U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
CERCLAOrientation
Student Manual
-------
CERCLA Orientation Course
Agenda
Day 1
9:00-
10:15-
10:30 -
11:30-
12:30 -
1:30-
2:15-
2:30 -
Day 2
9:00-
9:45-
10:30 -
10:45 -
12:00-
1:00-
&3G-
f 2:30 -
2:45-
3:30-
10:15
10:30
11:30
12:30
1:30
2:15
2:30
4:30
9:45
10:30
10:45
12:00
1:00
2:00
2§5-
2:45
3:30
4:00
UNIT1:
BREAK
UNIT 2:
UNIT 3:
LUNCH
Overview of the Superfund Program
Discovering Sites and Performing
Evaluations
Conducting Removal Actions
Initial
The Whodunnit Site: A Removal Case Study
BREAK
UNIT 4:
UNIT 5:
UNITS:
BREAK
BAG Hill
LUNCH
UNIT 7:
UNIT 8:
BREAK
Knox-US:
UNIT 9:
Evaluating Remedial Alternatives and
Selecting a Remedy
ARARs in Superfund
State Roles in Superfund
Farm: A Remedial Case Study
Enforcement Authorities and Process
Conducting Remedial Actions
An Enforcement Case Study
CERCLA/RCRA Interface, Progran
i Status,
and Summary
4:00- 4:15 Course Wrap-Up
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Course Outline
EPA Publications
A. RPM Primer
B. Superfund: Looking Back. Looking Ahead
C. RI/FS Fact Sheets
1. Getting Ready. Scoping the RI/FS
2. Rl: Site Characterization and Treatabilitv Studies
3. FS: Development and Screening of Remedial Action Alternatives
4. A Guide on Remedial Actions for Contaminated Ground Water
5. Expediting Remedial Construction
D. ARARs Fact Sheets
1. ARARs Short Guidance Quarterly Report
2. CERCLA Compliance With Other Laws Manual
3. Overview of ARARs
4. RCRA ARARs: Focus on Closure Requirements
5. CERCLA Compliance with State Requirements
6. CERCLA Compliance with the CWA and SDWA
E. ROD Fact Sheet
F. SITE Fact Sheet
G. Sample of a Proposed Plan
Reference Materials
H. Glossary of terms and acronyms
-------
Course Outline
-------
UNIT ONE
OVERVIEW OF THE SUPERFUND PROGRAM
-------
UNIT OBJECTIVES STUDENT NOTES
Q This unit describes:
Purpose of Superfund
Legislative and regulatory framework
Scope of the program
The Superfund response process
Major players
PURPOSE OF SUPERFUND
G Why a Superfund Program?
Clean up inactive waste management areas
- Make responsible parties (RP) pay
Contribute to prevention of chemical releases
-------
PURPOSE OF SUPERFUND (cont'd) STUDENT NOTES
Therefore, Superfund is:
Direct government response program
Enforcement program
Reporting of releases
EPA, State, and community partnership
LEGISLATIVE AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
The Statutory "pieces" of Superfund include:
Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
(SARA) of 1986
Reauthorization in 199?
