involved in
making environmental determinations pertaining to site use since the first BRAC legislative
action in 1988, and continues to ensure protective use at both operating and closed Federal
facilities undergoing CERCLA environmental response actions.34
Building on its experience supporting reuse at Superfund sites, in 1999 EPA created the
Superfund Redevelopment Initiative35 to help communities and other stakeholders in their efforts
to return Superfund NPL sites to productive use. In April 2003, EPA announced its Land
Revitalization Action Agenda,36 a plan for addressing the nation's contaminated lands to enable
their reuse by communities. Building on this framework, in November 2004, the Agency
developed the programmatic performance measures described in the Superfund Revitalization
Performance Measures guidance,37 which serve to report the progress of EPA's activities in
making Superfund NPL sites ready for their anticipated future use.
In addition, this new Sitewide Ready-for-Reuse measure directly supports the National
Strategy to Manage Post Construction Completion Activities at Superfund Sites^ (PCC Strategy)
by providing the Program with a way to assess its effectiveness in conducting post-construction
completion activities.
34 Nothing in this guidance alters or affects the legal requirements related to property transferred by
Federal agencies pursuant to CERCLA 120(h), nor does it alter or affect EPA guidance documents related to Federal
real property transfer or lease.
35 See EPA's Superfund Redevelopment Initiative (SRI) web site at
http://epa.gov/superfund/programs/recvcle/index.htm
36 The Land Revitalization Action Agenda at http://www.epa.gov/oswer/LANDREVITALIZATION/
agenda full.htm.
37 See Guidance for Documenting and Reporting the Superfund Revitalization Performance
Measures, OSWER 9202.1-26, November 5, 2004
38 See EPA's PCC Strategy at
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/action/postconstruction/pcc strategy final.pdf.
30
-------
OSWER 9200.1-74
IV. Sitewide Ready-for-Reuse Selection Elements
The Sitewide Ready-for-Reuse measure reports sites documented as ready for reuse
where for the entire construction complete NPL site:
• All cleanup goals in the Record(s) of Decision or other remedy decision
document(s) have been achieved for media that may affect current and
reasonably anticipated future land uses of the site, so that there are no
unacceptable risks; and
• All institutional or other controls required in the Record(s) of Decision or
other remedy decision document(s) have been put in place.
Controls in Place: In order for a site to be qualified under this measure, all controls
(engineered as well as institutional) used as part of the justification for considering that a site is
Sitewide Ready-for-Reuse must be in place. Depending on the type of institutional controls used
at a site, the term "in place" could include, for example: the enactment of ordinances (e.g.,
ground water use restrictions), codes, or other regulations by local government; recording of
legal instruments in the chain of title for a property; issuance by a regulatory authority of
enforcement tools or permits; agreements between the regulatory authority and the property
owners or facility operators; listing of property on a state registry of contaminated sites;
recording of deed notices or hazard advisories in local land records; and for active military bases,
use of base master plan, instructions, orders, and dig permit systems.
Human Exposure Under Control: The Superfund program also reports on another NPL
sitewide measure, Human Exposure Under Control. The Human Exposure determination for
sites that qualify for the Sitewide Ready-for-Reuse measure should either be:
• "Current Human Exposure Controlled and Protective Remedy in Place"; or
• "Long-Term Human Health Protection Achieved"
Human exposure site determinations that are not one of the two categories above are inconsistent
with the requirements that must be met for the Sitewide Ready-for-Reuse measure.
Ecological exposures: If cleanup goals were established in the Record(s) of Decision or
other remedy decision document(s) for ecological exposures, they must also be met for the site to
be designated Sitewide Ready-for-Reuse.
Determining Which Media Affect Current and Reasonably Anticipated Future Land Uses:
Any media that may affect current and reasonably anticipated future land uses should be
considered when making the Sitewide Ready-for-Reuse designation. The NCP (40 CFR 300.5)
defines 'on-site' to mean "the areal extent of contamination and all suitable areas in very close
proximity to the contamination necessary for the implementation of a response action." If media
such as wetlands, surface water bodies, sediments, and groundwater may pose an unacceptable
risk to areas of current and reasonably anticipated future land use, cleanup goals for these media
must be set and met before declaring the site to be Sitewide Ready-for-Reuse.
-------
OSWER 9200.1-74
V. Implementation
Beginning in Fiscal Year 2007, Regions will report on the Sitewide Ready-for-Reuse
measure. To establish a national baseline, Regions must review site data to determine which
sites currently meet the selection elements outlined in this guidance. These sites will form the
baseline against which future performance will be measured. Upon establishment of the
baseline, annual and long-term targets will be set to evaluate the Agency's performance. EPA
will be expected to report on the progress of this measure in achieving those targets externally to
the Office of Management and Budget, and to Congress.
Attached to this guidance is a Sitewide Ready-for-Reuse Checklist for documenting and
reporting this new measure. The Sitewide Ready-for-Reuse measure is for construction
complete Superfund final and deleted NPL sites only. Regions will submit completed Checklists
for the Sitewide Ready-for-Reuse measure to Headquarters for approval before the reported site
may be counted to meet the GPRA target for this measure.
The new Sitewide Ready-for-Reuse measure will supplement, not replace, the previous
reporting measures: "Acres Ready for Reuse" and "Sites with Land Ready for Reuse." The
Superfund program will continue to report "Acres Ready for Reuse" and "Sites with Land Ready
for Reuse" for the Agency's own internal management purposes. These measures reflect cleanup
progress at portions of sites and provide Agency managers with valuable programmatic
information. These measures have never had targets, and are not expected to have targets at this
time.
The Superfund Revitalization Performance Measure guidance (November 5, 2004)
governing "Acres Ready for Reuse" and "Sites with Land Ready for Reuse" will be updated to
include Federal facilities and to address the new Sitewide Ready-for-Reuse measure. Today's
new Sitewide Ready-for-Reuse guidance supersedes the November 5, 2004 guidance with
respect to institutional controls. Therefore, without exception, no "Acres Ready for Reuse,"
"Sites with Land Ready for Reuse" or "Sitewide Ready-for-Reuse" accomplishments shall be
reported where necessary institutional or other controls have not been put in place for that
portion of land that is being reported as ready for reuse. This guidance otherwise supplements,
but does not change, existing Agency policies and practices for carrying out the investigation and
cleanup of sites under CERCLA.
The determination that a site is Sitewide Ready-for-Reuse is based on the information
available at the time the determination is made. That determination may revert if site conditions
change, or if new or additional information is discovered regarding the contamination at the site.
If after a site has been designated as Sitewide Ready-for-Reuse, EPA becomes aware that any of
the Ready-for-Reuse requirements are no longer met, then the site will cease to be designated as
Sitewide Ready-for-Reuse. The site can be re-designated as Sitewide Ready-for-Reuse only
when the requirements outlined in this guidance are met.
32
-------
OSWER 9200.1-74
If at the time of determination or at any other time, EPA becomes aware of other
environmental problems that pose unacceptable risk relevant to site use or reuse, including risks
addressed under other cleanup or public health authorities, the site should not be reported under
this measure.
It should be noted that there is likely to be a small set of NPL sites that may never be
ready for reuse. For example, extremely hazardous site conditions, the pervasiveness of
contamination, and even the size of larger sites may preclude a site from achieving the Sitewide
Ready-for-Reuse designation. Additionally, there are also those NPL sites in which institutional
controls specifically state that no future uses are advisable.
