\
u)
O
* _
^
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
JAN I 9 1995
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY
RESPONSE
OSWER Directive 9200.4-14
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
Consistent Implementation of the FY 1993 Guidance on
Technical Impracticability of Ground-Water Restoration
at Superfund Sites _ , .
Stephen D. Luftig, Acting Director ^7***^, J^y
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response ' A
Director, Waste Management Division
Regions I, IV, V, VII
Director, Emergency and Remedial Response Division
Region II
Director, Hazardous Waste Management Division
Regions III, VI, VIII, IX
Director, Hazardous Waste Division
Region X
Director, Environmental Services Division
Regions I, VI, VII
Purpose
This memorandum addresses implementation of the OSWER
guidance entitled "Guidance for Evaluating the Technical
Impracticability of Ground-Water Restoration," dated
September, 1993 . As you recall, the purpose of the guidance is
to clarify how to determine when ARAR-based cleanup levels may be
waived for reasons of technical impracticability.
The purpose of this memorandum is to:
- Promote national consistency in technical impracticability
(TI) decision making;
- Facilitate transfer of information pertinent to TI decisions
between Headquarters and the Regions;
- Identify the appropriate persons to conduct reviews of TI-
related documents; and
OSWER Publication 9234.2-25.
Recycled/Recyclable
Printed with Soy/Canola Ink on paper that
contains at least 50% recycled fiber
-------
- Clarify the role of Headquarters consultation.
Background
Ground-water contamination, confirmed at 85 percent of
National Priorities List si^es, continues to be of critical
ii. jjort- 3 co „.*€ Supe^funi. ^rogra-.. The remediation of the most
highly contaminated sites, nowever, such as those with DNAPLs,
presents both technical and policy challenges. While EPA remains
firmly committed to restoring contaminated ground water to
beneficial uses at Superfund sites, it is also important to
recognize that technical limitations to achieving this goal may
exist.
The goal of ground-water cleanup at Superfund sites
continues to be restoration of contaminated ground water to ARAR-
based cleanup levels wherever technically practicable. However,
evaluations of "pump and treat" remedies published by EPA . in 1989
and 1992 indicated that complete restoration of many ground-water
contamination sites in the Superfund program might not be
technically practicable with available remediation technologies
due to the presence of non-recoverable DNAPLs, or for other
reasons related to complex site hydrogeology or contaminant
characteristics. Where such factors'constrain ground-water
restoration, the Superfund program's approach is to emphasize
removal or treatment of source materials; containment of non-
restorable source areas; and restoration of aqueous contaminant
plumes.
The National Research Council's recently released report
"Alternatives for Ground Water Cleanup" independently confirmed
EPA's findings that available ground-water remediation
technologies are limited in their ability to restore all portions
of contaminated ground-water sites. However, the NRC report also
pointed out that, despite these constraints: 1) Non-restorable
areas at complex sites generally constitute relatively small
portions of the overall ground-water contamination problem; and
2) Pump and treat and other technologies are capable of restoring
large portions of such sites, and of providing significant
environmental benefits. The NRC report is therefore consistent
with the current Superfund approach to ground-water remediation.
The close scrutiny of EPA's approach to ground-water
cleanup, evidenced during the Superfund reauthorization debate
and in the NRC report, illustrates the importance of sound
implementation of ground-water cleanup. Therefore, there is a
great deal of attention being placed on how EPA implements the
technical impracticability guidance. The TI guidance clarifies
Superfund ground-water policy, and provides direction for
collecting, analyzing, and presenting the information needed to
determine whether restoration of contaminated ground water is
-------
technically impracticable.
A typical TI "evaluation" should consist of a concise stand-
alone report, or a section in a site characterization document
such as an RI/FS. Reviews of TI evaluations will require site-
specific decisions regarding data sufficiency, the methods of
r* c analysis, and the sele tion ri appropriate alten -i~ive
remedial strategies where total restoration is technically
impracticable. Each of these facets of a TI decision is
potentially complex and resource intensive.
Technical impracticability decisions may be made as soon as
sufficient information is available, to demonstrate that such a
finding is appropriate. From a practical perspective, this
generally will be at one of three points in the remediation
decision process:
A "front-end" decision made at the time of the ROD, based on
site characterization and feasibility study data alone;
A decision made at the time of the ROD, but based in part on
pilot test or early remedial action performance; or
• " - A post-ROD decision based on a pilot test or a ground-water
restoration remedy's performance.