-------
LEGISLATIVE AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK (cont'd) STUDENT NOTES
Q CERCLA
Framework of original cleanup program
Remedial Actions = long-term responses
Removal Actions = short-term mitigation of
emergencies
$1.6 billion Trust Fund (5 years)
Tax on chemicals and petroleum
Can only be used for specified activities
Response authorities
LEGISLATIVE AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK (cont'd)
SARA
Broadened and toughened enforcement authorities
Established statutory requirements and expectations for
cleanup
$8.5 billion Trust Fund (5 years)
Community Right-to-Know (Title III) program
Underground Storage Tank Program
-------
LEGISLATIVE AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK (cont'd) STUDENT NOTES
SuperFUND Tax
Tax on petroleum and chemicals
Tax on petroleum -11.7 cents/barrel
• Crude oil received at U.S. refinery; and
• Other petroleum products entering U.S. for
consumption or use
Tax on certain chemicals - on a per ton basis
• Imposed on any chemical sold by manufacturer,
producer, or importer
• Rate ranges from 22 cents to $4.87 per ton on
42 chemicals
LEGISLATIVE AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK (cont'd)
The regulations and management initiatives affecting Superfund
Include:
National Contingency Plan (NCP) j/ ? /f
-------
LEGISLATIVE AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK (cont'd) STUDENT NOTES
National Contingency Plan Subparts
Subpart A: Introduction (includes definitions of key
terms)
- Subpart B: Responsibility and Organization
Subpart C: Planning and Preparedness
Subpart D: Operational Response for Oil Removals
Subpart E: HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE RESPONSE
Subpart F: STATE INVOLVEMENT IN HAZARDOUS
SUBSTANCE RESPONSE
Subpart G: Trustees for Natural Resources
Subpart H: PARTICIPATION BY OTHER PERSONS
Subpart I: ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD
Subpart J: Use of Dispersants and Other Chemicals
-------
LEGISLATIVE AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK (cont'd) STUDENT NOTES
90-Day Management Study set priorities for Implementation:
Worst sites first
Enforcement first
- Community participation
New technologies development and use
- Long-term care of sites
LEGISLATIVE AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK (cont'd)
Relationship of Superfund to other environmental laws:
- Does not establish specific cleanup levels or set
standards
- Does not supercede other laws, works in conjunction
with them
Must meet applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements (ARARs)
-------
SCOPE OF THE SUPERFUND PROGRAM
Superfund response authority covers:
"Releases" or threatened "releases" of hazardous
substances that pose threats to human health or the
environment
STUDENT NOTES
-------
SCOPE OF THE SUPERFUND PROGRAM (cont'd) STUDENT NOTES
WHAT ARE "RELEASES"?
Comprehensive list of actions that Includes spilling, leaking,
pumping, pouring, Injecting, discharging, dumping, disposing,
escaping, and leaching
Types of releases excluded from Superfund's response
authority:
Releases resulting in exposure solely in workplace
Emissions from engine exhaust of vehicles
Nuclear releases subject to Atomic Energy Act
Naturally occurring substances (asbestos) (^cf
-------
SCOPE OF THE SUPERFUND PROGRAM (cont'd)
WHAT ARE "HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES?"
Q Other statutes define "hazardous substances":
Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act)
pollutants
Resource Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA) solid and
hazardous wastes
Clean Air Act pollutants
Toxic Substances Control Act chemicals
Q Superfund may designate its own contaminants or pollutants
Q Petroleum and Its products are specifically excluded
THE SUPERFUND RESPONSE PROCESS
STUDENT NOTES
OVERVIEW OF RESPONSE PROCESS
SHORT-TERM
CLEANUP
SITE DISCOVERY SITE
ft NOTIFICATION EVALUATION
ENFORCEMENT/COST RECOVERY
-------
THE SUPERFUND RESPONSE PROCESS STUDENT NOTES
Key Components of the Superfund Response Process
Site discovery
Site evaluation for listing or immediate action
Removal Action (if necessary)
Listing on the National Priorities List (NPL)
THE SUPERFUND RESPONSE PROCESS (cont'd)
Q Key Components of the Superfund Response Process
(continued)
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS)
Remedy Selection
Remedial Design/Remedial Action (RD/RA)
Long-term Operation and Maintenance
Deletion of Site from NPL
-------
THE SUPERFUND RESPONSE PROCESS (cont'd) STUDENT NOTES
Q Key Cleanup Objectives
SARA mandates that remedial actions
• Protect human health and the environment
m Meet Federal and State requirements (ARARs)
• Be cost effective
SARA also specifies that remedial actions should
• Result in permanent solutions
• Use treatment to reduce the toxicity, mobility, or
