UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
SACM Notebook
npr g IMPORTAHT - ALL READ
OFFICE OP
SOLID WASTE ANO EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Desk to Desk Delivery
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model (SACM) Notebook
FROM: Henry L. Longest, IX, Director
Office of Emergency and Remedial
TO: All Superfund Regional Personnel
Attached is your personal copy of the Superfund Accelerated
Cleanup Model Notebook that includes all the major SACM
information available to date. This material will constitute the
"core knowledge" of the SACM initiative. It has been prepared
for you to insert into a three ring binder. All further SACM
information will be sent to you to add to this notebook.
Please contact the Outreach and Special Projects Staff of my
office (703/603-8950) if you have any questions regarding this
notebook. Thank you!
Attadmait
-------
SACM
NOTEBOOK
Faster... C/eaner...Safer
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
OCT 1 9 1992
IMPORTANT - ALL READ
O«IC6 Of
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCE RESPONSE
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model -^Vision for the
Future
FROM: Henry L. Longest II, Director
Office of Emergency and
TO: All OERR Staff
PURPOSE
This memorandum is to help crystalize the vision for what we
as a program want to achieve through the Superfund Accelerated
Cleanup Model.
BACKGROUND
Every meeting convened on Superfund seems to reinforce the
issue of the numerous priorities that compete for the top
attention of our staff and managers. Accordingly, OSWER and OE,
are preparing a document entitled "National Superfund Program
Priorities." The first priority of the seven listed in that memo
is Construction Completions; the second is Accelerated Cleanups,
otherwise known as SACM. Other priorities follow concerning base
closures, enforcement, contract management, and communications.
For FY 93, these are discrete priorities; yet successive years
will meld these into one single priority that will help us
achieve our targeted 650 site completions by the year 2000. We
can achieve that goal through our SACM Vision: BUILD PUBLIC
CONFIDENCE — THROUGH PROMPT AND APPROPRIATE HAZARDOUS WASTE
CLEANUP THAT PROTECTS THE HEALTH OP PEOPLE AHD THE ENVIRONMENT.
How do we do that? By accelerating and streamlining our process
to provide risk-based cleanups at the greatest number of sites.
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
-2-
DISCUSSION
The Superfund Program is responding to the concerns raised
by all segments of the American public concerning the pace and
focus of hazardous waste cleanups. Accordingly we are
redirecting our efforts to achieve the outcomes that people can
identify with and value:
1) prompt risk reduction and public health protection at
all Superfund sites - both removal and remedial.
2) results within 3-5 years of site identification
3) separate performance of the long and difficult job of
ground water cleanup and environmental restoration,
where feasible.
A major goal of SACM is to publicly account for all risk
reduction achieved by all facets of the program at all Superfund
sites, both NPL and non-NPL. Indisputably, the combination of
our assessment, Early Actions, Long Term Actions, enforcement,
and community relations successes makes a more cogent statement
concerning our progress than merely focusing on NPL deletions.
From a "communications" perspective, Superfund benefits from the
decreased use of unnecessary bureaucratic distinctions (such as
fund/enforcement, studies/cleanups, removal/remedial), that tend
to diffuse the totality of the progress we've made. Further, we
can make the best cleanup decisions by channeling Superfund's
limited resources to the most significant, near term threats to
existing populations. Successful implementation of SACK will
enable us to demonstrate that the new streamlined Superfund is
working; we are reducing risk from hazardous wastes quickly,
thoroughly, and appropriately.
Over the last year, as a program we have laid out the SACM
concept, developed its legal framework, initiated Regional
pilots, drafted "Short Sheets" and work plans, and used TQM to
involve all staff in deploying this initiative. Early in the
process we obtained the Administrator's support and Don Clay's
commitment to back us in this paradigm shift. We have talked to
Congress, OMB, the Regions, State organizations, other Federal
agencies and outside stakeholders in an attempt to resolve
Superfund's conflicting mandates and propel SACM forward.
Further, we have commenced budgetary and management tracking
shifts and talked to the IG regarding their concerns with the
former "removial" problems. Now its time to make SACM happen -
both in terms of taking the actions to accelerate cleanup, as
-------
-3-
well as effecting the cultural change that will remove the
barriers and disincentives that slowed the program and
partitioned the progress in the past.
CONCLUSION
Both the Regions and Headquarters have responded with
commitment and energy to the challenge of deploying SACK. You
have done this concurrently with achieving a record number of
site completions ~ not only through your present efforts but,
through your past diligence in building the construction
pipeline. Clearly, staff and managers have focused on enhancing
Superfund, without regard to turf or other parochial concerns.
The aspect of program-wide positive change has been embraced with
enthusiasm.
SACK has the potential to give Superfund a new life, and a
sound footing to enter the Reauthorization debate. We must
assure the public that every program action we take, continuously
moves us toward our goal of maximizing the number, quality, and
speed of Superfund cleanups.
We will all be working together over the next year, with
enhanced cross-program effort, to lay out the specific steps and
activities to make this vision a reality.
cc: Waste Management Division Directors
Bruce Diamond, OWPE
Sally Mansbach, OWPE
Tim Fields, SRO
Larry Starfield, OGC
Bill White, OE
-------
CONCEPT PAPER
SUPERFUND ACCELERATED
CLEANUP MODEL (SACM!)
THE NEW SUPERFUND PARADIGM
Introduction
The present Superfund program operates within a complex pattern that was designed
eleven years ago to accommodate a new and complicated law, .hen tinkered with as the
program lurched from its infancy. The result has been a somewhat "jerry built" structure,
altered to fit everyone's perceived needs and a host of conflicting expectations, that
basically satisfies few. Early implementation focused on numerous intricate
administrative and legal requirements. However, recent budgets have dramatically
shifted the emphasis towards construction and completion of cleanup actions, and the
policy emphasis has moved from Fund financed actions to actions secured using
enforcement. Various groups continue to suggest ways to speed up the process.
Congress will soon consider many ideas for restructuring the program under
Reauthorization,
Amidst this evolution, however, a few facts are unlikely to change - the public does
not fully understand our present process, or grasp the full scope of our work. It wants
THIS PAPER IS MEANT TO CONVEY THE GENERAL CONCEPT OF THE SUPERFUND
ACCELERATED CLEANUP MODEL. IT IS NOT MEANT TO BE A DEFINITIVE LEGAL DOCUMENT.
OERR/OSWER 8/5/92
-------
-2-
faster cleanups, and believes that enough money has been given to Superfund to get the
job done. The bottom line is that we can expect neither a lowering of expectations, nor
a rise in resources. These factors have crystallized into a new focus on attempting to
radically speed up and streamline the program within existing statutory and regulating
constraints.
Background
The current system for Superfund cleanups has led to the evolution of two discrete
programs - remedial and removal The remedial program tends to address long term
cleanup sites on the National Priorities List (NPL). Separate and apart are the activities
of the removal program. These sites enter our system through a different "door," usually
the States (through the National Response Center) seeking our help at a specific release.
Some are spontaneous "screaming emergencies," others are short term problems. While
the removal program generally does not address long-term ground water, many of the
other risks addressed by, and response actions aw**g>gd with, the two programs are
similar. There may also be significant differences between remedial and removal actions
regarding the depth of investigation, and cost and tl'm*t expended to complete a cleanup.
In summary, the complexity of our process and our heretofore unsuccessful attempts
to communicate the fun extent of the program's progress, have left the Superfund
-------
program highly vulnerable to criticism. Therefore, we must focus attention on a few
major outcomes that the public will value. - We must make sure we deliver these
outcomes and do it in terms the public will understand. For this reason, the new
Superfund paradigm must be:
o simple and flexible - to allow fastest
possible, worst case first, risk reduction;
o free of unnecessary administrative constraints that
divide and diffuse the totality of reduced
risk reported at remedial and removal sites;
o realistically achievable in that we make
realistic cleanup commitments and deliver
them on time; and
o focused on rapid protection of people and the
environment, rather than unattainable goal of returning all
groundwater to pristine condition.
The New Saperfand Accelerated Qeanuo Model (SACM)
Under SACM all sites at which Superfund takes any kind of cleanup action are
Superfund sites. Rather than viewing removal and remedial actions as parts of separate
-------
programs, they will be viewed as separate legal authorities with different, but
complimentary, application at Superfund sites. The intent of SACM is take better
advantage of the flexibility conferred through CERCLA and the NCP in implementing
these two authorities.
Rather than entering the program through one of two doors marked "remedial" or
"removal", all sites will enter through one door marked "Superfund". All site assessment
will take place in one program, combining, as appropriate, elements of present removal
assessments, PA/SIs, RIs, and risk assessments. At any point during or after the
assessment process, a Regional Decision Team may consider short term activities to
address threats to the health and safety of the existing population. These actions include
cleanup activities that will generally take no more than three or, at the most, five years-
a reasonable time frame based on the program's demonstrated ability to identify and
address immediate risks to people and the environment within three to five years.
These activities wfll be published on a Quarterly basis in the Federal Register (fur
public information purposes only, not as a rulemakmg) on an Early Action List It is
crucial to note here, that though these actions are "short term* and quickly implemented,
in some ca$gs they may eliminate the majority of ftpman nst from Superfund sites.
-------
-5-
Enforcement activities for early actions would commence with immediate PRP
search/notification, expedited orders/negotiation, and opportunity for consensual
cleanup. Because the vast majority of risk reduction will occur in this pan of the
program, most of EPA's public participation/information activities will be focused here.
Community relations and opportunities for Technical Assistance Grants (TAGs) continue
as they do today. The State role is confirmed in its present configuration; further, State-
funded programs, are encouraged resulting in a net increase of deaned-up sites
nationwide.
The Regional Decision Team can also determine if and when long term remediation
(e.g^ ground water restoration) is appropriate. Sites would then be placed on a Long
Term Action List (which wQl most likely be a subset of the NFL), and cleaned up over
many years. Regional Decision Teams could also decide that no Federal action was
appropriate or that the site should be deferred to RCRA or other response authority.
The major parameters of this concept are outlined below.
1. Single Site Assessment Function. There are a number of redundancies
in the beginning of the program as it is structured today. Hazardous waste
sites often receive numerous similar, but sequential, assessments before any
kind of cleanup begins. Sites are evaluated by the removal program
-------
(removal assessments), the site assessment program (PAs, Sis, Expanded
Sis, and Hazard Ranking System (HRS) scoring), the remedial program
(RIs and baseline risk assessments), and even in some cases by the RCRA
program. ATSDR, State, local, and private parry assessments may also
occur. Many, if not most of these assessments start from scratch, - they do
not necessarily take into consideration the information and data generated
by the studies that preceded them. This happens not only because of the
obvious finana'ai incentives to the contractor community and the human
inclination to distrust the work of others, but because each part of the
program is gathering data to respond to its particular
perceived need. The site-assessment program wants to know
if it will score on the HRS; the removal program wants to
know if the site is going to blow up; the remedial program
wants to know the extent of the ground water plume, the size
of the cap, etc
Large amounts of time and money are expended on the process of
executing separate contracts, mobilizing sampling teams, designing
sampling strategies, modifying health and safety plans, etc, as each part
of the program goes out to teel a different part of the elephant"
-------
-7-
Assessment, in all of its forms, now absorbs far more time than any other
pan of the process. Although it is importt to carefully study complicated
contamination problems before taking action, whole steps in this redundant
process must be combined to expedite cleanup. The FIT/TAT contract
mechanism could support thi$ combined assessment effort and thereby
assist in blending the remedial and removal "cultures" of the program.
In some Regions, there will be no reason for a two-staged screening
function (PA followed by SI) since there will be no backlog of sites to be
screened. Discovered sites could be screened once and, if serious, go
directly to RI level data collection and risk assessment Appropriate short
term cleanup activity, combined with public participation/outreach, and
expedited enforcement action (Len FRF search, information gathering, and
notification) could begin immediately. Tliese changes in the assessment
process could save several years, since the level and type of risk posed by
the site would be understood and often eliminated prior to listing.
all site assessment activities would require the
development of new protocols that could serve many needs. Rigid QA/QC
procedures would assure the integrity and multiple-usability of the data
developed.
-------
2. Regional Decision/Management Teams. Regions are often able to
identify the most likely alternatives to remediate a site early in the decision
process. In future years that capacity certainly will expand. The Regional
Decision Teams would "traffic cop" sites onto the Early Action List and/or
score sites where long term restoration actions are expected to be
necessary (such as ground water sites). In addition, standards for both
remediation levels and technologies will continue to be developed. This
move toward standardization will both speed decision nv»Vi"g process and
allow increased flexibility in the staging and timing of various activities.
The chief benefits are the ability to:
o reduce the number of assessments
o make early action decisions while studies continue;
o carry out relatively short term cleanup steps that
may in many cases be all that is necessary;
o stay flexible (within CERCLA and the NCP) while various activities are
going on, rather than keeping functions in rigid and
seouential boxes;
o effectively utilize the decision making expertise in the Regions, possibly
delegating where appropriate to the project manager level to
cleanups;
o realize time and cost economies.
-------
Regional Decision/Management Teams would require the skills of'the most
experienced managers (Fund and Enforcement), site and risk assessors, on-scene
coordinators (OSC), remedial project managers (RPM), Community Relations
coordinators and State officials, as appropriate. The OSC and RPM individual
site management function would eventually become combined, which would
further increase the efficiency of the process. Enforcement orders and
negotiations would be conducted within strict deadlines. Cleanup could be
performed by PRPs and appropriately overseen by the Agency. Training and
commitment on the part of Superfund Headquarters and Regional
management can help overcome different cultures that now exist and use the
combined expertise in the remedial, removal, and enforcement programs to
achieve the common goal of risk reduction.
3. Earlv Actions. Risks at NPL sites fall into a number of categories, but most
commonly are associated with the direct contact with wastes or contaminated soil,
or drinking contaminated water from ground water sources. Source control steps
taken early in the remedial process, such as drum removal, soil cleanup and
access restraints, as well as alternate drinking water provision, frequently provide
substantial risk reduction to existing populations. Actions taken under removal
authorities as well as early remedial actions are designed to address just such
risks.
-------
-10-
The Early Action initiative of SACM would encourage an expansion of
non-time critical removal activities and early remedial actions. In fact, we have
already interpreted and expanded removal authority to allow continuing cleanup
actions at NFL sites if consistent with remedial actions (e.g^ Radium Chemical,
White Chemical, Avtex, Publicker). True emergency situations such as train
derailments would continue to be handled as they are today. Surface cleanup (Le.
actions other than long term ground water pump and treat or extensive site
restoration technologies such as large mining site cleanups, wetlands/estuaries
remediation, or extended incineration projects), would be carried out through the
Early Action phase of the of the program. This would include such activities as:
o waste and soil removal,
o preventing access,
o relocating people,
o providing alternate drinking water sources.
Most iiTipoTtant^ immediate threats to public health and safety would be addressed
in this part of the process. While standardizr-d cleanups for similar sites would
expedite many cleanups, innovative technology would be considered whenever it is
faster, more efficient, more acceptable to the public, less expensive,
-------
-11-
or less environmentally impactive. Both standardized and innovative
treatment technologies offer opportunities for cost efficiencies.