VI. Disclaimer
This guidance is not a regulation itself, nor does it change or substitute for any
regulations. Thus, it does not impose legally binding requirements on EPA, States, or the
regulated community. This guidance does not confer legal rights or impose legal obligations
upon any member of the public. The determination that a site is Sitewide Ready-for-Reuse does
not provide any legal rights or legally enforceable commitments regarding EPA's enforcement
intentions or any party's potential liability at the site and does not preclude EPA from taking any
necessary enforcement action at the site. Although this guidance does not confer legal rights or
impose legal obligations upon any member of the public, interested parties are free to raise
questions and objections about the substance of this guidance and the appropriateness of the
application of this guidance to particular situations.
33
-------
OSWER 9200.1-74
Superfund Property Reuse Evaluation Checklist for Reporting the Sitewide
Ready-for-Reuse GPRA Measure
&EPA
United States
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Washington, DC 20460
SUPERFUND PROPERTY REUSE EVALUATION CHECKLIST FOR REPORTING
THE SITEWIDE READY-FOR-REUSE GPRA MEASURE
Office of Superfund Remediation & Technology Innovation and Federal Facilities Restoration & Reuse Office
PART A - GENERAL SITE INFORMATION
1 . Site Name
3. Site ID
2. EPA ID
4. RPM
5. Street Address
6. City
7. State
8. Zip Code
9. Site Wide Ready-for-Reuse Determination Requirements (all must be met for the entire construction complete site)
All cleanup goals in the Record(s) of Decision or other remedy decision document(s) have been
achieved for any media that may affect current and reasonably anticipated future land uses, so that
there are no unacceptable risks.
All institutional or other controls required in the Record(s) of Decision or other remedy decision
document(s) have been put in place.
PART B - SIGNATURE (Branch Chief or above should sign)
NOTE: The outcome of this Property Reuse Evaluation does not have any legally binding effect and does not expressly or implicitly create, expand,
or limit any legal rights, obligations, responsibilities, expectations, or benefits of any party. EPA assumes no responsibility for reuse activities and/or
any potential harm that might result from reuse activities. EPA retains any and all rights and authorities it has, including but not limited to legal,
equitable, or administrative rights. EPA specifically retains any and all rights and authorities it has to conduct, direct, oversee, and/or require
environmental response actions in connection with the site, including but not limited to instances when new or additional information has been
discovered regarding the contamination or conditions at the site that indicates that the response and/or the conditions at the site are no longer
protective of human health or the environment.
10. Name
12. Signature
11. Title/Organization
13. Date
EPA Form 9100-4 (9-2004)
-------
Appendix B: Relationship of Previous to New Performance Measures
Previous Measures: Acres and Sites Ready-far-Reuse
The 2004 Guidance applied to private and non-Federal sites proposed for or listed on the
NPL as well as SA, and non-NPL sites where a non-time-critical removal action had been
completed. This guidance offered two measures for reporting on the revitalization of these sites:
• Number of acres of land at Superfund sites that are ready for reuse; and
• Number of Superfund sites with acres ready for reuse.
For each site that is considered to be ready for reuse, EPA
estimated the total land area, reported in acres, that either was
already in use or that was considered to be ready for reuse. In the
2004 Guidance, a Superfund site was considered ready for reuse if
any of the following applied:
• The site or a portion of a site was already being used;
• Superfund response actions were unnecessary for the site or
portion of the site as a result of an investigation of the property,
and the Agency was not aware of other EPA, State, Tribal, or
local government environmental or land use restrictions;
• Cleanup goals established for the site or portion of the site have
been attained (i.e., engineering controls and ICs for the land
component have been implemented and are operating as
intended).
At a Glance -
2004 Acres and Sites RfR:
• Two performance
measures: sites and
acres ready for reuse
• Tracked acres ready
for residential versus
non-residential use
• Broad universe
• ICs should be
implemented
• For land only
• No targets established
• Superceded by this
guidance
Included in these performance measures were the acres of land in
which the remedial investigation led to the conclusion that a portion of the land was not
contaminated or where no further response actions were planned.
These measures were documented with a Property Reuse Evaluation (PRE), usually
conducted in conjunction with the creation of another site document (e.g. ROD), Preliminary
Close Out Report, or Notice of Intent to Delete). In this PRE, site personnel had to determine
whether any sites that had land ready for reuse were ready for residential or non-residential reuse
and also the acres of land that were ready for reuse in each category.
Previous Measure: Sitewide Ready-far-Reuse (now Sitewide RAU)
The Sitewide RfR measure was presented in the 2006 Sitewide RfR Guidance. This
measure counts the number of final and deleted construction complete NPL sites where, for the
entire site:
• All cleanup goals in the ROD or other remedy decision document(s) have been achieved
for media that may affect current and reasonably anticipated future land uses of the site,
so that there are no unacceptable risks; and
35
-------
• All institutional or other controls required in the ROD
or other remedy decision document(s) have been put
in place.
These risks include human receptors and may include
ecological receptors, if any ecological cleanup goals have
been specified in remedy decision documents.
To be eligible for the Sitewide RfR measure, the site
must meet one of the two most stringent classifications for
the current Human Exposure Under Control Environmental
Indicator: "Current Human Exposure Controlled and
Protective Remedy in Place" or "Long-Term Human Health
Protection (LTHHP) Achieved."
At a Glance - Sitewide RfR:
• Now renamed Sitewide
RAU
• One performance measure
for sites only
• NPL sites only
• ICs must be implemented
• Must meet specific
cleanup goals and
stringent El status
• For all media affecting
current and future use
• Annual targets set
This measure differed from the 2004 RfR measures in a variety of ways. The Sitewide
RfR measure applied only to final and deleted construction complete NPL sites (including
Federal facilities), counted sites instead of acres, required ICs to be in place, did not require the
distinction between residential and non-residential reuse, required that the site meet specific
environmental indicator classifications, and applied to all types of media rather than only
land/soils. This is also the only measure among all the measures discussed in this guidance for
which the Agency has set targets. Supporting documentation for this measure was recorded in a
Sitewide RfR PRE checklist, which will be replaced by the new PRP and RAU Checklist.
EPA will continue to track the Sitewide RfR measure, but will rename it the Sitewide
RAU measure to ensure its consistency with the new cross-program measures. EPA will also use
the PFP and RAU Checklist to document all Superfund revitalization performance measures,
including the Sitewide RAU. Other than renaming this measure and making associated changes
to the checklist, nothing will change in the 2006 Guidance for Documenting and Reporting the
Sitewide Ready-for-Reuse Performance Measure. The Sitewide RAU measure will be a subset
of the new RAU measure. All sites counted toward the Sitewide RAU measure will also count
toward the RAU measure. RAU will, however, be more comprehensive as it will also include
acres from OUs in addition to entire sites and will also apply to a broader universe of sites (i.e.,
SA, NTCRA, non-NPL Federal facilities, FUDS, etc).
Table 1 below, copied from page 10 of this guidance, shows the general relationship of
the previous performance measures to the measures established by the CPRM guidance and
implemented through this guidance.