Note that front-end TI decisions will require very thorough
site characterization and feasibility study analyses, and
generally will be appropriate at sites with severe contamination
problems (e.g., non-recoverable NAPL contamination in complex
geologic environments such as heterogeneous soil deposits or
fractured bedrock). The TI guidance provides recommendations for
the types of site data and data analyses generally needed for
( front-end TI evaluations.
The guidance also highlights the usefulness of a phased
approach to ground-water remediation that employs early actions
(e.g., source removal, source containment, or plume containment)
because such actions not only reduce site risks, but may also be
used to provide more accurate data on which to base subsequent
decisions concerning the restoration potential of the site.
Objective
The objective of this memo is to promote technically sound,
nationally consistent implementation of the technical
impracticability guidance. Specifically, this memo: 1) Estab-
lishes points of contact in Headquarters for transfer of TI-
related information and for document reviews; 2) Requests that
the Regions identify a person or persons as points of contact on
TI issues and reviews; and 3) Outlines a basic process for
evaluating TI decision documents.
3
-------
Implementation
Communications and Points of Contact
Regional managers, in consultation with Headquarters, may
make a significant number of TI decisions during the remainder of
FY 95 and beyond. Reviews may be resource intensive, and require
ir.t/ut from several different SL areas. To help facilitate these
reviews, to assist the involved offices in planning for their
respective resource commitments, and to help monitor the progress
of guidance implementation, we are promoting regular, periodic
communication among points of contact to be established in the
Regions, Headquarters, and ORD.
Regional Point of Contact. A point of contact (either a
person or small team of individuals) should be identified within
each Region to serve as a source of information on the TI
guidance to regional staff. Where appropriate, the contacts will
assist RPMs, ORC attorneys, and other staff by referring them to
support personnel (e.g., in-house or ORD technical specialists)
for additional assistance. This person or team would also
provide a valuable communication link between Headquarters, ORD,
and the Region to facilitate the transfer of information
regarding TI decisions.
The regional contact person (or team) may be a member(s) of
the technical support staff or other person(s) knowledgeable in
both the technical and policy aspects of ground-water
remediation. For example, several members of the regional Ground
Water Forum have expressed an interest in being the point of
contact, as the Forum was actively involved in the development of
the TI guidance. The names of the Ground Water Forum members in
the Superfund program are provided at the end of this memorandum.
Please provide the name or names of the regional contact
persons to me through Peter Feldman of the Hazardous Site Control
Division by February 24, 1995.
Headquarters Contacts. The current OERR point of contact
for Tl-related issues and consultations is Peter Feldman of the
Hazardous Site Control Division (703-603-8768). The OERR contact
will assist in the review of TI evaluations, provide a national
perspective on similar decisions, and coordinate Headquarters
consultations. The OERR point of contact may also be reached
through other Headquarters Regional Coordinators, who will be
assisting in the implementation of this guidance.
The current OGC point of contact is George Wyeth (202-260-
7726). The OGC may be consulted on an as-needed basis to
evaluate any statutory or regulatory concerns.
ORD Contacts. ORD laboratories can provide specialized,
-------
site-specific technical support in a number of areas related to
TI evaluations. The laboratories, through the Technical Support
Project/ offer the Regions consultation services by scientists -
with experience in site characterization and remediation. Review
of technical impracticability evaluations may require skills in
such specialized areas as computer modeling and bioremediation;
the support services offered by ORD may prove crucial in
dete:. ini->3 ~he technical meri' 3 of such TI evaluations. The
appropriate general contact foi TI issues and site-specific
consultations is Don Draper, Director of the Technical Support
Program at the R.S. Kerr Laboratory in Ada, OK (405-436-8603).
Conference Calls. Regular communication between the points
of contact will be established to share information and
experience related to implementing the TI guidance, and to assis\:
ORD and Headquarters to plan for the volume of TI reviews that
may be required. This will be implemented through a bimonthly or
quarterly conference call in which all the Regional, ORD, and
Headquarters points of contact will participate, with limited
space for other interested parties. The precise format of this
communication system will be determined in an initial conference
call, once the points of contact have been identified. OERR will
coordinate the conference call; the initial call will be
conducted in early March, 1995.