The public could be notified of activities at these Superfund sites through a
quarterly Federal Register notice - the Early Action List. Sites would be listed
when the decision to cleanup was made, then documented and removed from the
list when the early action work was completed. Public input would be achieved
through all the mechanisms (possibly including TAGs, where available) that are
now used by the program's community relations professionals. Most important,
Superfund progress would be measured against all of its risk reduction activities
and most of those activities would be completed rapidly. Under the New
Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model, the Agency would commit itself first and
foremost to substantially reducing or eliminating threats to public health and the
environment within a specified time frame and that time frame would be short
This commitment would be EPA's primary measure of success.
4. Long Term Action. Sites requiring ground water restoration or long term
remediation (e.g, mining sites, extended incineration projects, wetlands/estuaries)
or significant Fund-financed O & M would be published in the Federal Register.
They would not be placed there until the need for such remediation activities was
clearly established by the site assessment process. Many sites would already have
been addressed under the Early Action phase, gii««'i»>i«g many of the issues that
-------
-12-
hold up RODs today. Enforcement opportunities would be vigorously
pursued using the full arsenal of Enforcement tools to obtain PRP
participation. Community Relations would be performed and public
participation fostered as set out in the NCP. Innovative technologies and
standardized cleanups would be used, as appropriate. Of greatest benefit,
the pnblic would understand that the actions placed on this list would
require many years, if not decades, to dean np, bnt would pose no
immediate threat to existing populations. Removing the long-term
cleanup/restoration question to a separate part of the decision making
process would also allow for a more reasonable evaluation of the benefits and
costs of such restoration. Public policy makers could then more reasonably decide
which ground water resources warrant priority action given limited funding.
Implementation
This concept has been developed in Headquarters and discussed with several
Regions. The next step is to refine the definition of SACM and bypothetically run
some sites through the proposed process and see if there are any unforeseen
"stoppers." Then we would test SACM on a pilot basis in the Regions. Various
Regional pilots are being reviewed for utility in the execution of the process.
Meanwhile we are preparing a paper on the legal underpinnings of SACM. The
-------
43-
timing is very opportune considering the congruence of current
recommendations for improving and streamlining Superfund.
Conclusion
A program guaranteeing prioritized public health protection at all sites,
without unnecessary distinctions, between types of actions, within five years of site
identification, and having, as a separate activity, the long and difficult job of
environmental media restoration, has a better chance of being understood, appreciated,
and, therefore, publicly supported.
Counting the totality of risk reduction rather than focusing on NFL site deletions, is a
simple, uncontrived, and true expression of the work of the program. It fulfills several of
our most basic needs in building public confidence. First and most important, it focuses
the program on the very substantial risk reduction that is now achieved, and achievable.
Second, it focuses on the distinction between sites with the risk reduced to safe levels
because of completed surface cleanup and those sites presenting no immediate threat,
but requiring decades to complete. And third, it supplies what the public expects, and
has every reason to expect from a program called "Superfund" • the achievement of
appropriate cleanup at large numbers of sites.
-------
SUPERFUND ACCELERATED CLEANUP MODEL - SACM
(The New Superfund Paradigm)
March 1992
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
OSWER/OERR
-------
WHAT'S THE PROBLEM?
1. Outside perception of Superfund is poor
• Too slow
• Scanty environmental improvement
• Not enough $$ in cleanup.
2. Internal Superfund process is inefficient
• Redundant
I • Pokey
• Too much "cool down" time.
(*££* \ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
V ' OSWER/OERR
-------
THE CURRENT SUPERFUND PROCESS
POP search/noHflcatlon
SITE DISCOVERY/
NOTIFICATION
^
PA
Endrasponsaor
ralerloremadlaV
Stale program
I SITE DISCOVERY |
. * .
| PA/FSI/ESl]
_I_
HRS
Yea Enpand*
> V 51
\_nfl, , £">
11 w MRS
*" Package
Public
NollHcaUoi
i
>.
NPL
*,
Rl
*,...
FS
»
Long-Term
RA(LTRA)
L
Enforcement Activities
I ROD I
CD
OftM
Public
Nolilicalion
Public
Nolilicalion
Stale/Public Participation/Community Relations
-------
WHAT'S THE SOLUTION?
MAKE SUPERFUND WORK BETTER
1. Provide results the public will value
• Quickly reduce acute risks
• Restore environment over long-term.
2. Streamline program
• Eliminate delays and rework
• Expand "worst first11
• Funnel $$ into cleanup.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1SWER/OERR
-------
HOW DO WE DO IT?
1. One step site screening and risk assessment.
2. Regional Management Teams "traffic cop" all sites.
3. Early action to reduce immediate risk.
4. Long-term cleanup to restore environment/media.
Enforcement, community relations, and public involvement
throughout process.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
OSWER/OERR
-------
1. ONE STEP ASSESSMENT
Streamlined assessment will speed cleanup.
Also blends removal/remedial cultures (action vs. study).
Enforcement search and notification starts immediately.
Community outreach and public involvement throughout.
•t
] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
' OSWER/OERR
-------
2. REGIONAL MANAGEMENT TEAMS
Unite management experience - removal, remedial, enforcement,
assessment, community relations, State involvement.
Serve as "traffic cop" for sites moving to Early Action or
Long-Term Action List.
• Prioritize workload to achieve common goal of risk reduction.
Help develop standard cleanups and technologies.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
OSWER/OERR
-------
3. EARLY ACTIONS
All immediate threats to public health and safety will be
eliminated.
• Public will be notified when Early Action starts and notified
when work is complete.
Substantial risk reduction in a short timeframe will be our
primary measure of success.
\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
OSWER/OERR
8
-------
4. LONG-TERM ACTION
Long-term actions:
- extensive mining sites
- ground-water remediation
- estuarine/bay sites
- incineration.
These would be published in FR on the Long-Term Action List.
The public would know long-term actions require years to clean up,
but pose no Immediate threat.
Allows more reasoned evaluation of restoration benefits and costs.
.(m)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
OSWER/OERR
-------
WHAT'S DIFFERENT?
• ALL SITES OR RELEASES with Superfund cleanup action are
"Superfund sites."
• We stopped seeing Superfund as separate programs:
- Removal/Remedial
- Fund/Enforcement
- NPL/NonNPL.
• No separate list of removal actions and remedial actions.
• One simple goal of prioritized risk reduction from all Superfund
cleanups.
("*f?t u-s- Environmental Protection Agency
1 V OSWER/OERR
-------
ADVANTAGES
Rapidly reduces majority of risk from Superfund sites - to people
and the environment.
More money dedicated to cleanup - versus support/study function.
Efficient and effective - geared for results.
• Cost and time efficient - emphasizes standard remedies and
Innovative technologies.
Realistically achievable - commit and deliver.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
OSWER/OERR
-------
BENEFITS
Measures success by risk reduction, not NPL completions.
Makes long-term restoration a separate activity.
Builds public confidence:
- Substantial risk reduction in early actions
- "Worst first" approach
- Cleanup at a large number of sites.
In sync with Agency management themes.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
THE NEW STREAMLINED PROCESS
Public Notification of Early Action Slarl
All
Sites
Start
POP Search
Site
Screening
a
Assessment
No
Action
Early
Action
To Reduce Risk
(<5 Years)
Issue Order/
Negotiate
Public Notification
Issue Order/
Negotiate
Early Action
Completed
Regional
Decision/Management
Team
Long-Term
Hazard
Ranking
RCRA
or
Other Authority
Long-
Term
Action
for
Media
Restoration
(>5 Years)
Delete
Long-Term
Cleanup
Completed
Enforcement Activities
State/Public Participation/Community Relations
13
-------
Superlund Accelerated Cli Model (SACM) Matrix
*>w
DR>
NCP Terminology
Funding Source
and Authority
Types of Actions
Generally
Performed Under
Each Authority
Enforcement Vehicles
Available
Stele Role
Coal Share
Contractor Vehicle
Requirements
• ARARS
• Community
Relations
• Public Comment
• Baseline Risk
Assessment
• Preference tor
Treatment
Documentation
•••
Emergenelea
Removal
Classic Emergencies
Notification.
^Actions- 1 LS;m 1
Time Critical
Removal
Site Access
Direct Threats
Water Supply
Visible Soil Contamination
Remove Surface Structure
and Debris
Removal
Source Control
- Treatment (Ira
technologies)
• Containment
Capping
DNAPL Source
GW Plume Con
Post Removal Site Control
(By PRP or Slate)
Unilateral Order
Consultation and Optional Participation
Not Required
ERCs
FIT/TAT
Extent Varies Based 01
No Requirement
Risk Documente
As Time Allows
Action Memo
Emergency Waiver
Administrative Record •
(After the Fad)
To Extent Practicable (or gc
i Urgency and Duration
Comment After
Removal Beglna
In Action Memo
tut not required)
Action
Emergency Waiver
Consistency Waiver
Admlnlst
Optional
FIT/TAT
Required on EE/CA
Informal Under
EPA Policy
Preferred Under EPA
Policy
Memo
Consistency Waiver
alive Record
Remedial
soli and waste)
dneratlon and other
Extract
lalnment
Actions With E
Property Aquli
Permanent Re
Institutional C»
Notification. Consult.
Remedial
Remedial
Restore
• Oroundwater
- Surfacewatar
Sediments
Wetlands/Estuaries
Large Mining sites
xtendedOftM
illlon
•location
introls
S»-
tlon and Participation
1
Required
ERCs and ARCs and COE •»•
FiT
Required (or
Required
Generally
Reqi
Quick ROD
MRS Set
NPL Ustl
RI/FS
CA/SSC
Admlnlsl
gal waiver)
on RI/FS
Required
Ired
FuD Scale ROD
ring
ng
rallve Record
OERH Document
-------
Streamlining Superfund
Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model
EPA is streamlining Superfund to speed
hazardous waste site cleanups and quickly
reduce risks to people and the environment.
The Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model, or
SACM (pronounced sack-em), will combine
Early Actions, such as removing
hazardous wastes or contaminated A
materials, with ongoing studies t^^
so that immediate public health jf^
and environmental threats are "
taken care of while long-term
cleanups are being planned, gj
"SACM is about achieving
more cleanup, quickly," says
Office of Emergency and
Remedial Response (OERR)
Director Henry Longest
Faster... C/eaner...Safer
While the site is studied, the Regional Decision
Team will begin the short-term work required to
correct near-term public health or environmen-
tal threats. Besides removing hazardous materi-
als, these Early Actions include taking precau-
tions to keep contaminants from moving off
site and restricting access to the site.
"Although these actions are short
term and quickly implemented.
they could eliminate most
human risk from these sites,"
Longest says. "More public
participation and public
information activities will be
focused during assessment
and Early Action."
Emergencies such as train derailments and
motor vehicle accidents will be handled expedi-
tiously, as they are today. Teams of highly
trained technicians will swing into action right
away, coordinating the cleanup and removal of
hazardous materials to ensure public safety as
quickly as possible.
Breaking With Tradition
The traditional Superfund process begins with a
lengthy phase of study and site
assessment, but SACM will save
time by combining separate, yet
similar, stages of site assessment
A Regional Decision Team of
Superfund site managers, risk
assessors, community relations
coordinators. Regional counsel
and other experts will monitor
the studies and determine
whether a site requires Early
Action (taking less than five
years). Long-term Action, or both.
Long-Term Solutions
Many hazardous waste problems can be cor-
rected, and most public and environmental
protection can be achieved, by Early Actions,
but some problems will take a long time to
correct Cleanups of mining sites, wetlands, es-
tuaries, as well as projects involving incineration
of contaminants or restoration of ground water,
can take far longer than the three to five years
envisioned for Early Actions.
The Regional Decision Team,
composed of people with cross-
cutting program skills, will have
the latitude to make decisions
about the most appropriate action
for each site," explains Longest
These teams will have the
expertise and flexibility to
determine the best way to meet
the goal of site cleanup."
SACM's Streamlined Superfund Process
9
-------
Streamlining Superfund
EPA will take steps to pursue the potentially
responsible parties (PRPs) who may have
caused or contributed to the site contamination.
Expedited enforcement and procedures for
negotiating PR? involvement in cleanups will
secure their participation. EPA's Superfund
personnel will continue to oversee cleanup work
performed by PRPs.
Measuring Success
SACM will focus Superfund on the very sub-
stantial risk reduction that is now achieved and
achievable. No longer will Superfurtd's success
be measured by how many sites are struck from
the National Priorities List (NPL). Protection of
people and the environment at all Superfund
Actions will be the program's yardstick.
"We need to move away from defining success
as deleting sites from the NPL; success inthe
Superfund program is cleaning up hazardous
waste sites to reduce risk to people and the
environment," Longest says. "SACM will
achieve appropriate cleanup at as many sites as
possible."
Accelerating Superfund With Presumptive Remedies
Learning from experience is a sign of matu-
rity in federal programs as well as in people
Since its inception in 1980, Superfund has
amassed a great deal of experience correcting
similar problems at many sites. Now, the
program is grouping proven clean-up tech-
niques into sets of respui IMS aiuiiate for
specific types of sites, contaminants, or both.
Known as presumptive remedies, UHUIC sets
of responses wffl help streamline removal
actions, site studies, and cleanups to iiiipiuve
consistency, reduce costs, and spuuu the
correcQon of environmental problems. LAC
reasoning behind presumptive remedies is
straightforward: sites with omita** character-
istics, or which were previously used for
activities, likely are contaminated by
the same chemicals. The techniques for
cleaning up those chemicals, which worked
well before, can be expected to work weQ
again. So, lengthy site study and evaluation
of treatment options are it
Superfund has selected four types of site to
test the presumptive leutedy approach to
. They are inuroepal landfill, wood
treatment, solvent, and
l
uleu ground-
water sites. These categories were selected
based on the number of potential sites, the
amount of historical '^'''."IIHT***"** available,
and types of contaminants typically found
there, and the teiruuuooes used in the pmt to
dean up such sites.
Superfund is evaluating several approaches
to determine the most elective way to
implement presumptive remedies. The
approaches consist of training, developing
new policies and guidance, and establishing
teams of experts to help evaluate sites quickly
and choose appropriate clean-up methods.
Municipal Landfill Sites. Superfund's goal is
to have at least one pilot project hi each of the
10 EPA Regions nationwide. That way, each
Region will have at least one person knowl-
edgeable about how work at these sites can be
streamlined. Remedial Project Managers
(RPMs) who participate in these pilots wfll
form an "expert team" to help other RPMs
clean up such sites.
Wood Treatment Sitnu • nxpenom? shows
that the same *Tl>lt^ini>1Jpfrf often dppedi at
such sites. To accelerate the dean-up process,
Superfund is narrowing the list of potential
technologies to speed sekctic ~ ~
technique. Program experience, gaada
T 1 -
mill
y tech-
and an <*MM*I* immmiii p»*p identity to
notogies that may be applied to specific
SDUaQODS.
Solvent sites. This initiative also focuses on
early selection oca piuwtsi dean-up technol-
ogy. It wfll generate guidance on standardiz-
ed remedy selection and site characterization.
GiumulMuler Sites. Over 75 percent of
Superfund sites have contaminated ground-
water. This initiative wiD develop and
publicize presumptive icuiedies far dealing
with this problem, which can take years to
cleanup.
10
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
Publication 9203.1-021
November 1992
The Superfund Accelerated
Cleanup Model (SACM)
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
Outreach and Special Projects Staff. OS-200
Intermittent Bulletin
Volume 1 Number 4
The U.S. EPA currently is developing and implement-
ing a streamlined way to dean up hazardous waste sites
known as the Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model,
or SACM. It is designed to make the Superfund Program
more efficient by cutting years off of cleanups and
quickly reducing risks to people and the environment
SACM will focus Superfund on the very substantial risk
reduction which is now achieved and achievable. Pro-
tection of people and the environment at all Superfund
actions will be the program's measure of success.
uperfund will reduce nsk from hazardous wastes
quickly, thoroughly, and appropriately.