36
-------
Table 1: Previous and New Land Revitalization Performance Measures
Universe
Unit(s) of
Measure
Definition
2004: Ready for
Reuse
Private and non-
Federal sites proposed
for or listed on the
NPL; SA sites; and
NTCRA sites where
the removal was
completed
Sites and portions of
sites, as measured by
acres
Sites or acres
considered ready for
reuse if any of the
following apply:
- The site or a portion
of a site already in
use;
- Superfund response
actions were
unnecessary for the
site or portion of
the site as a result
of an investigation
of the property, and
the Agency was not
aware of other
EPA, State, Tribal,
or local government
environmental or
land use
restrictions;
- Cleanup goals
established for the
site or portion of
the site have been
attained
2006: Sitewide
Ready-for-Reuse
(now RAU)
Final or deleted
construction
complete NPL sites
Sites
The number of final
and deleted
construction
complete NPL sites
where, for the entire
site:
- All cleanup goals
in the ROD or
other remedy
decision
document(s) have
been achieved for
media that may
affect current and
reasonably
anticipated future
land uses of the
site, so that there
are no
unacceptable
risks; and
- All institutional or
other controls
required in the
ROD or other
remedy decision
document(s) have
been put in place39
2007: CPRM
PFP
Proposed, final, and
deleted NPL sites,
(including Federal
facilities); SA sites;
NTCRA sites; and
certain non-NPL
Federal facilities and
FUDS
Acres
Superfund site acreage
determined by OU or
property transfer parcel
At a minimum, all
identified human
exposure pathways
from contamination at
the site or individual
OUs are under control
or possible exposures
are below health-based
levels for current land
and/or ground water use
conditions
RAU
Proposed, final, and
deleted NPL sites,
(including Federal
facilities); SA sites;
NTCRA sites; and
certain non-NPL
Federal facilities and
FUDS
Acres
Superfund site acreage
determined by OU or
property transfer parcel
The RAU performance
measure captures the
acreage within sites or
OUs that are PFP and
meet the following two
additional criteria:
- All cleanup goals
have been achieved
for media that may
affect current and
reasonably
anticipated future
land uses (or
decision documents
confirm
uncontaminated
acres) for the site or
OU such that there is
no unacceptable
risk, and
- All institutional or
other controls
identified as part of
the response action
to help ensure long-
term protection have
been put in place40
' Definition taken from the 2006 Sitewide Ready-for-Reuse Guidance.
' Definition taken from pages 8-9 of this guidance.
37
-------
Appendix C: Environmental Indicators Guidance
5.0 LONG-TERM HUMAN HEALTH PROTECTION El
The LTHHP El is designed to document the progress achieved towards providing long-term
human health protection by measuring the incremental progress achieved in controlling
unacceptable human exposures at a site.
"Unacceptable human exposures" for purposes of this policy are associated with complete
human exposure pathways that present an "unacceptable risk"-pathways by which an individual
could reasonably be expected to be exposed to a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant
at levels that could result in injury, disease, or death. Unacceptable human exposures can be
controlled by:
• Reducing the level of contamination associated with complete exposure pathways to the point
where the exposure is no longer "unacceptable;" and
• Controlling or eliminating contaminant migration to human receptors, preventing human
receptors from contacting contaminants in-place, or controlling human receptor activity patterns
(e.g., by reducing the potential frequency or duration of exposure).
The site progress categories that describe the level of incremental human heath protection
achieved at a site include:
• Insufficient data to determine human exposure control status;
• Current human exposures not controlled;
• Current human exposures not controlled but some human exposure control achieved;
• Current human exposures controlled;
• Current human exposures controlled and protective remedy in place; and
• Long-term human health protection achieved.
The first four categories describe the status of human exposure control and should provide a
measure of EPA's progress in controlling human exposure under current land and ground water
use conditions. Categories five and six may apply to sites where current human exposures are
under control and track the progress in achieving more permanent, long-term control and
protection at these sites.
Under category six, long-term human health protection generally is achieved when all current
and reasonably anticipated future human exposures have been addressed using treatment
technologies, engineering controls, and/or institutional controls, and human exposure-related
cleanup goals have been met for the entire site. The title of this last category recognizes that once
all human exposure-related cleanup goals have been met, the Agency generally has
accomplished more than "human exposure control." Superfund remedies that do not incorporate
engineering or institutional controls typically "eliminate," rather than "control," human
exposures. The term "long-term human health protection" generally describes the condition
achieved when all human exposure-related cleanup goals have been met and encompasses the
broad range of Superfund remedies.
Table 5-1 below provides a recommended description of each progress category and the site
types to which each category may apply. This indicator should be used to track progress at Final
38
-------
and Deleted NPL sites, and data can first be reported when the site is proposed to be listed on the
NPL.
Table 5-1 - Description of Progress Categories Long-Term Human Health Protection
Superfund El Progress Category Description Applicable Site Types
Table 5-1 - Description of Progress Categories Long-Term Human Health
Protection Superfund El
Progress Category
Insufficient data to
determine human exposure
control status
Current human exposures
not controlled
Current human exposures
not controlled but some
human exposure control
achieved
Progress Category
Current human exposures
controlled
Description
Sites usually are assigned to this
category when studies have not been
initiated or studies have been initiated
but have not yet generated the
information necessary to make an
evaluation for this indicator - i.e., do not
provide enough information to
determine whether at least some human
exposure control has been achieved.
Sites usually are assigned to this
category when studies have indicated
that there are complete human exposure
pathways that present an unacceptable
risk, and actions have yet to be taken
since EPA first exercised authority at
the site to control at least some
unacceptable human exposures.
Sites usually are assigned to this
category when some action has been
taken at the site to control at least some
unacceptable human exposures (current
conditions) that existed at the time that
EPA first exercised removal or remedial
authority at the site, but the action or
actions have not been enough to achieve
site-wide human exposure control under
current conditions.
Description
Sites usually are assigned to this
category when human exposures are
under control for current conditions, but
where additional physical construction
is required, system shake-down is
required, and/or ICs need to be put in
place and/or modified to address long-
Applicable Site Types
This category would apply
primarily to sites that are in the
initial phases of remedial
investigation.
This category would apply
primarily to pre-ROD sites where
there are no immediate threats
requiring a removal action.
Sites in this category could
include sites at which removal or
remedial actions have been taken
that eliminate one or more but not
all exposure pathways. This
could also include sites at which
actions have reduced
contamination in one or more but
not all media such that some but
not all exposures have been
reduced to within acceptable
limits under current conditions.
This could also include sites with
multiple OUs where human
exposure control has been
achieved at one but not all OUs.
Applicable Site Types
Sites in this category could
include those sites where human
exposures are under control for
current conditions but the sites
have yet to attain Construction
Completionstatus. It could also
include Construction Completion
39
-------
term human health exposures.
sites where cleanup levels have
yet to be met, treatment systems
are undergoing shake-down to
demonstrate that they are
operating as intended.
Current human exposures
controlled and protective
remedy in place
Sites usually are assigned to this
category when human exposures are
under control for current conditions, all
physical construction is complete,
systems are operating as intended, and
ICs are in place and effective, but one
or more of the human exposure-related
cleanup goals for the site have yet to be
met.
This could include Construction
Completionsites where long-term
remedial actions (LTRAs) or
O&M activities (only) are
underway to achieve cleanup
levels and all ICs required to
prevent unacceptable human
exposures are in place. In
addition to LTRAs, this could
include Construction Completion
sites requiring O&M after the
LTRA period, involving a ground
water or surface water remedy
with the primary purpose to
provide drinking water supply, or
involving in-situ SVE or
bioremediation where cleanup
levels have yet to be met.