TI .Decision Review Process
Decisions regarding TI ARAR waivers will be made by the
Regional Administrator or Division Director, as appropriate,
based on recommendations provided by ORD, Regional, and
Headquarters reviewers.
The TI review team. TI decisions generally will require a
significant amount of review, particularly from a technical
perspective, but also from legal and policy perspectives. A
Regionally-led team should be established to review TI waiver
evaluations from PRPs, as well as those developed by EPA or the
State. Based on experience gained on reviews of TI evaluations
by Regional staff to date, the review team generally includes the
following:
RPM and first line supervisor;
ORC site attorney;
Ground-water specialist (ORD and/or a Regional scientist);
- State representative (as appropriate)
Regional ROD peer reviewer (where available);
HQ_ OERR representative;
HQ OGC representative (on an as-needed basis); and
Human health and ecological risk assessors (as appropriate).
Representatives from ORD, OERR, and OGC will either be the
points of contact discussed above, or other individuals who will
-------
be designated on a site-specific basis. The ORD reviewer will
assist the Region in assessing the technical merits of specific -
TI evaluations; the Headquarters reviewers will provide the
Region with the national perspective on TI decisions and provide
assistance on legal or programmatic issues.
--view Process. The revic / process generally win consist
of the following steps:
1. Technical review by the review team members to determine
whether the TI evaluation is sufficiently complete, and
whether it provides a technically sound justification for
invoking the TI waiver. The evaluation should be revised
based on review team comments until it meets these criteria.
2. Consultation with the Director of the Hazardous Site Control
Division of Headquarters OERR.
3. Regional decision on the waiver, which is then generally
incorporated into a ROD or ROD amendment. The TI evaluation
should also be entered into the Administrative Record.
Scheduling Reviews. As TI reviews may require detailed
evaluation of technical materials, a sufficient amount of tinte
(four to eight weeks) should be built into the project schedule
to permit Regional, ORD, and Headquarters participants to conduct
thorough reviews.
Headquarters Consultation. The ROD consultation process,
begun in 1985, fosters communication between the Regions and
Headquarters on implementation of key aspects of the Superfiind
program. Consultation on TI ARAR waivers in RODs, which was
identified in the Twenty Fifth Remedy Delegation Report (October
1993) , will continue to be OERR policy. The consultation will be
for RODs, ROD amendments, and ESDs invoking a TI ARAR waiver.
Consultation on TI ARAR waivers is intended to provide the
Regions with a national perspective on similar decisions, and to
identify any potentially significant precedent-setting issues at
particular sites. This input should prove useful to Regional
decision makers because relatively few sites have been through
the TI review process; in addition, there are a number of
technical and enforcement concerns that are likely to factor into
site-specific decisions that also will be of interest to the
national program.
Where an appropriate team has been involved throughout the
review process leading up to the consultation, it j.s anticipated
that the consultation will be relatively brief. The Headquarters
contact within OERR (Peter Feldman) or the OERR Regional
Coordinator should therefore be notified as early as possible of
any impending TI waiver decision so as to expedite the review and
-------
consultation process.
For further information regarding the technical
impracticability guidance and review process, please contact
Peter Feldman of my staff at (703) 603-8768.
cc: 1iliott P. Laws, Assistant Administrator
Timothy Fields, Jr., Deputy Assistant Administrator
Regional Superfuhd Section and Branch Chiefs
OSWER Office Directors
Clint Hall, ORD/RSKERL
Lisa Friedman, OGC
Bruce Diamond, OSRE
Regional Ground Water Forum (Superfund):
Region I:
Region II:
Region III:
Region IV:
Region V:
Region VI:
Region VII:
Region VIII:
Region IX:
Region X:
Yoon-Jean Choi, Dick Willey
Alison Hess, Ruth Izraeli, Kevin Willis
Nancy Cichowicz, Kathy Davies, Dave Kargbo
Tony Best, Ralph Howard; Diane Guthrie
(BSD), Kay Wischkaemper (GWP)
Luanne Vanderpool, Doug Yeskis; Steve
Mangion (ORD)
Bert Gorrod
Bill Pedicino
Darcy Campbell, Paul Osborne
Richard Freitas, Herb Levine
Howard Orlean; Rene Fuentes (BSD), Bernard
Zavala (BSD)
------- |