The Superfund Program is responding toconcems raised
by all segments of the American public concerning the
pace and focus of hazardous waste deanups. The pro-
gram was designed in 1980 to accommodate a new and
complicated law. Since then, EPA has learned through
experience what works.
The accelerated deanup model incorporates five essen-
tial elements:
• One-step site screening and risk assess-
ment
• Regional Decision Teams to
"traffic cop" all sites
• Early Action to reduce im-
mediate risk
• Long-term deanup to re-
store the environment
• Enforcement, community
relations, and public in-
volvement throughout the process
traditionally. Superfund deanups are performed after
long periods of site studies and assessments. The heart
of SACM. however, is an approach that fosters immedi-
ate action at a site, at the same time that necessary
studies are being conducted. Regional Decision Teams
of site managers, risk assessors, community relations
coordinators. Regional attorneys and other experts will
decide whether a site requires Early Action (taking less
than five years). Long-term Action, or a combination of
both.
Any short-term work required to correct immediate
public health or environmental threats will be done
while a site is studied. Besides removing hazardous
materials to prevent human contact these Early Actions
indude taking precautions to keep contaminants from
moving off site and restricting access to the site.
Many hazardous waste problems can be corrected —
and most public and environmental protection can be
achieved — by Early Actions, but some problems will
take longer to correct Cleanups of mining sites, wet-
lands, and estuaries, as well as projects involving incin-
eration of contaminants or restoration of ground water.
will take more than the three to fiveyears envisioned for
Early Actions — possibly decades.
EPA will continue to pursue potentially responsible
parties (PRPs) who may have caused or con-
tributed to the site contamination. Expe-
dited enforcement and procedures for
negotiating PRP involvement in
deanups will secure their partici-
pation. EPA's Superfund per-
'sonnel will continue to over-
see cleanup work performed
by PRPs. Public and State par-
ticipation and access to infor-
mation will beencourageddur-
ing all phases of Superfund
deanups.
Efficient, effective, and geared for results, SACM will
directmoreSuperfund resources to actually cleaning up
Superfund sites. By working to correct the worst prob-
lemsata large number of sites, Superfund will beable to
maximize its protection of people and the environment
from the effects of hazardous materials.
-------
&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
Publication 9203.1-051
December 1992
Status of Key SACM Program
Management Issues — Interim
Guidance
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
Office of Waste Programs Enforcement
Office of Enforcement
Intermittent Bulletin
Volume 1 Number 1
The purpose of the Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model (SACM) is to make Superfund cleanups more timely and efficient.
This will be accomplished through more focus on the front end of the process and better integration of all Superfund program
components. The approach involves:
A continuous process for assessing site-specific conditions and the need for action;
Cross-program coordination of response planning;
Prompt risk reduction through early action (removal or remedial);
Appropriate cleanup of long-term environmental problems;
Early public notification and participation; and
Early initiation of enforcement activities.
SACM is a process change that should be considered for all Superfund activities. Implementation of this policy will be
consistent with the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) and the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). Overall Superfund priorities remain the same: deal
with the worst problems first; aggressively pursue enforcement; and involve the public and relevant State agencies at all
appropriate stages of the work.
Status of Key SACM Program Management Issues -
Interim Guidance
SACM raises a number of management-related issues
which require reconsideration of the current ways
Headquarters and Regions do business in budget
planning and execution, reporting accomplishments,
measuring performance, contracting, training, distribu-
tion of responsibility, and communications. This SACM
Program Management Update will describe activities
underway, planned, and recently completed to refocus
Superfund's program management systems to support
SACM implementation.
Regional Target (SCAP/STARS)
Flexibility
To allow greater Regional flexibility
in implementing Superfund site
cleanups, SACM will require
changes in the program's targets
and measures under the Superfund
Comprehensive Accomplishments
Plan (SCAP) and the EPA Strategic
Targeted Activities for Results Sys-
tem (STARS). FY93 program mea-
sures and targets were developed too early to incorporate
key aspects of SACM. To prevent the FY93 STARS/SCAP
measures from impeding the implementation of SACM,
the Office of Policy Planning and Evaluation (OPPE) ap-
proved an Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
(OSWER) request to allow the program maximum flexibil-
ity to grant target relief.
Granting FY93 target relief requires the Regions to pro-
vide, on a case-by-case basis, a good resource-based ratio-
nale which dearly shows work commensurate with the
targeted measure. For example, the Office of Waste Pro-
grams Enforcement (OWPE) has proposed to grant SCAP /
STARS target relief for Remedial Design / Remedial Action
(RD/RA) settlement where the Region implements a non-
time-critical removal with an estimated clean-up
valueof greater than $2 million.TheOfficeof
_ Emergency and Remedial Response
CV (OERR) has proposed to grant target
relief for remedial action starts where
the Region conducts a large (>$2
million) non-time-critical removal
instead.
Faster... C/eaner... Safer
Headquarters and the Regions
nave started developing new FY94
SCAP/STARS measures. These
new measures will reflect the pro-
gram changes brought by SACM,
and will provide the Regions greater flexibility to dean up
"NPL-caliber" sites more efficiently. Headquarters will
transmit a proposal of draft FY94 measures to the Regions
-------
for review in January 1993. This package will be a basis for
discussion during die Program Management meeting in
Februarv 1993. The intention is to complete a comprehen-
sive rev -,ionof STARS/SCAPtargets and measures so that
SACM implementation is fully supported while reducing
the total number of Regional targets.
National SACM Evaluation Measures
Baseline national criteria need to be established to analyze
and evaluate the success of SACM in improving the time-
liness and cost-effectiveness of Superfund cleanup actions.
Existing Superfund time duration trend measures will be
reevaluated to ensure they effectively document the
program's baseline and capture incremental changes. De-
velopment of Superfund risk reduction measures is critical
to die program's ability to report achievements of early
action and long-term site cleanups. Existing Superfund
environmental indicators will be the starting point for
measuring risk reduction consistently for both early ac-
tions and long-term responses. These measures will allow
us to identify the extent to which SACM projects and
overall program changes linked to SACM implementation
are measuring up to the overall objectives of SACM. These
measures may also identify areas in which the SACM
approach can be refined as full implementation proceeds
in 1994.
In addition, there is a need to reach agreement on overall
measures of program performance that will communicate
meaningful program results to Superfund's customers.
Ongoing communication initiatives are being reexamined
to consider any refinements that are called for with the
SACM program changes.
Workload Model
The workload models were frozen in FY91 and FY92, and
are frozen for FY93. With SACM. there is a need to deter-
mine the future relationship between 7TE workload /pric-
ing factors and future program goals. To date, Headquar-
ters' efforts have focused on genera =ng a consensus on
revising/reopening the Superfund workload models.
The Regions provided inputon whether the models should
be reopened. Six Regions favored reopening/revising the
models, two proposed that a new, less resource intensive
mechanism for distributing FTE be pursued, and two
opposed reopening/revising the models. The Regions also
made two key recommendations: the models should not be
reopened until FY95, and the family of Superfund models
(program, enforcement, and Federal facilities) should be
integrated.
In preparation for the February 1993 Program Manage-
mentmeeting, Headquarters plans to draftanapproachfor
addressing the model changes based on the Regional and
Headquarters correspondence to date. This proposal will
be the point of departure for a break-out/discussion ses-
sion during the meeting. The goal is to close the Program
Management meeting with a joint approach to revising the
Superfund workload models.
In additon, as was identified during the initial SACM
planruX .eetings, it is critical that Regions evaluate their
existing v\ orkforce skill mixes and identify cross-training
and workforce development activities that are needed to
effectively implement SACM.
Budget Flexibility
Beginning with the FY92 budget Superfund monies have
been apportioned between "Cleanup," "Enforcement,"
and "Support," with control subtotals for each category,
and a narrow definition of cleanup. Regions need more
flexibility in resource utilization than the budget process
has provided to streamline and accelerate the cleanup of
Superfund sites under SACM. One of the most critical
areas involves the cleanup/support budget category. For
FY94 OERR recast the Superfund Response budget, taking
into accountSaon, in a way thatconsiderably broadens the
definition of cleanup.
Though the broader definition of cleanup was developed
for the FY94 budget submission, it has been implemented
in the FY93 enacted budget. A new advice of allowance
(AOA) category has been added to the Cleanup category.
The new AOA is site characterization; it includes all site
assessment and remedial analysis (eg., aerial photo, hy-
dro-geo work) funding, and creates more Regional fund-
ing flexibility in these categories. This change si;
bolsters the Agency's ability to support the funding needs
of the integrated assessments called for under SACM.
Greater flexibility among the various response activities is
also needed. As an example, a Region that has planned a
-------
remedial action at a given site and identifies an opportu-
nity to more quickly reduce risks via an early action must
have access to the hinds required to implement this action.
As such, the program has. set aside $50 million of the
remedial action budget to encourage increased risk reduc-
tion at NPL sites through early action activities. The FY92
removal budget was successfully increased to support
SACM early action projects. As new opportunities for
flexibility present themselves we will continue to work
with the OSWER senior budget officer, comptroller, and
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to further in-
crease budget flexibility.
Program Priorities
Implementation of SACM requires mat overall Superfund
program priorities be reexamined. The Superfund Program
Management Manual and Agency Operating Guidance are the
key documents that lay out these integrated program
priorities. The FY93 Program Management Manual was re-
vised to incorporate FY93 SACM implementation activi-
ties into overall program priorities.
SACM has modified the way we think of the Superfund
universe. Traditionally, sites were distinguished primarily
by whether or not they were listed on the National Priori-
ties List (NPL). EPA typically conducts only emergency
and time-critical responses at non-NPL sites. EPA does not
intend to alter significantly its traditional approach to
addressing non-NPL sites not expected to qualify for list-
ing.
In contrast, the program will seek to invest resources
earlier in NPL-caliber sites to conduct integrated assess-
ments and early actions. For sites currently on the NPL,
EPA intends to take advantage of opportunities to conduct
early actions and accelerate long-term responses. Thus, it
may be useful to think of the Superfund universe under
SACM asconsistingof (l)non-NPLsites which EPA screens
and takes needed emergency /time-criticalactions;(2)NPL
caliber sites where EPA conducts integrated assessments
and early actions; and, (3) NPL sites where EPA conducts
the full range of Superfund responses.
Analysis is underway to assess whatactions will beneeded
to achieve the Superfund program's long-term goal of 650
NPL construction completions by theyear 2000. This analy-
sis should help to determine the ability of EPA and State
agencies to invest more resources into SACM integrated
assessments and early actions at NPL-caliber sites without
jeopardizing the NPL construction completion goal. Dis-
cussions during the February 1993 Program Management
meeting will clarify program priorities and provide more
specificity in appropriate resource investments and
disinvestments to support SACM's implementation.
Federal Facilities
The Office of Federal Facilities Enforcement (OFFE) sup-
ports the focus on accelerated cleanup. OFFE, in conjunc-
tion with the Regions, has developed a draft guidance
coveringsiteassessment, impact of NPL listings, presump-
tive remedies, early actions vs. long-term actions, effect on
existing Federal facility agreements, and Regional Deci-
sion Teams. The draft guidance is due out for final com-
ment during the latter part of December and is expected to
be final by February 1993.
OFFE has been working with the Superfund Revitalization
Office (SRO) to communicate the Federal Facilities Accel-
erated Cleanup for Superfund (FFACS) policy and its
Superfund impacts to the other Federal and State agencies.
OFFE will also be assessing the impacts of FFACS on
SCAP/STARS targets and measures, workload model,
and other program management issues.
Contracts
The Long-Term Contracting Strategy for Superfund (LTCS)
was completed in September 1990. Implementation of the
Strategy is ongoing. The Strategy analyzed the long-term
contract needs of the Superfund Program and designed a
portfolio of Superfund contracts to meet those needs over
the next ten years.
Many of the underlying principles of SACM (e.g., increas-
ing early action responses) were anticipated in activities
under the LTCS (e.g., creating Emergency and Rapid Re-
sponse Services (ERRS) contracts; combining site assess-
ment and response technical assistance functions under a
single Superfund Technical Assessment and Response
Team (START) contract, etc.). Placement of new contracts
has begun and will continue over die next several years.
The LTCS itself and the scheduling of new procurements
easily lend themselves to the phase-in of SACM.
-------
Communicating Program Accomplishments
Considerable effort has been undertaken to communicate
the goals/objectives, plans, and expectations for imple-
menting SACM to other Federal and State agencies, other
EPA Offices, critical external groups including Congress,
environmental and trade groups, and others. We need to
seek and incorporate feedback from these groups into our
implementation efforts, and regularly communicate the
program's progress to this audience.
NOTICE: The policies set out in this fact sheet are not final
Agency action, but are intended solety as guidance. They
are not intended, nor can they be relied upon, to create any
rights enforceable by any party in litigation with the United
Slates. EPA officials should follow the guidance provided
in this fact sheet, or may act at variance with the guidance,
based on an analysis of site-specific circumstances. The
Agency also reserves the right to change this guidance at
any time without public notice.
Status of Key SACM Program Management Issues
- Interim Guidance
This paper is oneof five fact sheets published by EPA
under publication number 9203.1-051 (Volume 1,
Numbers 1-5) to describe the Superfund Accelerated
Cleanup Model (SACM) and should be reviewed in
conjunction with the other SACM fact sheets. Re-
gions are encouraged to contact the following indi-
viduals for information on program management
issues: Dave Evans (703) 603-8885 inOERR; Tai-ming
Chang (703) 603-8965 in OWPE (SCAP/STARS and
contracts); David Chamberlin (202) 260-41 ISinOWPE
(workload model and budget); or Rene Wynn (202)
260-3025 in OFFE for further clarification, sugges-
tions or comments.
There are two other important sources of informa-
tion: 'SACM concept paper" (8/5/92) and Guidance
on Implementation of the Superfund Accelerated Cleanup
ModdUwierCERCLAaTuitheNCP [OSWERDirective
No. 9203.1-03 (7/7/92)]. General SACM information
can be obtained by calling the Superfund Document
Center (202) 260-9760.
-------
&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
Publication 9203.1-051
December 1992
Early Action and Long-Term Action
Under SACM — Interim Guidance
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
Office of Waste Programs Enforcement
Office of Enforcement
Intermittent Bulletin
Volume 1 Number 2
I cleanups more timely and efficient.
1hisrwil[ be accomplished through more focus on the front end of the process and "better integration of all Superfund program
components. The approach involves:
A continuous process for assessing site-spedfic conditions and the need for action;
Cross-program coordination of response planning;
Prompt risk reduction through early action (removal or remedial);
Appropriate cleanup of long-term environmental problems;
Early public notification and participation; and
Early initiation of enforcement activities.
SACM is a process change that should be considered for all Superfund activities. Implementation of this policy will be
consistent with me National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan-(NCP) and the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). Overall Superfund priorities remain the same: deal
with the worst problems first; aggressively pursue enforcement; and involve the public and relevant State agencies at all
appropriate stages of the work.
Response Goals
The primary goals of an early action are to achieve prompt
risk reduction and increase the efficiency of the overall site
response. The main goal of a long-term action is to attain an
effective, final site cleanup.