Long-term human health
protection achieved
Sites usually are assigned to this
category when all human exposure-
related cleanup goals defined for the
site (including implementation of
effective engineering and institutional
controls) have been met.
This could include Construction
Completionsites that do not
involve long-term ground water
or surface water restoration
remedies, sites that have attained
Site Completionstedus, and
Deleted NPL sites, including
ground water and surface water
restoration remedies that have
achieved cleanup levels.
5.1 EVALUATING THE LONG-TERM HUMAN HEALTH PROTECTION
The following guidelines should be observed when making the LTHHP evaluation:
• The evaluation should be made on a site-wide basis looking at all actions that have been
completed and all media across the entire site.
• The evaluation should be made with "reasonable certainty" (i.e., based on the most current data
for the site). Documents such as risk assessments, RODs, Action Memoranda, POLREPS, RA
Reports, Close-out Reports, and Five-year Reviews are good sources of data and often provide
the information necessary for making an evaluation with reasonable certainty. The evaluation
can be revised as new information becomes available.
• The evaluation is intended to be a realistic, risk-based evaluation based on actual and
reasonably anticipated land and ground water use. The exposure scenarios considered in this
evaluation should be consistent with risk-based decisions for the site.
40
-------
Use the recommended step-by-step process and worksheet on the following pages to make an
evaluation of the appropriate LTHHP site progress category. The worksheet was developed in
cooperation with representatives from all ten Regions, and was designed to assist project
managers in making the most accurate LTHHP evaluation possible.
Figure 5-1 - Flowchart for Determining LTHHP Classification
Recommended steps for completing the worksheet and selecting/entering responses into
WasteLAN are as follows.
(Step 1) Is enough information available to evaluate the status of human exposure control?
- If no, site should be assigned category of "Insufficient data to determine
human exposure control status."
- If yes, proceed to Step 2.
Tips for completing rationale:
The purpose of this question generally is to identify those sites for which information is
insufficient to make a evaluation for this indicator. If unable to answer enough questions
to make a evaluation other than "insufficient information," this question would be
answered "no."
Note that if you can document that some actions have been taken since EPA first
exercised removal or remedial authority at the site that have controlled a significant level
of previously unacceptable human exposure, regardless of whether you have evaluated all
exposure pathways, you may be able to document "some exposure control achieved" (see
Step 5). If this is the case answer "yes" for this question.
Review and consider information that is pertinent to the evaluation of human exposure.
Consider all available sources, even if you decide to base the indicator evaluation on one
source or a subset of sources.
(Step 2) Have all human exposure-related cleanup goals been met for the entire site?
- If no, proceed to Step 3.
- If yes, site should be assigned a category of "Long-term human health protection achieved."
Tips for completing rationale:
- The purpose of this question is to identify those sites where all human exposure-related
cleanup goals at all operable units (OUs) for the site have been accomplished and long-
term human health protection has been achieved. This would include attainment of
contaminant-specific cleanup levels and implementation of engineering and institutional
controls that are functioning as intended.
- Regions should review the ROD(s) to determine the cleanup goals established for a site.
Cleanup goals are designed to provide a general description of what the cleanup will
accomplish, form the basis for design of remedies that will be protective of human health
and the environment, and can include (but are not limited to) contaminant-specific
numeric cleanup levels.
41
-------
- Long-term human health protection can be achieved even if cleanup goals that are not
related to human exposure (i.e., cleanup goals focused solely on ecological risks) have
yet to be achieved. - Refer to Close-Out Report, if available, for documentation of
whether the remedial action (RA) achieved the cleanup goals to reduce human health
risks from the site.
(Step 3) Are there complete human exposure pathways between contaminated ground water,
soil, surface water, sediment, or air media and human receptors such that exposures can be
reasonably expected under current conditions?
- If no, proceed ahead to Step 6.
- If yes, proceed to Step 4.
Tips for completing rationale:
The purpose of this question generally is to identify whether there are any complete
human exposure pathways between human receptors and "contaminated" media under
current land and ground water use conditions.
- Media should be considered "contaminated" for this El if they are known or reasonably
suspected to be contaminated above appropriately protective human health risk-based
levels from known contaminants. Appropriate human health risk-based levels would
include ARARs and/or risk-based levels documented in the ROD.
- All contaminants of potential concern present at the site above human health risk-based
screening levels should be considered for sites without a ROD. For sites with a ROD,
Regions should consider contaminants of concern identified in the risk assessment.
- Regions should use the table below and modify as needed to identify potential human
exposure pathways. Regions should consider indirect and direct exposure pathways,
including indoor air contaminated via vapor intrusion and exposure to contaminated food
(e.g., fish, shellfish, dairy, edible plants).
- Regions should consider the exposure scenarios being evaluated for risk management
decisions for the site. Note that some exposure pathways identified as complete in the
baseline risk assessment may be identified as incomplete in this El evaluation if the
pathway was eliminated under current conditions using institutional or engineering
controls. - Regions should consider not only the presence of controls intended to
eliminate exposure potential but also their effectiveness. In cases where there is evidence
that a control has been violated, e.g., if a fence has been cut, make the determination on a
site specific basis. Consider the toxicity of the contamination, frequency, and duration of
exposure to decide whether exposure is likely to occur at unacceptable levels. Anecdotal
evidence such as a cut fence would not result in a determination of not under control
unless conditions are such that exposure at unacceptable levels is reasonably expected to
occur.
- The ground water exposure pathway generally is considered complete if an uncontained
contaminated ground water plume is migrating toward an existing drinking water supply
and contaminant concentrations are expected to reach unacceptable levels within a year in
the absence of response actions.
- If a potential pathway is not complete, Regions should not consider the pathway in Step
4.
42
-------
Sample Exposure Pathway Evaluation Table
Putettial Human R
imlnated MMta Residents 'A'o-xers
-d v^sief
Note: In order to focus the evaluation on the most probable combinations, some potential "Contaminated" Media -
Human Receptor combinations (pathways) do not have spaces for check marks. While these combinations are not
likely in most situations, they may be appropriate in some settings and should be added as necessary.
(Step 4) Are the potential human exposures associated with complete pathways within
acceptable limits under current conditions?
- If no, proceed to Step 5.
- If yes, proceed ahead to Step 6.
Tips for completing rationale:
- The purpose of this question generally is to identify whether the complete exposure
pathways identified in Step 3 could result in unacceptable human exposures under current
conditions.
- For purposes of this policy, the definition of "acceptable limits," risk, exposure
assumptions, etc., should be the same as those being used to make risk management
decisions for the site. Examples of "acceptable limits" include the cancer risk range and
- A positive evaluation could be made for this step if the frequency and/or duration of
exposure associated with complete pathways is such that the risk is acceptable (e.g., for a
utility worker) and the cleanup goals that have yet to be met (Step 2) address reasonably
anticipated future exposures.
- Information regarding current exposures should be derived from risk assessments and/or
RODs. Note that if the exposures driving the remedy are based on future land or ground
water use only, and future use conditions are different than current, it may be necessary
to review the risk assessment (not just the ROD) to obtain data on current risks.
(Step 5) Have any actions been taken since EPA first exercised removal or remedial authority at
the site that have significantly reduced the level of previously unacceptable human exposure
under current conditions?
- If no, site should be assigned a category of "Current human exposures not controlled."
43
-------
- If yes, site should be assigned a category of "Current human exposures not controlled but some
exposure control achieved."
Tips for completing rationale:
- The purpose of this question generally is to identify those sites with currently
unacceptable human exposures but where some action has been taken to significantly
reduce these exposures.
- The threshold for a "yes" response generally should be that actions have: 1) eliminated at
least one human exposure pathway (current conditions) that presented unacceptable risk;
2) reduced contamination in one or more media such that the risk associated with at least
one exposure scenario (current conditions) has been reduced from unacceptable to
acceptable levels; or 3) achieved human exposure control (current conditions) in at least
one of multiple OUs.
The starting point for considering "actions" that have been taken to control current
human exposures should be the date when EPA first exercised removal or remedial
authority at the site. When answering this question, Regions should consider actions
taken by EPA or its contractors, other Federal agencies, state agencies, or PRPs after this
date.
(Step 6) Is the site Construction Complete, is the remedy operating as intended, and are
engineering and institutional controls, if required, in place and effective?
- If no, site should be assigned a category of "Current human exposures controlled."
- If yes, site should be assigned a category of "Current human exposures controlled and
protective remedy in place."
Tips for completing rationale:
The purpose of this question generally is to further categorize sites where current human
exposures are under control but long-term human health protection has yet to be attained.
- This step should be used to distinguish between sites where current human exposures are
controlled and a "protective remedy" is or is not in place. For the purposes of this El,
sites that are Construction Complete should also be "operating as intended" (an O&F
determination pursuant to the NCP be made for ground water or surface water restoration
remedies) and ICs, where required, should be in place in order to answer "yes" to this
question.
Sites with a "protective remedy in place" typically would include Construction
Completion sites where long-term remedial actions (LTRAs) or O&M activities are
underway to achieve cleanup levels and ICs to prevent unacceptable human exposures are
in place. In addition to LTRAs, this could include Construction Completion sites
requiring O&M after the LTRA period, involving a ground water or surface water
remedy with the primary purpose to provide drinking water supply, or involving in-situ
SVE or bioremediation where cleanup levels have yet to be met.
5.2 INFORMATION UPDATE AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
Enter LTHHP El data in WasteLAN after a site is first listed as Final on the NPL (data can first
be entered when the site is Proposed), and update the LTHHP El as soon as a change in the
evaluation is warranted. At a minimum, data updates should be done by the 5th working day in
44
-------
October of each year. To implement the LTHHP indicator, sites for which an HE El evaluation
has been documented were placed in the following LTHHP El categories, pending Regional
updates:
Table 5-2
Sample Initial Data Migration from HE El to LTHHP El
Human Exposure Under Control Status
Insufficient data
Human exposure not under control ("NO")
Human exposure under control ("YES")
Initial LTHHP Categorization
Insufficient data to determine human exposure
control status
Current human exposures not controlled
Current human exposures controlled
Some sites for which a "NO" evaluation has been made for the HE El may meet the criteria for
the LTHHP category "current human exposures not controlled but some human exposure control
achieved." Also, some sites for which a "YES"evaluation has been made for the HE El may meet
the criteria for "current human exposures controlled and protective remedy in place" or "long-
term human health protection achieved." Regions are encouraged to update the default HE-to-
LTHHP data migration categories.
Update LTHHP evaluations according to the following guidelines:
Changes in El Status
Update WasteLAN within 30 days of knowing that the LTHHP status has changed.
No Change in El Status
If there is no change in the status of the LTHHP, Regions should update the "Last
Review Date" in WasteLAN on the LTHHP tab in the Environmental Indicators module.
New Listings on the NPL
For sites that are placed on the NPL update WasteLAN within one year of NPL site listing as
Final.
Data entry for WasteLAN is discussed in more detail in Appendix B.
5.3 FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS - LONG-TERM HUMAN HEALTH PROTECTION
ACHIEVED
Step 1: Is enough information available to evaluate the status of human exposure control using this
indicator?
Question
1-1
1-2
What are the best sources of information
for me to consider for this El evaluation?
There may be several different sources of
information (e.g., State, EPA, PRP). Do I
Answer
Documents such as RI/FS reports, RODs, Action
Memoranda, POLREPS, RA Reports, Close Out
Reports, Five-Year Reviews, etc. are good sources
of information.
You should be familiar with that information that is:
1) pertinent to evaluation of human exposure; and 2)
45
-------
1-3
1-4
1-5
need to be familiar with all of this
information to answer this question?
What if a PRP has drawn different
conclusions than EPA regarding the status
of human exposures associated with the
site? Do I need to consider the PRP's
data?
What if I am aware of information that
another Agency or a PRP has collected
but cannot obtain a copy of it?
We have yet to start the RI, and there is
little information available regarding
exposure pathways. How should I answer
this question?
available to you. If the information from other
sources is both pertinent and available to you,
consider the contents of this information when
making this evaluation.
Yes. However, you can decide what weight to place
on the PRP's data when determining whether it will
be useful for identifying contaminated media and
evaluating human exposures for this EL
If the information is not available for your review,
you should not consider this information in
evaluating the sufficiency of available information
to respond to this EL
If data are unavailable or insufficient to make the
LTHHP El evaluation, answer "no" and select
"Insufficient data to determine human exposure
control status" in WasteLAN.
Step 2: Have all human exposure-related cleanup goals been met for the entire site
Question
Answer
2-1
Where can I find the information to
answer this question?
RODs generally outline the cleanup goals
established for a site. Documents such as
POLREPS, RA Reports, Close Out Reports, Five-
Year Reviews, etc., are good sources of information
to determine whether cleanup goals have been met
at a site.
2-2
Cleanup goals have been met for the
contaminated medium of primary concern
(e.g., ground water). Can I answer "yes"
to this question (i.e., cleanup goals have
been met)?
If this is the only medium to be addressed for the
site, generally answer "yes." This El reflects a site-
wide evaluation. If cleanup goals have been or will
be established for other media, generally answer
"no."
2-3
Activities to date have focused on the
most significant OU and have achieved
the cleanup goals established for this OU.
There is a possibility that further actions
will be required to address human health
risks associated with another OU. How
should I consider the possibility of future
actions when answering this question?
In the absence of remedy evaluation and selection
for all possible OUs, you should use your best
judgment. If there is a reasonable possibility that
another ROD addressing human health risks will be
developed for the site, you should answer "no" and
proceed through the remaining steps to determine
whether some or all current human exposures are
under control for the site.
2-4
The only cleanup goals that have yet to be
met for the site address ecological risks.
How should I answer his question?
If a site is Construction Complete, can I
assume that the answer to this question is
If all human exposure-related cleanup goals have
been met, answer "yes." This El is designed to
measure progress in attaining long-term human
health protection through human exposure control.
It does not measure progress in addressing
ecological risks.
2-5
No. Construction Completionstatus can be
achieved at some sites where all cleanup goals have
46
-------
"yes" (and long-term human health
protection has been achieved)?
yet to be met. This may include sites where long-
term ground water or surface water restoration
remedies are in place and operating, but cleanup
levels have yet to be achieved.
2-6
If a site has achieved the Site Completion
milestone, can I assume that the answer to
this question is "yes" (and long-term
human health protection has been
achieved)?
Yes. Site Completionstatus generally signifies that
all cleanup goals specified in all RODs have been
met, the site is protective of human health (and the
environment), and the only remaining activities, if
any, consist of O&M by the state, Federal facility,
or responsible parties.