•
Prompt and Effective Risk Reduction
The only response authorities under CERCLA are removal
and remedial. Any Superfund clean-up action that is taken
must meet the requirements of one authority or the other.
SACM encourages Regions to think creatively about the
way these authorities may be used under the NCP to
achieve prompt risk reduction (early action) or to conduct
more complex, time-consuming remediations (long-term
action). Take, for example, a site where sub-
stantial soil contamination threatens a
drinking water aquifer. Traditionally,
no response action might have been
taken until the study of and plan-
ning for all the site work was
complete. Under SACM, the Re-
gion should consider taking an
early action to eliminate the soil
problem through a non-time-
critical removal or an early re-
medial response, asappropriate.
Of course, if the soil poses a sig-
nificant threat (e.g., human di-
rectcontact),an
ncy or time-critical removal may be
Faster...C/eaner...Safer
warranted. SACM is anticipated to result in an increase of
early risk reduction activities at both National Priorities
List (NFL) and "NPL-caliber" sites.
A Regional Decision Team (RUT) is responsible for deter-
mining/recommending the approach that will be taken at
a site. The RDT should not be involved in response deci-
sions for most emergency and some of the more time-
critical removals, as these actions will be taken within the
normal removal implementation process. However, the
RDT should stay apprised of any emergency responses to
factor information into future response plans. A primary
consideration will always be whatenforcement options are
available. An emphasis on early actions will not jeopardize
the program's commitment to enforcement first. The over-
all plan must also ensure good State coordina-
tion and suitable community involvement.
All response actions must meet the statu-
tory and regulatory requirements estab-
lished in CERCLA and the NCP. In
situations where a time-critical re-
sponse is warranted, established re-
moval mechanisms will continue to
be used. In less urgent situations,
non-time-critical removal actions or
early remedial actions may be used
to accomplish early risk reduction.
Long-term actions using remedial
authority are most appropriate
-------
for sites requiring complex source control or surface
or groundwater remediation.
Early Actions
Early actions are responses performed under removal or
remedial authority to eliminate or reduce human health or
environmental threats from the release, or threat of release,
of hazardous substances, pollutants,or contaminants. These
risk reduction activities can be conducted as emergency or
time-critical removals, where quick response is necessary,
or as non-time-critical removals or early remedial actions,
in less urgent situations. These actions generally will take
less than five years and will not always achieve complete
site cleanup, the early action must meet all of the statutory
and regulatory requirements of whichever authority is
used (e.g., time and dollar limitations for removal actions
and State assurances for remedial actions) and should
generally not be started before the possibilities for enforce-
ment are pursued, depending on me urgency of the situa-
tion. In some cases, more than one early action may be
conducted d uring die course of work mitigating the threat
at a site.
Time-critical actions will be taken when a removal site
evaluation indicates that a response is appropriate and
must be initiated within six months. Even when there is
little time to get the response organized. Regions are al-
ways expected to consider enforcement options and to
work with Slate and local officials in conducting the re-
sponse. When a removal site evaluation indicates the need
for an early response and a planning period of at least six
months exists prior to the on-site initiation of the removal
activities, a non-time-critical removal action is an option. A
major change as a result of SACM will be that the number
of non-time-critical removal actions (i-e., those where there
is at least six months to plan) will likely increase because of
the greater emphasis beinggivento earlyriskreduction. In
order to ensure consistent use of non-time-critical author-
ity, Regions must consult with Headquarters on poten-
tially responsible party (PRP)-lead and Fund-lead non-
time-critical removals costing over S? million.
The NO* establishes some special requirements for non-
time-critical removals, including the need to prepare an
Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis (EE/CA). (See NCP
Section300.415(m)(4)foradditional requirements fornon-
time-oitical removals.) An EE/CA is a study to identify
and assess response alternatives. It is similar to, but less
comprehensive than, what is done curing the Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI /?5) phases of a reme-
dial action. The EE/CA must go through a public notifica-
tion and comment period to ensure &il interested parties
have an opportunity to have input o the proposed re-
sponse. EPA is developing guidance on how to conduct a
non-time-critical removal action.
Sometimes it may be more appropriate to undertake early
actions with remedial authority. Thus may be likely for
National Priorities List (NPL) sites already far down the
remedial pipeline, enforcement lead sates where a consent
decree may be appropriate, sites outside the scope (techni-
cal or financial) or authority of a nsroval action, or sites
where Statecost share, operation and irriaintenance or other
assurances may be important considerations. These expe-
dited remedial actions still require a Record of Decision
(ROD). The work can be done through a variety of con-
tracts discussed below under Response Selection Factors.
The RDT should ensure that an early action will be consis-
tent with any long-term action that may eventually be
required. This means that, especially for non-time-critical
removals and early remedial actions, opportunities for
treatment and permanence of remedy must be fully evalu-
ated. Furthermore, potential differences that may exist
between early action and long-term action data quality
objectives and risk assessment goals must be reconciled at
the outset. This can only happen if there is an emphasis
placed on good program coordination, particularly among
the participating Site Assessment Manager (SAM), On-
Scene Coordinator (OSC), Remedial Project Manager
(RPM), risk assessor, and enforcement/legal staff.
Long-Tcrm Actions
Long-term response actions will usually be taken when
mere are conditions requiring extensive site characteriza-
tion, where there are high costs, or where it will take more
than approximately five years to complete the work. The
majority of current NPL sites have some long-term re-
sponse component. Most groundwater remediation ef-
forts, many surface water remediation efforts, and most
large-scale soil remediation efforts would be expected to
takein excess of fiveyearstocompleteorhavecomplexities
that preclude early action approaches, alone, from being
used. In addition, remedies that require extensive opera-
tion and maintenance activities may fall into the long-term
response category.
Identification of a remedial action as a long-term response
does not mean that all of the work can or will be deferred.
In many cases, even where there is no immediate threat, a
quick start to the long-term response will be necessary to
prevent site conditions from deteriorating (e.g., contain-
ment of a groundwater plume). In such circumstances, an
early action is appropriate if the site meets the NCP re-
quirements for a removal action or if an early remedial
action can be initiated.
Response Selection Factors
Under SACM, the RDT has considerable flexibility for
selecting/recommending the most appropriate approach
for a site. Many factors will enter into its deliberations. The
following is provided as a general overview of the differ-
ences between early and long-term actions.
Response Duration—A Region should be able to plan
for, implement, and complete an early action in less than
five years. Projects which will take more than ve years
should generally be done as long-term responses using
remedial authority. If an action can be done quickly, but
there are extensive operation and maintenance require-
ments to ensure the reliability of the response (regard-
less of the cost of the O&M), then early or long-term
action under remedial authority should be considered.
It is removal program policy that protracted and costiy
long-term post-removal site control is more appropri-
-------
ately conducted by the affected State, local unit of gov-
ernment, or Potentially Responsible Party (PRP). In
some cases, it may be done by the Superfund remedial
program through a ROD. (For additional information
on mis removal policy see OSWER Directive 93602-02,
Policy on Management of Post-Removal Site Control, De-
cember 3,1990).
Cost—Since either removal or remedial authority may
be used, there is no maximum dollar cap on the cost of
an early action. Regions must always follow the existing
rules for justifying and obtaining exemptions for re-
moval actions estimated to cost over $2 million or ex-
ceed one year in duration. Also, Regions must consult
with Headquarters prior to taking an early action which
will require funding beyond what the Region has in its
allowance. Regions are also strongly urged to discuss
with Headquarters any situations which present par-
ticularly difficult issues or may be controversial with a
State or other interested parties.
Enforcement — The "Enforcement First" policy will
continue to be aggressively pursued under SACM. Re-
gions must take appropriate enforcement steps consis-
tent with removal and remedial policy and guidance.
This includes, but is not limited to, conducting PRP
searches, issuing notice letters, and negotiating with
PRPs to conduct an action through the use of adminis-
trative orders (unilateral or consent) or consent decrees.
The lead time available for non-time-critical removal
actions should allow for comprehensive PRP searches
and subsequent negotiations. For each site, an adminis-
trative record file must be established and made avail-
able to the public according to the schedule in the NCP.
Protection of Human Health and Environment—It is
critical that removal actions conducted at non-NPL sites
take into consideration the potential for future NFL
listing to ensure consistent goals are achieved, where
practicable. In cases where a non-time-critical removal
action will be the only or last action taken to dean up an
NFL or NPL-caliber site, the alternatives should be
evaluated on their ability to achieve clean-up levels
consistent with the remedial program and be protective
of public health and the environment
ARARs Compliance — Under the NCP, applicable or
relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs) must
be met during removal actions to the extent practicable
considering the exigencies of the situation. ARARs
should be identified and factored into the non-time-
critical removalprocess. Careful consideration of ARARs
is a key to ensuring that early actions are consistent with
possible long-term actions. (For additional information
on ARARs compliance during removal actions, see the
NCP section 300.415 (i) and Superfund Removal Proce-
dures. Guidance on the Consideration of ARARs During
Removal Actions, EPA/540/P-91 /Oil, September 1991).
State Involvement — An early action must include
appropriate State involvement This means there needs
to be continuing meaningful communication between a
Region and each State in order to ensure the highest
priority sites are being handled and there is no unneces-
sary duplication of effort. State ARARs must be met or
waived for remedial actions and met to the extent prac-
ticable for removal actions. For non-time-critical re-
moval actions costing over 52 million. Regions should
request State participation in the response action (e.g.,
funding, in-kind services). Although a State cost share is
not required under OERCLA section 104 (c) (3) for a
removal action, the absence of a State's financial partici-
pation may limit the capacity of EPA to fully fund
certain large dollar value non-time-critical removal ac-
tions. When a State does not participate in the conduct
and financial support of a Fund-lead non-time-critical
removal action, the RDT must evaluate whether the
urgency is great enough to justify the loss of the State
contribution. (Until such time as the authority for ap-
proving $2 million waivers at non-NPL sites is del-
egated to the Regions, Headquarters will have to be
involved in this decision on a site-by-site basis.) Until a
final policy is developed. Headquarters will generally
support projects costing less than $5 million, as long as
there is a good justification, even if a State is unable to
participate. Headquarters also will consider projects
costing over $5 million, but there will have to be a
compelling case for undertaking the work in theabsence
of a State contribution. Response actions taken under
remedial authority must comply with established pro-
cedures for State involvement, including securing State
assurances for Fund-financed remedial actions. Slates
may apply for a cooperative agreement to conduct non-
time-critical removal actions (See40CFR Part35 Subpart
O, Cooperative Agreements and Superfund State Con-
tracts for Superfund Response Actions).
Public Involvement—Early and frequent involvement
of the public is pivotal to the success of expediting
cleanups under SACM. All applicable community rela-
tions requirements in the NCP must be met at both
removal and remedial actions. Site managers should
make sure the publichasan opportunity for meaningful
input and that concerns are considered. As community
interest and awareness increase, it may be appropriate
to conduct additional community relations activities
beyond those required in the NCP. For example, field
personnel (OSCs, RPMs, SAMs, Community Relations
Specialists) could makethemselvesavailabletothepub-
lic, or meetings could be held in the community, during
times outside those that are typical (e.g., prior to the
initiation of or at the conclusion of on-site work).
Risk Management — Since removal and remedial ac-
tion levels and clean-up levels may differ, when making
risk management decisions for early actions it is impor-
tantthatpotential long-term response actions be consid-
ered. For emergency and time-critical removal actions.
Regional response personnel may utilize their Agency
for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR)
representative to obtain public health advice on poten-
tial action and clean-up levels in the form of a Public
Health Advisory or a Health Consultation. In planning
for non-time-critical removal actions, the Regional risk
assessor should be consulted for similar advice. It is
important that the RDT take into consideration the
potential for NFL listing and subsequent remedial ac-
tions in order to achieve consistent risk goals, where
-------
practical. For example, when performing a source re-
moval to mitigate a direct contact threatatasitethatalso
has a groundwater threat, it may be prudent to consider
removal of additional soil contaminants consistent with
projected groundwater clean-up goals. This could elimi-
nate the need for additional source control actions dur-
ing future response actions. Furthermore, it could re-
duce the ongoing release of contaminants to ground
water, thereby reducing the time required to pump and
treat ground water.
Contracting Mechanism — Available contracting ve-
hicles and capacities will affect the strategy for conduct-
ing both early and long-term actions. Contract mecha-
nisms potentially available are site-specific contracts
(indudingthePre-Qualified Offerers ProcurementStrat-
egy (PQOPS) contracts for incineration and solidifica-
tion), the Emergency and Rapid Response Services
(ERRS) contracts, the Alternative Remedial Contract
Strategy (ARCS) contracts, the Technical Enforcement
Services (TES) contracts, or accelerated contracting
mechanisms accessible from the US. Army Corps of
Engineers or the U.S. Bureau
of Reclamation. The time and
resources necessary to pro-
cure and administer these
contracts, and the individual
contract capacities, where
applicable, are factors that
must be considered when
evaluating response options.
A separate guidance short
sheet is currently being de-
veloped on how to access the
various contracts listed above.
time allows, the RDT with support of the designated site
manager should consider all of the response options avail-
able, State and community concerns, and the need for
future action before a response is initiated. The table below
gives a conceptual outline of activities generally consid-
ered to be either early actions and/or long-term actions;
however, it is not an exhaustive, definitive categorization.
NOTICE: The policies set out in this fact sheet are not final
Agency action, but are intended solely as guidance. They
are not intended, nor can they be relied upon, to create any
rights enforceable by any party in litigation with the United
States. EPA officials should follow the guidance provided
in this fact sheet, or may act at variance with the guidance,
based on an analysis of site-specific circumstances. The
Agency' also reserves the right to change this guidance at
any time without public notice.
Early Action
Access Restrictions
Source Removals/
Containment
Surface Structures and
Debris
Data Quality Objectives —
When performing site assess-
ment activities, appropriate
dat? quality objectives should
be used for decisions in sup-
port of removal and/or remedial actions. Historically,
sampling investigations performed in support of re-
moval actions and remedial actions have had dissimilar
Quality Assurance/Quality Centre*! (QA/QC) require-
ments and have focused on different media (Le., wastes,
ground water, soil, etc.). As an eleEcnt of SACM imple-
mentation, the RDT should ensure that sampling activi-
ties are coordinated between removal and remedial
actions. Site assessors may be able to take advantage of
lower costs and quicker tum-orcend times if an ad-
equate number of samples are also collected that will
meet other anticipated data uses. Sample collection and
analysis activities performed dumg removal actions
should be coordinated such thatthe data generated will
alsosupportNPL listingand remedial actions, asappro-
priate.
Selecting a Response
A primary function of the RDT is to w»gh what is known
about a site and recommend /select ciose actions which
address the threats in a timely and efficient manner. When
Either
Source Remediation
Capping/Containment
Permanent/Temporary
Relocation
NAPL Source
Extraction
Ground Water Plume
Containment/Cleanup
Alternate Water Supply
Property Acquisition
Long-Term Action
Extensive Source
Remediation
Restoration:
Groundwater
Surface Water
Early Action and Long-Tenn Action Under SACM
—Interim Guidance
This paper is oneof five fact sheets published by EPA
under publication number 9203.1-051 (Volume 1,
Numbers 1-5) to describe theSuperfuhd Accelerated
Cleanup Model (SACM) and should be reviewed in
conjunction with the other SACM fact sheets. Com-
ments on this document should be directed to Mark
Mjoness of the Emergency Response Division (703)
603-8770.