Step 3: Are there complete human exposure pathways between contaminated ground water, soil, surface
water, sediment, or air media and human receptors such that exposures can be reasonably expected under
current conditions?
Question
Answer
3-1
Where can I find the information to
answer this question?
Documents such as RI/FS reports, RODs, Action
Memoranda, POLREPS, Close Out Reports, Five-
Year Reviews, etc., are good sources of
information.
3-2
Do I need to consider all media at the site
when answering this question?
Generally you should consider those media that are
known or reasonably suspected to be contaminated
above appropriately protective risk-based levels.
Appropriate human health risk-based levels include
ARARs and/or risk-based levels documented in the
ROD. Generally you should include indoor air
contaminated via vapor intrusion and food chain
organisms, such as fish, shellfish, and other edible
plants and animals, as possible contaminated
"media" when making this evaluation.
3-3
What contaminants should I consider
when identifying whether a medium is
"contaminated?"
For pre-ROD sites, Generally you should consider
all contaminants of potential concern present at the
site above risk-based screening levels. For sites with
a ROD, generally you should consider the
contaminants of concern identified in the Risk
Assessment.
Does a single "hit" of contamination
mean that I should consider a medium
"contaminated," or should I use the
average, Upper Confidence Limit (UCL),
or something else to identify
"contaminated" media for this question?
Generally you should use the approach being used
for risk-based decisions at the site. If you are in the
early stages of the investigation, with limited data, a
single hit may be enough to consider a medium
"contaminated" if multiple lines of evidence
corroborate this conclusion. If you are at a later
stage and the UCL is being used as the exposure
point concentration, generally you should use this to
identify "contaminated" media.
3-5
How do I answer this question if the only
complete exposure pathways exist for
media in which none of the contaminants
Generally you should answer "no." Only those
media identified as "contaminated" above
appropriately protective risk-based levels should be
47
-------
exist above appropriately protective risk-
based levels?
considered in this step.
Step 3: Are there complete human exposure pathways between contaminated ground water, soil, surface
water, sediment, or air media and human receptors such that exposures can be reasonably expected under
current conditions?
3-6
Actions have been taken to eliminate
exposure to the contaminated medium of
primary concern (e.g., ground water)
based on current conditions. Should I
answer "no" to this question (i.e., human
exposures are not reasonably expected
under current conditions)?
If this is the only medium in which contaminants
exist above appropriately protective risk-based
levels, generally you should answer "no." If
complete exposure pathways exist for other media
that are contaminated above risk-based levels,
generally you should answer "yes." This El reflects
a site-wide evaluation.
3-7
Activities to date have focused on the
most significantly contaminated medium
(e.g., soil) and have eliminated all
previously unacceptable human exposures
associated with this medium based on
current conditions. There is a possibility
that another contaminated medium (e.g.,
sediment) poses a risk. Should I include
this in the evaluation?
In the absence of a complete exposure assessment,
you should use your best judgment. If the
conceptual site model indicates that there is a
reasonable expectation of exposure to a medium for
which an exposure assessment has yet to be
completed (e.g., sediment), you should answer
"yes" and proceed through subsequent steps.
Enough progress most likely has been made to
categorize the site as at least "current human
exposures not controlled but some exposure control
achieved."
3-8
Should I consider the indoor air
inhalation pathway (associated with vapor
intrusion) and food chain exposure
pathway when answering this question?
Generally you should consider all exposure
pathways of concern identified in the baseline risk
assessment. If these pathways are pathways of
concern, they should be considered in your answer.
If an exposure assessment has yet to be completed,
you should use your best judgment and make your
evaluation with reasonable certainty.
3-9
If the only complete exposure pathway
for the entire site (all media) is for the
"trespasser" scenario, should I still
answer "yes" to this question?
If exposure to a medium (i.e., medium contaminated
above risk-based levels) can be reasonably expected
under any current exposure scenario, you should
answer "yes." Remember, however, that anecdotal
evidence of trespassing does not necessarily result
in a determination of "not under control."
Consider the frequency and/or duration of likely
exposure to decide whether it can reasonably be
expected that people will be exposed to
contamination (above risk-based levels) that would
result in unacceptable exposures.
3-10
At present, no drinking water wells have
been impacted by contaminated ground
water, but the wells could be impacted in
the near future. Should we answer "no"
now and change our response to "yes" if
If the plume is not contained and is migrating such
that it is likely to reach drinking water wells within
a year unless actions are taken, you should answer
"yes." Otherwise, you should answer "no," and
update the El if and when this condition is met.
48
-------
and when the plume reaches the wells?
Step 3: Are there complete human exposure pathways between contaminated ground water, soil, surface
water, sediment, or air media and human receptors such that exposures can be reasonably expected under
current conditions?
3-11
The exposure scenarios driving the
remedy, as presented in the ROD, are
based on future land or ground water use
conditions that are different than current
use conditions. Should I base the
response to this step on current use
scenarios that are not driving the remedy?
Generally, yes. Use the exposure scenarios that
consider current use, as developed in the baseline
risk assessment, to make this evaluation.
3-12
A fishing advisory is in place to eliminate
exposure to contaminated fish. Should I
answer "no" to this question if this was
the only remaining complete pathway
prior to this action?
You should consider not only the presence of
controls intended to eliminate exposure potential,
but also their effectiveness. If evidence suggests
that people are catching and eating fish despite the
advisory, consider the likely frequency and duration
of exposure to make a judgment as to whether it
could reasonably be expected that people are
exposed to contamination at unacceptable levels.
3-13
What should I do if, after completing the
LTHHP El for a site, new complete
exposure pathways are identified or
complete exposure pathways are
eliminated due to response actions or a
better understanding of the site?
If exposure pathway information changes based on
new data, you should consider whether the change
would effect the LTHHP El evaluation for the site.
If so, you should update the El evaluation to reflect
the new information.
Step 4: Are the potential human exposures associated with complete pathways within acceptable limits
under current conditions?
Question
Answer
4-1
Where can I find the information to
answer this question?
Documents such as RI/FS reports, RODs, Action
Memoranda, POLREPS, Close Out Reports, Five-
Year Reviews, etc., are good sources of
information.
4-2
How could risks be within acceptable
limits if cleanup goals have yet to be met
and there are complete exposure
pathways between contaminated media
and human receptors (i.e., how could the
answer to this question be "yes" if the
answers to Steps 2 and Step 3 were "no"
and "yes," respectively?)
In most cases, the response to this Step will be "no."
However, there could be situations where cleanup
goals have yet to be met and there are complete
pathways, but the frequency or duration associated
with those pathways are such that the exposures are
not unacceptable. An example could be a site where
subsurface soil is contaminated above ARARs and
there is potential exposure to a utility worker under
current conditions, but likely exposures are
infrequent enough that the potential exposure
(current conditions) is acceptable for the specific
contaminants of concern.
4-3
Actions have been taken to reduce
Generally you should answer "yes" if this was the
49
-------
potential exposures to the contaminated
medium of primary concern (e.g., ground
water) to within acceptable limits under
current conditions. Should I answer "yes"
to this question (i.e., potential
exposures are within acceptable limits)?
only medium for which exposures above acceptable
limits exist. The indicator appears to reflect a site-
wide evaluation, so exposures via all media should
be within acceptable limits to answer "yes."
4-4 Activities to date have focused on the
most significantly contaminated medium
(e.g., soil) and have reduced previously
unacceptable potential exposures
associated with this medium to within
acceptable limits based on current
conditions. There is a possibility that
another contaminated medium (e.g.,
sediment) poses a risk. Should I include
this in the evaluation?
In the absence of a completed risk assessment, you
should use your best judgment. If the conceptual
site model indicates that potential exposures to a
contaminated medium for which risk has yet to be
characterized (sediment) could represent an
unacceptable risk, you should answer "yes" and
proceed through subsequent steps. Enough progress
likely has been made to categorize the site as at least
"current human exposures not controlled but some
exposure control achieved."
4-5 We have yet to complete a baseline risk
assessment for the site; however, some
contaminant concentrations exceed
appropriately protective risk-based levels
in media for which complete pathways
are reasonably expected under current
conditions. Can I answer this question
without a risk assessment?
In the absence of a completed risk assessment, base
your evaluation on the best available information.
If the medium is contaminated above the risk-based
levels that have been identified at this stage of the
assessment and complete exposure pathways are
reasonably expected, you could answer "yes" or
return to Step 1 and answer "no," based on your
knowledge of the site and best judgment.
4-6 What risk "limits" should be used to
make this evaluation? Should we use 10-e
or 10-4excess lifetime cancer risk?
Base your evaluation on the risk limits being used
for risk-based decisions at the site. For sites with a
ROD, generally you should use the risk value used
to establish cleanup levels. If a ROD has not been
signed, generally you should use the protocol
typically applied in the Region for pre-ROD sites
(e.g., use state ARARs, NCP risk range, etc.). If the
appropriate risk limit is uncertain, generally you
should return to Step 1 and answer "no."
4-7 How do I answer this question if the risks
from exposure to some contaminants are
above acceptable limits and others are
within acceptable limits?
If the potential exposures to any contaminant
represent an unacceptable risk, generally you should
answer "no" to this question.
4-8 The potential exposures to individual
contaminants are within acceptable limits
under current conditions; however,
cumulative risks under current conditions
are above acceptable limits. Should I use
single contaminant or cumulative risk as
the basis for this evaluation?
Generally you should base your evaluation on the
approach being used for risk-based decisions at the
site. For example, if remedial actions to address
current exposures are being driven by an assessment
of cumulative risk, generally you should base your
evaluation on the cumulative effects of exposure to
multiple stressors.
4-9 The risks resulting from potential
exposures vary depending on the
exposure assumptions and the approach
used to estimate the exposure point
Generally you should base your evaluation on the
approach being used for risk-based decisions at the
site. Generally you should use the same exposure
assumptions and approach to determining exposure
50
-------
concentrations. What approach should be
used to assess the risk from potential
exposures to make this El evaluation?
point concentrations as are used in the risk
assessment for the site - generally you should not
create any new information in order to answer this
question. Note that the exposure scenarios
considered in this step may be different than those
considered in the baseline risk assessment, for
example, if a pathway was eliminated from further
consideration under this El (Step 3) due to the
presence of effective ICs (which are not considered
in the baseline risk assessment).
4-10
If the only unacceptable potential
exposures for the entire site (all media)
are associated with the "trespasser"
scenario, should I still answer "no" to this
question?
If potential exposures are not within acceptable
limits for any scenario, based on current conditions,
generally you should answer "no."
4-11
At present, contamination in drinking
water wells does not present an
unacceptable risk, but contaminant
concentrations could be rising. Should I
answer "yes" now and change the
response to "no" if and when the
contaminant concentrations reach a level
such that exposure would represent an
unacceptable risk?
If the plume is not contained and is migrating such
that contaminant concentrations are expected to
reach unacceptable levels within a year unless
actions are taken, generally you should answer
"no." Otherwise, generally you should answer
"yes," and update the El if and when this condition
is met.
4-12
The exposure scenarios driving the
remedy, as presented in the ROD, are
based on future land or ground water use
conditions that are different than current
use conditions. Should I base the
response to this step on current use
scenarios that are not driving the remedy?
Generally, yes. Generally you should use the
exposure scenarios that consider current use, as
developed in the baseline risk assessment, to make
this evaluation.
4-13
What should I do if, after completing the
LTHHP El for a site, the degree of risk
from potential exposures based on current
conditions is reevaluated as we gain a
better understanding of the site?
If the degree of risk is reevaluated based on new
data, generally you should consider whether the
change would effect the LTHHP El evaluation for
the site. If so, generally you should update the El
evaluation to reflect the new information.
Step 5: Have any actions been taken since EPA first exercised removal or remedial authority at the site that
have significantly reduced the level of previously unacceptable human exposure under current conditions?
Question
5-1
5-2
Where can I find the information to
answer this question?
After initial site discovery, the state
completed actions to stabilize hot spots
prior to requesting EPA involvement with
Answer
Documents such as RI/FS reports, RODs, Action
Memoranda, POLREPS, RA Reports, Close Out
Reports, Five-Year Reviews, etc., are good sources
of information.
Generally, no. Typically, the starting point for
considering "actions" that have been taken to
control current human exposures is the date when
51
-------
the site. The state actions resulted in
significant human exposure control. Can
we consider these actions when
answering this question?
EPA first exercised removal or remedial authority at
the site. Because the state actions occurred prior to
this date, they generally should not be considered
when answering this question.
5-3
Cleanup at an NPL site is being
conducted by DoD and its contractors.
Can these actions taken by others, not
EPA, be considered when answering this
question?
Generally, yes. As long as they were taken after
EPA first exercised authority at the site, cleanup
actions can be considered when answering this
question, regardless of whether the actions were
taken by EPA or others.
5-4
A removal action has reduced the cancer
risk associated with the direct contact
scenario by an order of magnitude.
Direct contact risks, however, remain
above the risk range (i.e., greater than 10-
4) and are considered "unacceptable."
Would this be considered an action that
has controlled a significant level of
unacceptable human exposure?
Generally, no. One of the thresholds for answering
"yes" to this question may be that the action has
reduced the risk associated with at least one
exposure scenario (current conditions) from
unacceptable to acceptable levels. Generally, the
risks associated with this exposure scenario remain
above acceptable levels.
5-5
We have achieved RA Completionfor one
of multiple OUs at the site. Actions are
underway to address additional OUs.
Have we achieved "some" exposure
control?
As long as the OU involved unacceptable human
exposures, you may be able to answer "yes" to this
question in the evaluation of whether "current
human exposures not controlled but some exposure
control achieved." One of the thresholds for
answering "yes" to this question may be that actions
have achieved human exposure control (current
conditions) in at least one of multiple OUs.
5-6
EPA has provided public water to all
homes in the area of a contaminated
aquifer that was previously used as water
supply for private wells. The drinking
water pathway no longer poses
unacceptable risks under current
conditions. Would this be considered an
action that has controlled a significant
level of unacceptable human exposure?
Generally, yes. One of the thresholds for answering
"yes" to this question may be that the action has
eliminated at least one previously complete human
exposure pathway that presented unacceptable risk.
5-7
What should I do if, after completing the
LTHHP El for a site, actions are taken
that significantly reduce unacceptable
human exposures under current
conditions?
If actions are taken that significantly reduce
unacceptable human exposures, generally you
should consider whether the change would effect
the LTHHP El evaluation for the site. If so,
generally you should update the El evaluation to
reflect the new information.