There are two other important sources of informa-
tion: "SACM concept paper" (8/5/92) and Guidance
on InrplementtttJonofthe SupsrfundAccelented Cleanup
Model UnderCERCLAandtheNCP [OSWER Directive
No. 9203.1-03 (7/7/92)].GeneraJSACM information
can be obtained by calling the Superfund Document
Center (202) 260-9760.
-------
SEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
Publication 9203.1-051
December 1992
Enforcement Under SACM
— Interim Guidance
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
Office of Waste Programs Enforcement
Office of Enforcement
Intermittent Bulletin
Volume 1 Numbers
The purpose of the Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model (SACM) is to make Superfund cleanups more timely and efficient.
This will be accomplished through more focus on the front end of the process and better integration of all Superfund program
components. The approach involves:
A continuous process for assessing site-specific conditions and the need for action;
Cross-program coordination of response planning;
Prompt risk reduction through early action (removal or remedial);
Appropriate cleanup of long-term environmental problems;
Early public notification and participation; and
Early initiation of enforcement activities.
SACM is a process change that should be considered for all Superfund activities. Implementation of this policy will be
consistent with the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) and the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). Overall Superfund priorities remain the same: deal
with the wont problems first; aggressively pursue enforcement; and involve the public and relevant State agencies at all
appropriate stages of the work.
Overview
All actions taken under SACM must be consistent with
CERCLA and the NCP, and each response selection must
be adequately documented by an administrative record.
EPA's enforcement first policy will continue under SACM.
Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs) are performing ap-
proximately 70 percent of the new work at NPL sites, and
EPA remains committed to maximizing PRP involvement
when applying the principles of SACM. Success-
ful enforcement under SACM will require
careful consideration of the nature and ^
timing of PRP participation in particu- . ^\»
*• ff?
Major enforcement areas affected
by SACM include:
• The timing and methodol-
ogy of PRP searches;
• De minimis settlements;
• The availability and adequacy of administrative
records; and
• Cost recovery and cost documentation.
This document highlights the need to maintain an enforce-
ment first stance and discusses appropriate approaches
for addressing the issues listed above.
-------
2. Prior to development of an Engineering Evaluation/
Cost Analysis (EE/CA);
3. Prior to a removal action;
4. Prior to a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
(RI/FS);
5. Prior to a Remedial Design/Remedial Action (RD/
RA);and
6. PriortoanRAcontractsolicitatioawhenrundingme
RA would have significant implications for the Fund
and when no significant delay will occur.
EPA may take back the response lead from a PRP when the
Agency deems a lead change would be appropriate to
maintain response integrity or to protect human health
and th#environment
The Region should identify the earliest point that the PRP
search should begin and when negotiations should occur
at each site.
PRP Searches: Timing and Methodology
; adequate PRP searches can be crucial when
preparing for negotiations and other enforcement activi-
ties. EPA does not anticipate that SACM will lead to
changes in PRP searches for sites that require only emer-
gency or time-critical removal actions. However, SACM's
integrated site assessment process may lead to changes in
PRP search methodology for non-time-critical removals
and remedial actions for several reasons. First, because an
RI may begin with or during a Site Investigation (SI),
giving PRPs an opportunity to participate in the RI/FS will
require that PRPs be identified earlier in the process than
they are traditionally identified. Second, because the inte-
grated site assessment is envisioned to require less time to
complete than under the current process, there may be less
time to develop liability information before a non-time-
critical removal or remedial design begins. In addition, the
greater emphasis on early risk reduction is expected to
increase the use of non-time-critical removals to address
some threats that previously were addressed with reme-
dial actions. This will mean that there may be less time
available before initiation of the response than in the past
For all of these reasons, there will be less time to conduct
the PRP searchand an increased emphasison Regions'PRP
search programs.
As a general rule, PRP search activities should begin as
soon as possible after the Region decides that a response
action is likely to be required at the site. PRP searches for
some sites, such as multi-generator landfills, may require
substantial effort Early initiation of PRP search activities
may be valuable at these sites to ensure adequate time for
carrying out enforcement activities such as issuing general
notice letters. Many other sites, however, may require no
action beyond the initial site assessment activities. Expe-
dited searches at these sites probably would be unneces-
sary and not cost-effective in most instances.
Once Regions have decided to begin PRP search activities,
they are encouraged to adopt a phased PRP search ap-
proach that focuses first on establishing liability for PRPs
about whom information is most readily available from
site assessment activities and other available sources and
then expands to address the remaining PRPs. If a core
group of PRPs is identified before a discrete phase of a
combined site assessment negotiations may begin for the
conduct of data collection associated with the site assess-
ment activities (i.e., SI, RI, FS, etc.), even if the Region
believes that additional PRPs may be found later. (Keep in
mind that under the current policy, EPA has the lead
responsibility for the site assessment activities - Prelimi-
nary Assessment (PA), SI, and Expanded Site Investiga-
tion (ESI)- This should continue under SACM. PRPs may
collect data, but final responsibility for interpreting that
data in reports and making site decisions remains with
EPA.) Similarly, negotiations for conducting a response
action (i.e., RD/RA, removal, etc.) may be initiated with
known PRPs even if all PRPs have not been idenafied.
Once potential liability has been established for the core
group, the PRP search can be extended to the remaining
PRPs whose liability is more difficult or more time con-
suming to establish. Regions should share information
with known PRPs as soon as possible to facilitate PRP
organization.
In conducting PRP searches, Regions should coordinate
and share information with other parts of the program and
with States. Where the Regional office uncovers informa-
tion on PRPs as partof an emergency or time-critical action,
the RDT should make full use of the information from these
activities to support later enforcement actions at the site.
Similarly, site assessment should include PRP search ac-
tivities such as the documentation of evidence that identi-
fies owners, operators, and witnesses; the collection of
drum label information; the identification of the location
and condition of generator records; and other activities
that may help establish liability or waste contribution. Site
assessment activities might include a more detailed or
targeted waste analysis to tie wastes to specific PRPs.
Where available, Regions should make use of States' au-
thority to search for and notice PRPs. Regions should
-------
consider writing a generic PRP search work assignment
that can be used for a number of searches, each of which is
initiated withaseparatetechnicaldirection memorandum.
Coordination of the PRP search and othersite activities will
require close communication between the PRP search team
and the RDT.
Negotiations: Timing and Content
Generally, it is anticipated that by using the phased PRP
search approach and some of the additional techniques
listed above, there will be sufficient time before initiation
of non-time-critical removals and early remedial actions to
allow those actions to be PRP-lead. For example, if the RDT
decides, based on the early results of a PRP search, to
initiate a Fund-lead EE/CA to support a non-time-critical
removal action, the Region can continue PRP search activi-
ties during the EE/CA. Upon completion of the EE/CA,
the ROT can decide, based on the supplemented PRP
search, whether to seek PRP participation in the non-time-
criticai removal action. There may be even more time for
the PRP search if it begins during an emergency or time-
critical removal action, or during the SI.
With the exception of non-time critical removals, it may be
appropriate in somecases to conductadditional PRP search
activities before initiating a response action at a site if the
Region believes that a more thorough PRP search will
increase the likelihood of settlement (for example, by iden-
tifying more PRPs). Any delays in work should be brief.
Establishing liability against additional PRPs may have
other benefits such as similar treatment of all PRPs, re-
duced risk of contentious cost recovery actions, and con-
servation of the Fund.
The Region should identify logical points during the site
assessment process when negotiations with PRPs should
be considered. Some of the major criteria for this decision
include:
1. PRPs:
a. theavailabilityofviablepartiesforwhichRegions
have liability evidence;
b. the degree to which the identified PRPs appear
willing to settle; and
c. the ability of PRPs to conduct response activities.
2. Site conditions and work to be performed:
a. the risk posed by the site and the need to move
forward with the response quickly;
b. the probable sequence and nature of cleanup ac-
tivities scheduled for the site; and
c. the action to be negotiated.
3. Cost:
a. if the activity to be negotiated is a removal costing
more than $2 million, enforcement will minimize
the need for waivers under CERCL A Section 104(c);
and
b. State matching funds for remedial actions at NPL
sites are not required if PRPs conduct remedial
actions under, for example, a consent decree or
unilateral administrative order.
The following examples show some stages in the process
where negotiations may be appropriate, and the possible
scope of the negotiations:
1. Theinitialassessmentindicatesthatthereisahazard-
ous substance release at the site and there is a nigh
probability that the site may be listed on the NPL. In
addition.some removal action is needed. In this case,
the Region could negotiate with PRPs to perform the
site assessment data collection activities —including
any necessary sampling— and the EE/CA or RI/FS.
The Region could also include performance of the
EPA-selectedremovalactioninthenegotiations.Keep
in mind that although PRPs may conduct sampling
and data collection, EPA retains responsibility for
decision making.
2. The initial assessment indicates that a non-time-criti-
cal removal action should be taken. The Region could
negotiate an order with the PRPs for the EE /C A, and
in some cases could include the eventual non-time-
critical removal action in the order.
3. Theinitialassessmentshowsthatadditionalsiteevalu-
ation is needed to determine if the site will require
any action (early action or long-term action). In most
cases EPA should continue performing the site as-
sessment activities while continuing the PRP search.
Negotiations should occur after a determination is
made that a time-critical removal, an EE/CA, or an
RI/FS is needed.
Under all of these scenarios EPA retains the responsibil-
ity to perform the risk assessment for removal and reme-
dial actions, to prepare Hazard Ranking System scoring
packages, and to make all response selection decisions.
Notice Letters
CERCLA and current EPA guidance encourage the use of
special notice letters (or issuance of waivers) for RI/F5s
and RD/RAs. When Regions anticipate conducting a com-
-------
bined SI/RI/FS, they should use special notice letters if
they believe that such letters could facilitate a settlement.
Regions also should use special notice letters for non-time-
critical removals when they believe that such letters could
facilitate a settlement.
A special notice letter initiates a moratorium on response
activity and enforcement Such moratoria generally Iast90-
120 days (if EPA receives a good faith offer from the PRPs
within the first 60 days of the moratorium). Therefore,
when Regions expect that they will be issuing special
notice letters, the letters should be sent out far enough in
advance of the planned activities so that work is not
significantly delayed. Certain investigatory and planning
activities set forth in Section 104(b) of CERCLA should
occur during the negotiation moratoria.
Consultations for Early Actions
In implementing SACM, careful site and case selection is
important When identifying appropriate sites for non-
time-critical removalactions, Regions may wish to consult
with Headquarters.
Regions must follow the existing rules for justifying and
obtainingexempa'onsforremoval actions estimated tocost
over $2 million or exceed one year in duration. Also,
Regions must consult with Headquarters prior to takingan
early action which will require funding beyond what the
Region has in its allowance.
When a State does not participate in the conduct and
financial support of a Fund-lead non-time-critical removal
action, the RDT must evaluate whether the urgency and
need are great enough Jo justify the loss of the State
contribution. (Until such time as the authority for approv-
ing $2 million waivers at non-NPL sites is delegated to the
Regions, Headquarters will have to be involved in this
decision on a site-by-site basis.) Until a final policy is
developed. Headquarters will generally support projects
costing less than $5 million, as long as there is a good
justification, even if a State is unable ^o participate. Head-
quarters also will consider projects costingover $5 million,
but there will have to be a compelling case for undertaking
the work in the absence of a State contribution.
In order to ensure consistent use of non-time-critical au-
thority. Regions must consult with Headquarters on PRP-
or Fund-lead non-time-critical renurrals costing over $5
million.
If an early action under SACM presents particularly diffi-
cult issues or may be controversial with States, PRPs,
communities or other interested parties, the Regions are
strongly encouraged to consult with the appropriate Re-
gional coordinator at Headquarters. Regional staff respon-
sible for public involvement may be consulted to assist in
gauging the level of public interest.
State Involvement in Enforcement
State capabilities and authorities differ. Each Region should
work with each of its States to develop a general strategy
for enforcement and the manner in which the State will be
involved. Actions planned under State enforcement-lead
must be under documents enforceable under State law and
overseen by the States. Sites may be designated as State-
lead if the Region agrees and the State has the capability
and authority under State law to undertake the action.
States Should be kept informed of negotiations concerning
site assessment activities and early actions to the same
extent that they are notified and kept informed currently
under CERCLA Section 121(f) and the NCP.
Late-identified PRPs
When the decision is made to take either a Fund-lead or
PRP-lead action, and the Region expects that additional
PRPs will be identified subsequent to initiation of the
action, the Region should take steps to provide some type
of constructive notice to PRPs who may be found at a later
date (that is, "late identified" PRPs). For example, Regions
could send letters providing information about a site to
prospective PRPs. Regions might also place an announce-
ment of site activity or of availability of the administrative
record file in a major local newspaper and the federal
effective than newspapers for reaching PRPs located out-
side the area of the site and the newspaper circulation
area.)
De Minimis Settlements
SACM is expected to produce more site information earlier
than in the past allowing Regions to develop de minimis
settlements earlier. In some cases, Regions will pursue
PRP-lead early actions before developing the waste-in lists
and volumetric rankings normally needed for de minimis
settlements, making de minimis settlements at that time
less likely. In such cases, de minimis settlements may still
be developed prior to a subsequent early action decision
(Action Memorandum, Record Of Decision) when the
required information becomes available. Regions should
follow EPA guidance on early de minimis settlements
(indudingOSWER Directive Number 9834.7-lQand strive
to develop such settlements as early in the process as
possible.
-------
The Department of Justice
SACM does not change the delegations under CERCLA.
The Department of Justice (DO)) should be consulted for
enforcement strategy planning when judicial enforcement
of an administrative order is likely, consent decrees are
planned, and certain de minimis and cost recovery activi-
ties are contemplated (e.g., DO] mustconcur onde minimis
and cost recovery settlements where the total response
costs for a site exceed $500,000).
Administrative Records
The administrative record, required under CERCLA, con-
tains the documents that form the basis for the selection of
a response action and serves as the basis for judicial review
of EPA's response action. High quality administrative
records are necessary to ensure the defensibility of re-
sponse decisions made under the expedited procedures of
SACM and are particularly important for SACM projects
that may set precedents. Regions must establish an admin-
istrative record for each response action in accordance
with CERCLA, the NCP,andOSWERadministrative record
guidance (OSWER Directive Number 98333A-1). All deci-
sions concerning the selection of the appropriate response
action should be documented in the administrative record
file in accordance with EPA guidance. In particular, the
administrative record should includedocumentation show-
ing that the action taken is not inconsistent with the NCP.
CERCLA also requires that EPA provide the public (in-
cluding PRPs) with an opportunity to participate in the
development of the administrative record. According to
the NCP Subpart I, the administrative record file for a non-
time-critical removal must be available for public inspec-
tion when the EE/CA is made available for public com-
ment. Fortime-critical removals, the administrative record
file must be made available within 60 days after the start of
on-site removal activity. The administrative record file for
the selection of a remedial action must first be made
available when the RI/FS begins. When the Region is
conductingacombinedSI/RI/FS,theadministrative record
file must be made available at the point when work char-
acteristic of an RI/FS begins. In order for the record to be
ready for public inspection when the RI/FS begins, Re-
gions should begin compiling the administrative record
file when the RDT decides a combined SI/RI/FS is needed.
Cost Recovery and Cost Documentation
SACM may increase the number of cost recovery actions
subject to the removal statute of limitations (SOL) because
more sites may be addressed with non-time-critical remov-
als than in the past. The SOL for removals is three years
from a removal completion, unless a remedial action is
initiated within three years of the completed removal.
Early remedial actions would fall under the remedial SOL
which is six years after initiation of physical on-site con-
struction of the remedial action.
Documentation of cost and work performed needs to be
compiled whenever cost recovery actions are taken. EPA's
past costs should be sought in all negotiations with PRPs
for response work at SACM sites. The cost recovery rule is
expected toassistindefiningdocumentation requirements.
NOTICE: The policies set out in this fact sheet are not final
Agency action, but are intended solely as guidance. They
are not intended, nor can they be relied upon, to create any
rights enforceable by any party in litigation with the United
States. EPA officials should follow the guidance provided
in this fact sheet, or may act at variance with the guidance,
based on an analysis of site-specific circumstances. The
Agency also reserves the right to change this guidance at
any time without public notice.
Enforcement Under the Superfund Accelerated
Cleanup Model (SACM) • Interim Guidance
This paper is one of five fact sheets published by EPA
under publication number 9203.1-051 (Volume 1,
Numbers 1-5) to describe the Superfund Accelerated
Cleanup Model (SACM) and should be reviewed in
conjunction with the other SACM fact sheets. Com-
ments on this document should be directed to Maria
Bywater of the Office of Waste Programs Enforce-
ment (703) 603-8929.
There are two other important sources of informa-
tion: "SACM cpncept paper" (8/5/92) and Guidance
on Implementation of the Superfund Accelerated Cleanup
ModelUnderCERCLAandtheNCP [OSWER Directive
No. 9203.1-03 (7/7/92)]. General SACM information
can be obtained by calling the Superfund Document
Center (202) 260-9760.
-------
SEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
Publication 9203.1-051
December 1992
Assessing Sites Under
SACM — Interim Guidance
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
Office of Waste Programs Enforcement
Office of Enforcement
Intermittent Bulletin
Volume 1 Number 4
The purpose of the Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model (SACM) is to make Superfund cleanups more timely and efficient.
This will be accomplished through more focus on the front end of the process and better integration of all Superfund program
components. The approach involves:
• A continuous process for assessing site-specific conditions and the need for action;
• Cross-program coordination of response planning;
• Prompt risk reduction through early action (removal or remedial);
• Appropriate cleanup of long-term environmental problems;
• Early public notification and participation; an.i
• Early initiation of enforcement activities.
SACM is a process change that should be considered for all Superfund activities. Implementation of this policy will be
consistent with the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) and the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). Overall Superfund priorities remain the same: deal
with the worst problems first; aggressively pursue enforcement; and involve the public and relevant State agencies at all
appropriate stages of the work.
SACM Assessment
Assessing sites under SACM involves
the following principles: <£
The process integrates tradi-
tional site assessment func-
tions to allow continuous as-
sessment for high priority
sites that proceeds until all
necessary data are collected
to screen sites or support any
needed response actions.
SACM goals indudecombin-
Faster...C/eaner...Safer
ing activities to support both removal and remedial
assessments. Thecontinuing assessment process sup-
ports both National Priorities List (NFL) listing and
remedial actions.
Response action decisions should be initiated as soon
as evidence indicates that early action is warranted.
Any appropriate enforcement actions should be ini-
tiated as well. Assessment work can continue concur-
rently with early actions.
Assessment procedures are coordinated to ensure
that data collected in one phase of assessment sup-
port other assessment, enforcement, and response
activities.
Sites posing the greatest threat are ad-
dressed first ("Worst Sites First"). All sites
will be reviewed to determine site prior-
) ity for continued assessment
-------
it is clear no CERCLA response action will be taken, the
assessment is completed by documenting the basis of the
decision through an SEA designation. If further data indi-
cate that the site is likely to have a Hazard Ranking System
(HRS) score of 28.5 or more, EPA (or the State, under a
cooperative agreement) may initiate a Remedial Investiga-
tion (81). Additional data needed to prepare the HRS
package can be collected while the RI is underway. RI data
can be used tp support removal action decisions and HRS
scores, 25 well as remedial action decisions. The Region
must include documentation required by the NCP for
moving from one phase of assessment to another.
The Regional Decision Team (RDT) is an integral part of the
site assessmentprocess. Under SACM, coordination among
removal, remedial, and State agency personnel is critical,
and fostering that coordination is a roleof the RDT. At the
point where assessment information is adequate for deci-
sion-making, the RDT convenes to consider options for
sites. The RDT can then direct or recommend a response
action (e.g. time critical removal), decide to collect addi-
tional data, develop an enforcement strategy, and recom-
mend placing the site on the NPL
The States have always played a critical role in site assess-
ment, performing most of the Preliminary Assessments
(PA) and many of the Site Investigations (SI). EPA expects
that role to continue under SACM. The EPA Regions and
theStates will coordinate to develop two-way communica-
tion concerning Federal and Slate response actions. EPA
Regions are responsible for working out the appropriate
arrangement with each of their States.
Coordination of assessment and enforcement activities is
also critical. When it is feasible, me sis assessment reports
should identify owners, operators, and witnesses, with the
appropriate documentation. Likewise, they should de-
scribe generator records and other useful information,
such as drum labels. The decision r> start a Potentially
Responsible Party (PRP) search requires a balancing of
resources. Although many sites (lie., those designated
SEA) willnotneed PRP searches, rapid action under SACM
may require mat PRP searches begc*. early in the process
for some sites. As a general rule, FRP search activities
should begin as soon as possible after die decision is made
that a response action is likely to be required at the site.
Experience hasshown that early and irequentcommunica-
tionwithlocal communities can enhance site response,and
this will be particularly true under SACM. Where appro-
priate, EPA and the State should take the initiative in
commencing community involvement early in the assess-
ment process. The Agency is developing guidance for
community involvement activities at the assessment stage
of the process.
Consistent with the NCP, listing sites on the NPL will
continue to be a prerequisite to spending remedial action
funds to clean up sites. The HRS will continue to be the
primary basis for selecting sites for the NPL SACM does
not change the role of the HRS and NPL, and in general
SACM should not significantly affect the number of sites
that EPA will place on the NPL
Expediting Cleanup Through SACM Assessment
SACM promotes performing risk assessment and RI acn'vi -
ties earlier in the assessment process for a site where data
indicate remedial action will be needed. Once a decision
has been made to conduct the RI in conjunction with HRS
data collection, integrated assessment data collection and
sampling efforts continue to:
• Obtain documentation for the HRS; and
• Characterize site sources, extent of contamination,
and risks to determine appropriate cleanup actions.
Consistent data collection approaches and appropriate
data quality objectives that serve the needs of early action,
long-term action, and NPL listing will promote efficiency
in Superfund. A single team should collect samples and
select analytical methods to serve multiple program needs.
A coordinated site mobilization eliminates duplication of
tasks and reduces sampling and analyses, savingboth time
and money.
The scoping and planning of the RI should begin as soon as
EPAdeterminesthatthe site will mostlikelyrequirererne-
dial action. The RDT may decide to begin an RI at any time
during the assessment process. Once RI activities begin,
assessment activities continue concurrently to collect suf-
ficient information to determine the site score for possible
listingon the NPL Whileasitemightbedesignated as SEA
during that process, the RDT should select sites for early
RIs only where it appears the site will meet the criteria for
the NFL Removal actions can, of course, be taken at any
time in the assessment process, and the RDT should con-
sider an early action at any site selected for an early RI.
One key to the success of the SACM approach is to select
the appropriate sites fc. -tararig die RI prior to HRS
scoring. It is important to avoid committing high levels of
resources to sites that may not beeligiblefor the NPL Some
site conditions, in particular where human exposure or
conbmination of a sensitive environment has been found,
clearly indicate that the HRS score will be above 285 and
thata response action will be needed (see Figure 1). These
"NPL-caliber" sites will be a focus of integrated assess-
ments and early actions.
-------
Even where a site appears to warrant an early RI, there is
some possibility that the site will not score high enough to
be placed on the NFL. EPA recognizes this and is willing
to proceed with the RI early in the assessment process to
FIGURE 1:
Examples of NPL-caliber Sites
• Public drinking water supplies are contaminated
with a hazardous substance.
• Private wells are contaminated with a hazardous
substance above a health-based benchmark.
• Soils on school, daycare center, or residential proper-
ties are contaminated by a hazardous substance above
background levels.
• AhazardoussubstanceisdetectedabovebackgTOund
in an offeite air release in a populated area.
• A highly toxic substance known to bioaccumulate
(e.g., PCBs, mercury, dioxin, PAHs) is discharged
into surface waters.
• Sensitive environments (e.g., critical habitats for en-
dangered species) are contaminated with a hazard-
ous substance above background levels.
encourage faster response actions at the majority of cases.
Moreover, sites with the conditions described above will
often meet the criteria for removal actions anyway, and the
RI will provide valuable information for any response that
is ultimately selected.
In addition to the risk related conditions, the RDT should
consider the following when evaluating whether an RI
should be initiated at a site:
• Some sites may be excluded from Superfund consid-
eration under policy, regulatory, or legislative re-
strictions. For instance, EPA policy is to defer from
the NPL those facilities subject to corrective action
authorities of the Resource Conservation and Recov-
ery Act (RCRAXsee 54 FR 41000, October 4,1989).
• At sites where receptors have been exposed to haz-
ardous substances, but the source or sources are
unknown, the decision to perform an early RI may
depend on the nature of the potential sources. For
example, if a RCRA facility is a potential source, an
early RI should generally not be performed based on
the RCRA deferral policy. However, in most other
cases, an early RI may contribute to identifying the
source or sources of contamination.
The PRP search and other enforcement actions should
indicate whether ensuing site response will be Fund-
or PRP-Iead, under the policy mat enforcement first is
the preferred strategy. While the above serve as gen-
eral guidelines, the RDT will need to evaluate indi-
vidual cases to determine whether to proceed with an
early RI and whether enforcement or the Fund offers
the more appropriate course of action.
NOTICE: The policies set out in this fact sheet are not
final Agency action, but are intended solely as guid-
ance. They are not intended, nor can they be relied
upon, to create any rights enforceable by any party in
litigation with the United States. EPA officials should
follow the guidance provided in mis fact sheet, or may
act at variance with the guidance, based on an analysis
of site-specific circumstances. The Agency also re-
serves the right to change mis guidance at any time
without public notice.
Assessing Sites Under SACM—Interim Guidance
This paper is one of five fact sheets published by EPA
under publication number 9203.1-051 (Volume 1,
Numbers 1-5) to describe the Superfund Accelerated
Cleanup Model (SACM) and should be reviewed in
conjunction with me other SACM fact sheets. Com-
ments on this document should be directed to Janet
Grubbs of the Hazardous Site Evaluation Division
(703)603-8833.
There are two other important sources of informa-
tion: "SACM concept paper" (8/5/92) and Guidance
on Implementation of the Superfund Accelerated Cleanup
Modd Under CERCLA and theNCP[OSWER Directive
No. 9203.1-03 (7/7/92)). General SACM information
can be obtained by calling the Superfund Document
Center (202) 260-9760.
-------
&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
Publication 9203.1-051
December 1992
SACM Regional Decision
Teams — Interim Guidance
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
Office of Waste Programs Enforcement
Office of Enforcement
Intermittent Bulletin
Volume 1 Number 5
The purpose of the Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model (SACM) is to make Superfund cleanups more timely and efficient.
This will be accomplished through more focus on the front end of the process and better integration of all Superfund program
components. The approach involves:
• A continuous process for assessing site-specific conditions and the need for action;
• Cross-program coordination of response planning;
• Prompt risk reduction through early action (removal or remedial);
• Appropriate cleanup of long-term environmental problems;
• Early public notification and participation; and
• Early initiation of enforcement activities.
SACM is a process change that should be considered for all Superfund activities. Implementation of this policy will be
consistent with the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) and the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). Overall Superfund priorities remain the same: deal
with the worst problems first; aggressively pursue enforcement; and involve the public and relevant State agencies at all
appropriate stages of the work.
Regional Decision Team Goal
The goal of the Regional Decision Team
(RDT) is effective coordination, com-
munication, and integration of pro-
gram authority, expertise, re-
sources, and tools to solve prob-
lems that arise at Superfund sites.
Close coordination of the site as-
sessment and response processes
and initiation of any appropriate
enforcement responses through the
RDT mechanism will enable the
Superfund Program to achieve risk
reduction and site response goals quickly and efficiently.
Faster... C/eaner...Safer
Implementation
The RDT concept offers a new approach for determining
Superfund response actions. The RDT provides for broad
participation across all program elements while placing
emphasis on teamwork and Regional and staff empower-
ment for developing response strategies and solving site
problems. The RDT also has the responsibility for ensuring
that response actions are fully consistent with the require-
ments contained in CERCLA and the NCP. Regions have
flexibility in designing an RDT process that meets their
specific needs, recognizing that a specific formal structure
is not as critical as the overall goal of program integration.
Accordingly, Regions should design a process that,
at a minimum, ensures effective communi-
cation across the removal, site assessment,
remedial, enforcement, and commu-
nity involvementprogram elements,
and provides for the full and active
participation of the Office of Re-
gional Counsel. Further, Re-
gions should ensure that the RDT
works in concert with the Region's
management structure, and with
those designated site managers
(e.g., Site Assessment Managers
(SAMs), On-Scene Coordinators
(OSCs), Remedial Project Managers (RPMs), and /or indi-
vidual site management teams) that are responsible for
handling the site on a day-to-day basis. In addition, the
Region should discuss and establish with the State a pro-
cess for State involvement during the SACM decision-
making process.
Each Region should develop guidelines for the operation
of the RDT so that it will function as smoothly and effec-
tively as possible, while facilitating the involvement of
representatives from various offices, both within and out-
side the Regional office. In addition, it will be impor-
tant for the Regional divisions to fully plan out what they
hope to achieve with their RDT, and initiate early dialogue
to establish roles and responsibilities throughout the re-
-------
sponse process. The following list of possible start-up
actions should be considered by each Region:
1. Assign roles and responsibilities of selected mem-
bers;
2. Establish coordination process with the States;
3. Establish decision criteria for determining response
decisions, including response authority;
4. Identify the universe of Superfund sites within the
Region and the plan of action for integrated assess-
ment of such sites;
5. DevelopapproachfordesignatJonofresponsepriori-
ties;
6. Establish a process for quick initiation of potentially
responsibleparty(FRP)searchactivities and enforce-
ment efforts; and
7. Develop process for early coordination with Head-
quarters, and support agencies/organizations (e.g..
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
(AlSDR), Department of Justice (DOJ)) providing
technical/legal assistance to the RDT.