Step 6: Is the site Construction Complete, is the remedy operating as intended, and are engineering and
institutional controls, if required, in place and effective?
Question
Answer
52
-------
6-1
Where can I find the information to
answer this question?
Documents such as RODs, Action Memoranda,
POLREPS, RA Reports, Close Out Reports, Five-
Year Reviews, etc., are good sources of
information.
Step 6: Is the site Construction Complete, is the remedy operating as intended, and are engineering and
institutional controls, if required, in place and effective?
6-2
A PCOR has been signed for a ground
water site, and it has been listed on the
Construction Completions List (CCL).
An operational and functional (O&F)
determination for the pump and treat
system is expected within a year. How
should I answer this question?
For the purposes of this El, remedies at
Construction Completionsites should be "operating
as intended" to achieve credit for a "protective
remedy in place." Until an O&F determination is
documented (i.e., in an approved Interim RA
Report), generally you should answer "no" to this
question.
6-3
An in-situ soil vapor extraction (SVE)
system has been installed and is operating
as intended. Studies indicate that the
system will achieve cleanup goals within
the next 2-3 years. This is the last action
required for cleanup, and the site is
Construction Complete. How should I
answer this question?
As long as the ICs required for the remedy to
remain protective are in place and effective,
generally you should answer "yes." The remedy
has yet to achieve cleanup goals site-wide, but the
site is Construction Completeand the remedy is
operating as intended.
6-4
What should I do if, after completing the
LTHHP El for a Construction Completion
site, an O&F determination is made or it
is documented that ICs are in place and
effective?
If the new information documents that the remedy is
operating as intended and ICs are in place and
effective, you should update the El evaluation to
reflect this information.
53
-------
Appendix D: Glossary of Terms
(alphabetical by term)
Agricultural Use: Agricultural use refers to use for agricultural purposes, such as farmland for
growing crops and pasture for livestock. Agricultural use also can encompass other activities,
such as orchards, agricultural research and development, and irrigating existing farmland.
Commercial Use: Commercial use refers to use for retail shops, grocery stores, offices,
restaurants, and other businesses.
Continued Use: Acres in continued use refer to areas that are being used in the same general
manner as they were when the site became subject to the Superfund or Federal Facilities
Programs.
Ecological Use: Ecological use refers to areas where proactive measures, including a
conservation easement, have been implemented to create, restore, protect, or enhance a habitat
for terrestrial and/or aquatic plants and animals, such as wildlife sanctuaries, nature preserves,
meadows, and wetlands.
Industrial Use: Industrial use refers to traditional light and heavy industrial uses, such as
processing and manufacturing products from raw materials, as well as fabrication, assembly,
treatment, and packaging of finished products. Examples of industrial uses include factories,
power plants, warehouses, waste disposal sites, landfill operations, and salvage yards.
Military Use: Military use refers to use for training, operations, research and development,
weapons testing, range activities, logistical support, and/or provision of services to support
military or national security purposes.
Mixed Use: Mixed use refers to areas at which uses cannot be differentiated on the basis of acres.
For example, a condominium with retail shops on the ground floor and residential use on the
upper floors would fall into this category. When selecting Mixed Use, the individual types of
uses should be identified, if as possible.
Other Federal Use: Other Federal use refers to use to support the Federal government in Federal
agency operations, training, research, and/or provision of services for purposes other than
national security or military.
Operable unit acreage: The acreage within the portion of a site delineated in the Record of
Decision (ROD) as an operable unit.
Planned Reuse: Acres in planned reuse include sites or OUs where a plan for a reuse is in place,
but reuse has not yet begun. This could include conceptual plans, a contract with a developer,
secured financing, approval by the local government, or the initiation of site redevelopment.
Property boundary acreage: All acreage within the property lines of the site or facility.
54
-------
Property transfer parcel acreage: The acreage within a portion of a Federal facility delineated in
a property transfer document. Property transfer parcels are the unit for reporting Universe, PFP,
and RAU acres at Federal facilities where property transfers outside the Federal government
(e.g., BRAC facilities).
Protective for People Under Current Conditions (PFP): This new measure is based on the
existing Human Exposures Under Control Environmental Indicator and reports sites and land
area, as measured in acres, that are protective for people under current conditions. Superfund
site acreage will be determined by OU, while Federal facility site acreage will be determined by
OU or property transfer parcel.
Public Service Use: Public service use refers use by a local or State government agency or a non-
profit group to serve citizens' needs. This can include transportation services such as rail lines
and bus depots, libraries and schools, government offices, public infrastructure such as roads,
bridges, utilities, or other services for the general public.
Ready for Anticipated Use (RAU): This new measures replaces "Acres of Land Ready for Reuse"
as well as "Sites Ready for Reuse" as defined in the 2004 Guidance. This measure includes sites
and land area, as measured in acres, associated with sites that meet the 2006 Sitewide RfR (now
renamed "Sitewide RAU") Guidance for continued and anticipated use. Superfund site acreage
will be determined by OU while Federal facility site acreage will be determined by OU or
property transfer parcel.
Recreational Use: Recreational use refers to use for recreational activities, such as sports
facilities, golf courses, ballfields, open space for hiking and picnicking, and other opportunities
for indoor or outdoor leisure activities.
Residential Use: Residential use refers to use for residential purposes, including single-family
homes, town homes, apartment complexes and condominiums, and child/elder care facilities.
Reused: Acres at a site identified as in reuse refer to a site or OU where a new use or uses are
occurring such that there has been a change in the type of use (e.g., industrial to commercial), or
the property was unused and now supports a specific use. This means that the developed site or
OU is actually used for its intended purpose by customers, visitors, employees, residents, or
fauna, in the case of ecological reuse.
Site acreage: The acreage of contaminant investigation or remediation, as delineated in a RI/FS
or another action document. Note that the site acreage may include acreage that is outside of the
property boundary. Site acreage should equal the acreage reported for the Universe Indicator.
Status of Use Indicator: This indicator captures information about whether a site or any land area
therein, as measured in acres, is being used. Sites and acres will be classified as either unused, in
continued use, reused, or planned for reuse. Superfund site acreage will be determined by OU
while Federal facility site acreage will be determined by OU or property transfer parcel.
55
-------
Type of Use Indicator: This indicator describes the specific use at a site or any land area therein,
as measured in acres, at the point in time when the Status of Use determination is made. Sites
and acres will be classified as agricultural, commercial, ecological, industrial, military, mixed,
other federal use, public service, recreational, or residential use. Superfund site acreage will be
determined by OU while Federal facility site acreage will be determined by OU or property
transfer parcel.
Universe Indicator: This indicator is designed to capture the full universe of potential sites and
land area, as measured in acres, to be addressed by the CPRM measures. It includes:
1. Proposed, final, and deleted NPL sites, (including Federal facilities);
2. SA sites;
2. NTCRA sites; and
3. Certain non-NPL Federal facilities and FUDS, including those non-NPL Federal
facilities (such as BRAC or FUSRAP sites) and FUDS where EPA has signed/concurred
on a response action (at a minimum, completed a RI/FS, removal action, or other major
cleanup decision document) or property transfer.
Unused: Acres identified as unused include sites or OUs not being used in any identifiable
manner. This could be, for example, because site investigation and cleanup are ongoing,
operations have ceased, the owner is in bankruptcy, or cleanup is complete, but the site remains
vacant.
56
------- |