RDT Operations
The RDT is empowered by the Region to make those
decisions thatare delegated to its level This body serves as
a tool to ensure early and effective communication and
should provide input for the traditional line decision-
making authorities. The RDT should provide policy and
strategic direction to designated site n-anagers (SAM, OSC
andRPM), to ensure the integration of program authorities
(Fund-lead vs. PRP-lead, removal vs. remedial), resources,
and tools to solve site-specific problems. (The RDT is not
responsible for true emergencies, which the removal pro-
gram will continue to handle.) The RDT should convene
either routinely or on an as-needed basis, to receive status
reports and strategy options from the site managers),
establish response priorities, and provide both advice and
direction on appropriate response actons (e.g., scope and
sequence of projects). RDT involvement in a site response
should follow the process or recommend actions as de-
scribed below:
1. Early Assessment Stage:
Following receipt of initial site information (e.g.. Prelimi-
nary Assessment/Removal Assessment or Site Inspec-
tion), me RDT would convene to assess optional next steps
for all sites where a Site Evaluation Accomplished (SEA)
decision is not appropriate. Specific options available to
the RDT include:
• Recommend/Develop an Early Action Response
Flan
•
• Emergency/Time-Critical Removal Action—situa-
tions where prompt action is required to mitigate a
risk to human health or the environment RDT in-
volvement initiating these actions may be limited
based on the time available; however,the RDT should
participate in evaluating the response after the action
has been taken and identifying the next steps re-
quired to complete the response, if any. Time-critical
actions, which must be initiated quickly to protect
human health and the environment, should be re-
served for situations where an action must be initi-
ated quickly to protect human health and the envi-
ronment.
• Non-Time-Critical Removal Action — less urgent
action intended to stabilize the site and/or eliminate
contamination. The RDT should assess the opportu-
nity for response and initiate the preparation of the
EngineeringEvaluation/Cost Analysis (EE/CA)and
Action Memo with prior public comment (and for
Fund-financed removals, the required justification
for exemptions to exceed statutory removal time and
dollar limits). Also, the RDT should determine
whether proposed actions are time-critical or non-
time-critical, or whether the site requires remedial
action (including expedited National Priorities List
(NPL) evaluation if
expected).
i-financed remedial action is
Early/Interim Remedial Action — actions at NFL
sites intended to achieve site remediation and risk
reduction. The RDT should initiatea Remedial Inves-
-------
sibilityStudy(RI/FS)
or interim action Record of Decision (ROD).
• Direct The Acquisition of Additional Data
• The RDT may require that additional data be col-
lected priorto deciding onacourseof action for a site.
If at any point in the process of collecting site infor-
mation, the site appears to be an NPL-caliber site, the
RDT should consider initiating RI activities, and,
where appropriate, early actions.
• NPL Listing
• Where sufficient data exist to list a site and where
remedial response actions are envisioned, the listing
process should be concurrent with early response
action or expanded Site Investigation/Remedial In-
vestigation (SI/RI) data collection. Fund-lead early
remedial actions can only be conducted after the site
is on the NPL
+ Enforcement Strategy
• Initiate early PRF search activities to aggressive!;
pursue enforcement first and define the role of 1
in response action and/or data collection. Negotia-
tions with PRPs should be conducted as appropriate
during the assessment process as well as for removal
or remedial response actions. The RDT will have
inputon the selection of the appropriate enforcement
document (Administrative Order on Consent/Uni-
lateral Administrative Order (AOC/UAO), consent
decree,etc.)andmaintainingcoordination with Head-
quarters and DOJ, where appropriate, regarding the
enforcement strategy.
2. Advanced As
iient Stage
As additional site information is received (e.g., after or
during either the early action, or the focused or expanded
SI/RI part of the integrated site assessment), the RDT
should assess next steps for sites warranting additional
response action. Specific options would be similar to those
identified above. At this stage, response actions generally
would fall in the non-time-critical removal, early remedial
action category, or in the long-term action category. The
RDT should direct the initiation of the appropriate support
actions. Also, the RDT should assess the relative priorities
of the proposed response actions and allocate resources
accordingly, if delegated this authority. If not recommen-
dations should be made if additional resources are neces-
sary.
3. Public Participation/Community Involvement
The success of SACM will depend to a large degree on
public acceptance of our actions at the site level. Maintain-
ing a strong focus on the local community (our primary
"customer") will contribute immensely to this success. The
administrative record file, a primary vehicle for public
participation, must be made available to the public for
inspection according to the schedule set out in the NCP
Subpart I. This is a necessary component for cost recovery.
The decisions that the RDT makes about the future of a site
will be important to the local community. The RDT, there-
fore, should take community concerns into account when
making decisions on a site response strategy. The commu-
nity should be promptly informed once those decisions are
made. Community relations planning should be included
in the site response strategy as an equal element with
technical and legal considerations, including due consid-
eration of CERCLA and NCP requirements.
Using non-time-critical removal actions, as compared to
time-critical removal actions, will allow prior public com-
ment, and are encouraged where time allows.
4. Follow-up:
The Regions should develop protocols defining the role of
the RDT in monitoring and evaluating ongoing response
and assessment activities.
Organization
As described above, the RDT is designed to ensure effec-
tivecommunicationand coordinationacross theSuperfund
program. The RDT provides policy advice and strategic
direction to site mangers and sets priorities to promote
efficient site response. RDT generally consists of manage-
-------
merit level personnel, as opposed to the make-up of site
management teams. The RDT generally will develop re-
sponse strategies for sites (e.g., the decision to taki a
"removal" versus a "remedial" action). Individuals autho-
rized to sign Action Memos or RODs may be on the RDT.
The RDT will not have responsibility for the day-to-day
site project management, which will remain with OSCs/
RPMs and site-management teams.
Regions have flexibility in developing an organizational
structure for the RDT, and may decide to develop multiple
RDTs. In Regions where all program elements report to a
single manager, (e.g.. Deputy Director for Supernind), the
RDT might consist of the line managers reporting to that
manager, along with a representative from the Office of
Regional Counsel. In Regions where program responsibili-
ties are dispersed, a more formal arrangement would be
appropriate, in these instances, a typical model for start-up
might include the following senior level participants:
• Senior Manager
• Remedial Person
• Removal Person
• Site Assessment Person
• Cost Recovery Person
• RiskAssessor/BiologicalTechnicalAssistanceGroup
(BTAG) Representative
• Attorney from Office of Regional Counsel
• Community Involvement Coordinator
The Regions should involve the States as often as possible
in an appropriate manner. TypicaOy, States would be
consulted in concert with RDT deliberations or in prepara-
tion for an RDT meeting. The RDT also should meet
periodically or on an as needed basis, with support agen-
cies and organizations (i.e., AT5DR, Corps of Engineers,
Office of Research and Development STAG, PRP search,
contractmanagementstaff,DOJ,etc.) toreceiveadviceand
input on response options or enforcement actions as ap-
propriate.
Headquarters Consultation
Regions must consult withHeadquarters prior to takingan
action which will require funding beyond what the Region
has in its allowance. Regions must also consult before
committing to a PRP-lead or Fund-lead non-time-critical
action costing over $5 million. Regions must always follow
the existing rules for justifying and obtaining exemptions
for removal actions estimated to cost over $2 million or
exceed one year duration. Regions are also strongly urged
to discuss with Headquarters any situations which present
particularly difficult issues or may be controversial with
State or other interested parties.
NOTICE: The policies set out in this fact sheet are notfinal
Agency action, but are intended solely as guidance. They
are not intended, nor can they be relied upon,, to create any
rights enforceableby any party in litigation with the United
States. EPA officiate should follow the guidance provided
in this fact sheet, or may act at variance with the guidance,
based on an analysis of site-specific circumstances. The
Agency also reserves me right to change this guidance at
any time without public notice.
SACM Regional Decision Teams - Interim
Guidance
This paper is one of five fact sheets published by EPA
under publication number 9203.1-061 (Volume 1,
Numbers 1-5) todesoibe meSuperhmd Accelerated
Cleanup Model (SACM) and should be reviewed in
conjunction with the other SACM fact sheets. Com-
ments on trus doourtent stouU be directed to Robin
Anderson of the Hazardous Site Control Division
(703)603-8747.
There are two other important sources of informa-
tion: "SACM concept paper" (8/5/92) and Guidance
on Implementation of the Sinafund Accelerated Cleanup
Model Under CERCLA and the NCP [OSWER Direc-
tive No. 9203.1-03 (7/7/92)1- General SACM infor-
mation can be obtained by calling the Supernind
Document Center (202) 260-9760.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. O.C. 20460
JUL I 0 1992 -«.«o-
SCt.'3 WASTE a*0 EME«GENCv RESPONSE
IMPORTANT—ALL READ
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Transnittal of Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model
(SACK) Legal Directive I
FROM: Henry L. Longest, II /f
Director, Office of Emerlfency and Remedial Response
TO: All Superfund Staff and Managers
Attached is a copy of the Guidance on Implementation of the
Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model (SACM) under CERCLA and the
NCP. This important memorandum is an excellent point-by-point
analysis of SACM vis a vis current legal requirements, and it
does maximize the flexibility in the NCP.
This will serve as a great reference tool as we move forward
to implement SACM. A National SACM Meeting is planned for late
August including staff and management from Headquarters and all
ten Regions. I will continue to forward you information on SACM
as it develops.
Attachment
cc: Bruce Diamond, OWPE
Tim Fields, SRO
Sylvia Lovrance, OSW
Walter Kovalick, TIO
James Makris, CEPPO
•££. Printed on Recycled Paoc'
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
Ol T 1932
OSWER Directive No. 9203.1-03
SUBJECT: Guidance on Implementation of the Superfund Accelerated
i Cleanup Model, (SACK) under CERCLA and the NCP
I \
FROM: -*" Don R. Clay J J '.-.;. '. JL'S.';.\.
y . ..
. Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste
.\ and Emergency Response
)'Lisa K.
Associate General Counsel
Solid waste and Emergency
Response Division
TO: Waste Management Division Directors
Regions I, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII
Emergency and Remedial Response Division Director
Region II
Hazardous waste Management Division Directors
Regions III, IX
Hazardous Waste Division Director
Region X
Superfund Branch Chiefs
Regions I-X
Superfund Branch Chiefs,
Office of Regional Counsel
Regions I-X
PURPOSE
To provide a more precise description of the Superfund
Accelerated Cleanup Model (SACM) , in order to ensure its
consistent application in compliance with CERCLA and the National
Contingency Plan (NCP).1
1 This Directive does not address the unique issues
associated with the implementation of the SACM model at federal
facility sites. Supplemental guidance on those issues is under
development.
Printmt on Rtcyclta Paoe-
-------
BACKGROUND
In broad terms, the SACM model seeks to accomplish four
objectives: establish a continuous process for the assessment of
site-specific conditions and the need for action; create cross-
program Regional Decision/Management Teams responsible for
initiating appropriate actions as information is developed about
a site; achieve prompt risk reduction through early actions
(removal or remedial); and ensure the appropriate cleanup of
long-term environmental problems. The overall goal of SACM is to
accelerate cleanups and increase efficiency in the Superfund
process within the framework of CERCLA and the NCP/ while
ensuring that cleanups continue to be protective and to allow for.
appropriate public involvement.
Since the announcement of SACM, there has been considerable
interest and enthusiasm about the model. Active discussions
continue among Headquarters offices and the Regions, and views
have been solicited from the Corps of Engineers, the Department
of Justice, and States in an effort to further develop the
guiding principles of SACK. Now that the model has been outlined
conceptually, it is important to discuss the details of the
approach in order to ensure that all participants are working
from a consistent starting point, and that the model is carried
out in compliance with CERCLA and consistent with the NCP.
DISCPSSTQH
Relationship to egRCTA flnd tt1* NCP. SACM is intended to
help the Agency accomplish the goals of expedited cleanup and
increased efficiency in the Superfund process within the
framework of the current statute and NCP. The Agency believes
that there is adequate flexibility under the current law and
regulations to accomplish these goals; however, SACM does n2£
provide independent authority to carry out actions that are not
authorized by tiie CERCLA and the NCP regulations.
For instance, the use of the terms "early actions" and
"long-term actions" in SACM should not be read to mean that
actions may be implemented under the SACM model that are other
than removal or remedial actions. Any action takes under CKRCLA
must fall into ths category of a removal action oz a- remedial
action, and thea must conform to applicable VCV requirements.
The categorization in SACK of early removal actions and early
remedial action* as "early actions" is meant to better
communicate the timing and nature of actions designed to achieve
rapid reduction of risk, although not necessarily cleanup of all
contamination. (Given the large number of sites with contaminant
problems that may require long-term solutions, e.g.. sites
requiring grounewater restoration, it is anticipated that many
sites will have both early and long-term action components.)
-------
At the same time, however, the NC9 affords the Agency
considerable discretion in many instances. For example, the
numerous data collection efforts contemplated by the NCP could be
performed as part of one large site assessment (as discussed
later in this Directive). CERCLA and the NCP also provide the
Agency with the flexibility to proceed with many types of cleanup
actions using either removal or remedial action authorities. See
CERCLA sections 101(23) and 101(24); and 40 CFR 300.415(d) (a
partial list of actions that may be carried out using removal
action authority).
In addition, some SACM pilots may involve specific
deviations from current Agency policies in order to test a new
approach to site evaluation or response (where this is the case,
such deviations should be properly justified and documented).
Experience from the SACM pilot projects may also prompt changes
in national policies. (Further, SACM pilot projects may identify
regulatory or statutory requirements that would prevent the
Agency from pursuing a given approach; such information may be
referred to Headquarters for consideration as part of regulatory
reform, or for study by CERCLA reauthorization workgroup*.)
Site Aaaaaaaant. One of the major initiatives of SACM is to
break down institutional barriers within the Agency, and to
establish an operational scheme under which data are collected
and used to serve multiple purposes. For instance, samples taken
as part of an evaluation for possible removal action may often be
used to support, or begin, an evaluation of the ne«d for remedial
action, site scoring using the Hazard Ranking System (KRS), or in
some cases, the remedial investigation (RI). Although the NCP
regulations contemplate that the Agency will perform (as
warranted) a removal preliminary assessment (PA), a removal site
inspection (SI), a remedial PA and SI, and ultimately an RI, some
or all of these various studies can be consolidated in
appropriate eases under the SACM model, such that one sits
assessment can be performed and one sits assessment report
written. However, tae report should include any fladings
required by the HCV for moving from ems phase of sits assessment
to smother fa.a.. from a remedial PA to a remedial SI; am* 40 CFR
300.420(b)(4)(iii)).2
By using data for multiple purposes, economies can be
achieved in terms of the amount of sampling needed, expertise and
learning can be shared among agency officials responsible for the
various tasks undertaken at a site, and the time between data
collection and action (if deemed necessary) can be shortened.
3 Note that during the initial phases of the site
assessment process, -it may be appropriate to issue a finding of
"Site Evaluation Accomplished11 (SEA), indicating that no further
action is planned for the site.
-------
Specifically, if and when sufficient supporting information is
gathered during the combined site assessment, work could begin on
an early action, an HRS scoring package, or ultimately a long-
tern action. This consolidation could save years in the site
evaluation phase of the Superfund process.
Effect on the MPL. The attempt to evaluate sites more
quickly, and to initiate response action earlier, nay have some
impact on a site's scoring and possible listing on the National
Priorities List (NFL).3 However, as discussed below, that impact
is subject to several significant limitations.
Under the current HRS, the physical removal of hazardous
substances from a site may reduce the site's KRS score, but only
if the action occurs prior to the remedial SI phase of the site
assessment.4 Where early response actions occur after initiation
of the remedial SI portion of the site assessment, the risk
reduction achieved by the early action would not be considered in
the HRS scoring process. (However, the site might be a candidate
for a "no further action" decision and then deletion, shortly
after being listed on the NFL.)
Moreover, because a range of waste quantity values generally
qualifies for the ssms waste quantity .sub-score under the HRS, a
physical removal must be significant enough to lower the vasts
quantity below that range of quantities in order to affect the
final vasts quantity and HRS scores. (The timely removal of sll
hazardous substances would always result in an HRS score of
zero.)1
' Only sites listed on the MPL are eligible for
financed remedial actions. 40 CFR 300.425(b)(1). However,
removal actions, and response actions carried out by private
parties pursuant to EPA enforcement authorities, may be conducted
at NPL or non-MFL sites. 40 CFR 300.425(b) (1) and (b) (4).
4 smm 55 Fed.Reg. at 51568. The remedial SI point was
chosen as the dividing line because it is the point at which most
of the scoring data is available, and because of the need to
provide finality in the listing process (a contrary policy would
create a burdensome need to continually recalculate KRS scores).
3 Mote that actions that do not affect the quantity of
waste at a site, such as providing alternative drinking water
supplies or enhancing containment of a waste pile, would not
affect the HRS score. £ee. preamble to final KRS, 55 Fed.Reg.
51532, 51567-69 (Dec. 14, 1990), and KRS Section 2.4.2.2 (40 CFR
Part 300, App. A, sec. 2.4.2.2), for a more detailed discussion
of the effect removal actions may have on the HRS score.
-------
It should also be noted that most sites requiring action
under CERCLA have been found to present long-term problems (such
as the need for groundwater restoration) in addition to more
acute, short-term problems. Thus, at many sites, risk reduction
activities may address only a portion of the contamination
problem, and thus the HRS scoring process would often continue
even after the early actions.
As part of the SACK initiative, the Agency intends to
compile a list of long-term actions. However, that list is not
meant to replace the NPL; rather, it will simply be an
informational list of sites at which long-term actions are being
carried out using the concepts reflected in SACM, and will likely
represent a sub-set of all NFL sites.
Effect on Current Response Action Procedures. It is also
important to recognize how the SACM model fits within the
existing site response process. Although SACK encourages the
taking of early action where risk reduction may be accomplished
promptly, it is not expected that procedures would change for all
categories of CERCLA response actions (although implementation of
the Model may result in axpaditad administrative practices at all
sites).
For example. Da will ooatiaae to aao removal aetioa
authorities to raspoad to oaorooaoy aad tiae-oritieal aituatioas,
aad aaoi does aot iatoad to oaaago the aaaaer ia which taoae
tiaa-seaaitive aotioaa are carried oat. However, the
determination aa to whether a situation ia "time-critical" (where
action aust be initiated in lasa than six aontha) as compared to
"non-time-critical" (where aore than six months planning time is
available) will have an important impact on the level of
analysis, timing of administrative record developaent, and extent
of public participation that is required under the NCP
regulations.4 Thus, especially in cloaa cases, the finding that
action is "time-critical" should be discussed with the Offica of
Regional Counsel raproaantative to the Decision Team, and should
be explained in the Action Memorandum.
At the other end of the spectrum, the Agency will continue
to use remedial action authorities to respond to most
contamination problems that are expected to require more than
five years to coaplete ("long-term actions*), such aa groundwater
restoration projects, large wetland/estuary sites, and extensive
4 £e£ 40 CFR 300.415(b)(4) and (a) (4), 300.820(a); 55
Fed.Reg. at 8695-98 and 8805-06 (March 8, 1990).
-------
mining sits*.7 It is also expected that remedial action
authorities would generally be necessary to carry out the
permanent relocation of individuals, and actions requiring
significant, long-term operation and maintenance activities.
The area where the greatest flexibility is available — and
where the SACK model is expected to have the greatest impact —
is for actions that fall betweem the clear eases of removal and
remedial actions: sites for which a planning period of at least
six months exists (non-time-critical situations), and at which
rapid risk reduction is possible.
I.i non-time-critical situations, both non-time-critical
removal authority, and early action remedial authority, oould
potentially be used to reduce risk. In making a decision as to
which type of authority to use, the Regional Decision Team,
including a representative from the Office of Regional Counsel,
should consider a number of issues regarding each type of
authority.
Aetiionm. Under the SACK model, it
is expected that the Agency would make greater use of its
authority to conduct non-tiae-critical removal actions. The use
of such actions promises to accelerate the cleanup process. For
example, for Fund-financed actions, non-time-critical removal
actions can proceed prior to listing on the MFX*; and in the
enforcement context, they may be accomplished through
administrative orders on consent (AOC's) rather than norm time-
consuming judicial consent decrees used for remedial actions;
CZRCLA section 122(d)(l}(A).
In deciding on the appropriateness of using non-time-
critical removal action authority at a site, the cost and
duration of the action should be evaluated. If a
removal action is expected to exceed statutory limits of $2
million or one year, then an exemption must be justified based
either on the emergency nature of the situation, or a finding
that continued removal action is "consistent with the remedial
action to be taken" (CERCLA section 104(c)(l)). In non-time-
critical situations where a removal action is expected to exceed
the time or dollar limitation, we generally expect to rely on the
consistency exemption. Sites at which remedial action is likely
to be taken f«.g. . proposed or final MPL sites) will generally be
strong candidates for the consistency exemption; it. may also be
appropriate to use this exemption at some non-NPL sites, but it
must be justified on a site-by-site basis, fimfi 55 Fed. Reg. 8666,
8694 (March 8, 1990) .
7 Again, to the extent that the Agency plans to take a
remedial action using Fund monies, the site must first qualify
for listing on the KPL.
-------
Consideration of whether to take a non-time-critical removal
action at a site should also include an evaluation of State cost
share issues. Although a State cost share is not required under
CERCLA section 104(c)(3) for a removal action,1 the absence of a
State's financial participation may limit the capacity of EPA to
fully fund certain large dollar value non-time-critical removal
actions. The advisability of seeking voluntary participation
from the .states in the funding of a non-time-critical removal
action in order .to expedite the cleanup of a site (rather than
waiting to perform a remedial action), must be reserved for site-
by-site discussions.
similarly., where a proposed Fund-financed removal action
would require the performance of post-removal action measures to
maintain the effectiveness of the action, a State's willingness
to perform post-removal site control should be evaluated.' A
decision by a state not to provide for such post-removal controls
may limit EPA's capacity to proceed with Fund-financed removal
actions that require measures to maintain the completed action's
effectiveness. (At enforcement sites, the potentially
responsible parties (PRPs) may be required to perform necessary
post-removal, site control activities.)
The decision to use a non-time-critical removal authority
should also follow a review of the applicable requirements. *
non-time-oritioal removal notion moot include an analysis of
alternatives in an engineering evaluation/cost analysis [BB/Ok],
and the public most bo afforded not ions than 30 calendar days to
01 lament on tne proposed removal alternative bofnro it is
•electee, an required in the NCP (40 CFR 300.415(b) (4) and
Zt is also expected that for non-time-critical removal
actions, it will generally be practicable to attain ARARn. The
NCP requires removal actions to attain ARARs "to the extent
1 Note that before a Fund-financed remedial action can be
taken at a facility that was operated by the State, a cost share
of at least 50 percent is required for all "response costs,"
including removal action costs.. See CERCLA section
I04(c)(3)(C)(ii).
* "Post-removal site control" is discussed in the NCP at 40
CFR 300.415(fc).
10 Note that this public comment period will be extended by
a minimum of 15 additional days upon timely request. 40 CFR
300.4l5(m)(4)(iii).
-------
8
practicable," considering the scope and urgency of the
situation.11 Given the extended planning time available for non-
time-critical removal actions, we believe that it will generally
be "practicable," in terms of the urgency factor, for non-time-
critical removal actions to comply with ARARs. Whether or not
the attainment of an ARAR is beyond the scope of a non-time-
critical removal action, is a site-specific determination that
will depend, in part, on the nature of the removal action, and on
the nature of other actions to be taken at the site.12 For
example, a removal action is more likely to be limited in scope
where it is to be followed by additional site response actions
designed to further address the same problem. (The
impracticability of attaining an ARAR based on the scope of a
non-time-critical removal action should be discussed with the
Office of Regional Counsel's representative to the Decision
Team.)
Finally, in order to assure the public that the non-time-
critical removal actions taken pursuant to the SACM initiative
will be of high quality, Agency policy will be to implement a
preference for treatment in those actions, and to conduct a
baseline risk assessment, where appropriate, before selecting a
non-time-eritieal removal respoase.
Earlv aaa^iial Aetiane. . SACM also encourages the increased
use of remedial action authorities to achieve early risk
reductions at sites. An early remedial action may be either a
final or interim remedial action. An early "final" remedial
action involves the final cleanup of an operable unit or portion
of a site early in the remediation process for the entire site.
For instance, at a large site with several contaminant sources,
an early final remedial action might be taken to eliminate or
control one of those sources, thereby achieving significant risk
reductions.
An "interim" remedial action is generally intended to
address a threat in the short term, while a permanent remedial
solution is being developed. An example would be the
installation of a groundwater pumping system to contain a
contaminant plume while the feasibility of aquifer treatment is
being studied, or construction of a temporary landfill cap to
prevent direct contact with wastes during the remedial
11 40 CFR 300.415(i). The waivers described in 40 CFR
300.430(f)(l)(ii)(C) may also be considered during removal
^ .«*» * &_.»
actions.
0 See NC? preamble discussion, at 55 Fed. Reg. 8695-96
(March 8, 1990) .
-------
investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) process.13 An early
interim remedial action can be taken dur:ig scoping or at other
points during the RI/FS process (however, remedial construction
activities cannot be provided using the Fund until the site has
been finally included on the NPL'4). Less documentation is
required for the Record of Decision (ROD) for an interim remedial
action than for a ROD covering a final remedial action; however,
adequate documentation must be provided to justify the action.
(See "Guide to Developing Superfund No Action, Interim Action,
and Contingency Remedy RODs," OSWER Public. No. 9355-.3-02FS-3
(April 1991), at p. 4.)
Even if early risk reduction could be accomplished through a
non-time-critical removal action, it may nonetheless be
preferable to pursue an early remedial action in a number of
situations. For instance, EPA may decide to use its remedial
action authorities — and therefore to follow the more extensive
State and public participation procedures required for such
actions — at certain sites where there is high public or State
interest, even if there is some associated delay. It may also be
appropriate to use remedial action authorities to accomplish
early actions where' a site is already listed on the NPL and the
remedial process is well underway.
Enforcement Fir«t and PHP S«areh««. The SACM goal of
accelerating cleanups is not intended to displace other important
goals, such as the Agency's general policy of pursuing
enforcement efforts first. However, in order to effectuate both
goals, it will be necessary to carry out certain enforcement
actions in an expedited manner.
For instance, PRP searches must be conducted during the
initial phases of the site assessment process in order to allow
the Agency to pursue an effective enforcement strategy for early
actions. The early identification of and notice to PRPs will
also serve to strengthen EPA's cost recovery cases in situations
where the action is financed by the Fund in the first instance.
(Of course, a full PRP search may be impracticable in emergency
and certain time-critical situations where, for instance, the
PRPs are numerous or difficult to determine.)
In addition, the decision to proceed with an early action
using removal action authorities may trigger shorter statutory
deadlines for the filing of judicial cost recovery actions in
u Of course, such actions could also be accomplished, in
appropriate cases, under removal action authorities.
14 Note that Fund monies may be used to pay for the RI/FS
and remedial design activities even prior to listing on the NPL.
40 CFR 300.425(b)(1).
-------
10
some cases." Thus, if the use of removal authorities is
increased under the SACK model, it may be necessary to prepare
cost recovery cases earlier in the process.
CONCLUSION
It is important to ensure that response actions conducted as
part of the SACM model are consistent with CERCLA and the NCP.
This will strengthen the Agency's ability to recover its costs,
to defend the selected response actions on a site-specific basis,
and to retain full support for the SACM initiative from Congress
and the public.
Questions concerning the issues discussed in this Directive
should be addressed to Sherry Hawkins of the Office of Emergency
and Remedial Response (OERR) (202-260-2180), Sally Hansbach of
the CERCLA Enforcement Division (OWPE/CED) (703-308-8404), or
Larry Starfield of the Office of General Counsel (OGC) (202-260-
1598).
cc: Richard Guimond
Henry Longest, OERR
Bruce Diamond, OWPE
Tim Fields, SRO
OERR Division Directors
Bill White, OE
Sylvia Lowrance, OSW
Walter Kovalicfc, TZO
James HaXris, CEPPO
Sally Mansbach, CED
Sherry Hawkins, OERR
Larry Starfield, OGC
" See CERCLA section 113 (g) (2) (A) and (B)
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
OCT 26 IS92
of nee of
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
VERY IMPORTANT PLEASE DISTRIBUTE TO ALL STAFF
OSWER DIRECTIVE NO. 9203.1-03A
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Exercising Flexibility Through the ^uperfund
Accelerated
FROM: L/Oon R. Clay
K* Assistant
TO:
Addressees
The purpose of this memo is to reaffirm the Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response commitment to support Regional
offices in soundly-based decision making while implementing the
Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model (SACM).
At the April SACM planning meeting, I offered Headquarters
support to the Regions in making decisions that will improve the
Superfund program through SACM. Our new Superfund model is being
implemented at a rapid pace, and I am pleased with the direction
it is taking. SACM is the way we will be doing business in the
future, and although it is exciting and promising, it also poses
certain challenges. Any time major changes are implemented,
decisions must be made and actions oust be taken in order to
improve the efficiency of the program. Yet, we must also be
conscious of the legal boundaries of CERCLA and the NCP. In
order to ensure that SACM actions are fully supported, OSWER has
issued jointly with the Office of General Counsel Directive No.
9203.1-03, "Guidance on Implementation of the Superfund
Accelerated Cleanup Model (SACM) under CERCLA and the NCP".
Using this directive, I urge Regional personnel to take full
advantage of the flexibility that the NCP offers to streamline
the program to provide risk-based cleanups at the greatest number
of sites; this could include development of consolidated site
assessments, the early start-up of RI/FS's at likely NPL sites,
and the increased use of removal authorities to more
expeditiously address sources of contamination. The Office of
Regional Counsel Regional Decision Team (RDT) representative will
be essential in identifying the flexibility within the NCP, and
ensuring that such flexibility is exercised in a manner that does
not pose unacceptable litigation risks. I also urge you to use
your discretion and sound judgement in program innovations. The
RDT meetings will be an appropriate forum to discuss these types
•^T Pnrted en Pecvciea Pape'
-------
-2-
of issues since the team is made up of experts with cross-program
skills.
Further, revision of guidances is underway, and draft "short
sheets* have been sent for Regional comment. We have also net
with the Office of Inspector General (OIG) to fully apprise them
of SACM developments. We have informed the OIG that SACK
expedites the Superfund process using the flexibility within our
authority per the OSWER/OGC directive, without creating the
inconsistencies with the NCP that have been identified in
previous audits.
We must continue the communication between Regions and
Headquarters on the SACM issues. The benefits from this type of
dialogue were clearly seen at the National SACM Meeting held in
August. Keep in mind that we are all on the same team, working
towards the same goals. I stand ready to support you in taking
advantage of the flexibility in the regulations in order to make
soundly-based decisions to implement SACM.
Addressees:
Regional Administrators, Regions I-X
Director, Waste Management Division
Regions I, IV, V, VU
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 Service Division
Regions I, VI, VII
Regional Counsel, Regions I-X
cc:
Rich Guimond, OSWER
Bowdin Train, OSWER
Bill White, OE
Lisa Friedman, OGC
Henry Longest, OERR
Bruce Diamond, OWPE
Tim Fields, SRO
Walt Kovalick, r.TO
------- |