volume of wastes to the maximum extent
practicable
Removal actions must remove immediate threats
THE SUPERFUND RESPONSE PROCESS (cont'd)
Q EPA uses a combination of the Fund and Enforcement
Authorities
"Enforcement First" emphasis of 90-Day Study
Enforcement-lead
Fund-lead
-------
MAJOR PLAYERS
STUDENT NOTES
OVERVIEW OF MAJOR PLAYERS
oEPA
MAJOR PLAYERS
EPA
f f ,-, ''•
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response (OERR)/ f<,HJ I
Regional Waste Management and Environmental
Services Divisions
Office of Waste Programs Enforcement (OWPE)?f f
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring
(OECM)
Emergency Response Team (ERT)
Office of Research and Development (ORD)
Office of General Counsel (OGC)
-------
MAJOR PLAYERS (cont'd) STUDENT NOTES
Other Federal Agencies
Coast Guard (USCG)
Corps of Engineers (COE)
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
- Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
(ATSDR)
Department of Justice (DOJ)
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA)
States
MAJOR PLAYERS (cont'd)
a Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs)
Q Contractors
For EPA or other agencies
For affected parties
-------
MAJOR PLAYERS (cont'd) STUDENT NOTES
The Public
Statutory requirements require public participation in
removals. RI/FS, and RD/RA
Community relations program
Technical Assistance Grants (TAG)
MAJOR PLAYERS (cont'd)
OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES UABLE UNDER SUPERFUND
Q Section 120 of SARA
Q All Federal agencies (e.g., Departments of Defense (DoD),
Energy (DOE), and Interior 1DOI)) subject to Superfund
Irrteragency agreements
DoD and DOE actively investigating and remediating sites
Installation Restoration Program (IRP)
Environmental Restoration Program (ERP)
-------
KEY CONCEPTS STUDENT NOTES
Q Framework of program
CERCLA
SARA
NCR
Q Multiple Steps
Discovery
Investigation
Action
Q Multiple Players
Federal
State and local
Private
-------
UNIT TWO
DISCOVERING SITES AND
PERFORMING INITIAL EVALUATIONS
-------
UNIT OBJECTIVES STUDENT NOTES
This unit describes EPA's process for:
Identifying potential Superfund sites
Evaluating sites for removal actions and/or listing on
the NPL
Listing sites on the NPL
SITE DISCOVERY OR NOTIFICATION
Sites are identified as potential sites through:
Informal community observation and notification
Mandatory notification (release reporting)
CERCLA §104 investigations
Inventory studies
Citizen petitions for Preliminary Assessments
-------
SITE DISCOVERY OR NOTIFICATION (cont'd) STUDENT NOTES
Q Sites Identified during the site discovery phase are recorded In
CERCLIS:
CERCLIS (Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Information System) is
EPA's MIS for tracking the status of Superfund sites
Contains nearly 32,000 sites, as of October 1989
CERCLIS not complete; other sites likely exist
Stores the following types of data for each site:
• Name, location
• EPA identification number
• Discovery date
• Dates certain key Superfund milestone were
completed
• Congre'ssional district
EVALUATING SITES FOR LISTING ON THE NPL
Q First, sites are evaluated for removal actions
Does site pose immediate threat?
Can short-term action remediate the problem?
-------
EVALUATING SITES FOR LISTING ON THE NPL (cont'd)
Q EPA uses a 2-step process to evaluate sites for listing:
Step 1: Preliminary Assessment (PA)
Step 2: Site Investigation (SI)
STUDENT NOTES
EVALUATING SITES FOR LISTING ON THE NPL (cont'd)
Pre-Remedial Stage of Superfund Process
Sit* InwMttgmion
Preliminary AsMiamaiit
PARMUlU
-------
EVALUATING SITES FOR LISTING ON THE NPL (cont'd)
STUDENT NOTES
Pre-Remedial Stage of Superfund Process
Preliminary Assessment
PA Results
Discovefy
CERCUS
B&SA
Preliminary
Assessment
Hip*
Priority
Mediun
Prkxtty
No Further
Remedial
Action
(NFHAP)
EVALUATING SITES FOR LISTING ON THE NPL (cont'd)
Q The Preliminary Assessment:
Quick, low cost review of available information
Examines nature of hazard
Determines whether site merits further action
Can include site visit but not sampling
Is limited by number of hours spent
-------
EVALUATING SITES FOR LISTING ON THE NPL (cont'd)
At the end of the Preliminary Assessment, EPA:
Determines if further information is
needed (SI)
Has sufficient information to determine
that no action is needed
Determines that responsible parties are
taking appropriate action
STUDENT NOTES
EVALUATING SITES FOR LISTING ON THE NPL (cont'd)
Pre-Remedial Stage of Superfund Process
Site Investigation
information Provided la stales
tot Final Determination
-------
EVALUATING SITES FOR LISTING ON THE NPL (cont'd) STUDENT NOTES
The Site Investigation:
Further defines and characterizes the
problem and determines the need for
further action
Always involves a site visit and
sampling
Varies in scope
Examines nature of hazard
EVALUATING SITES FOR LISTING ON THE NPL (cont'd)
Who conducts Preliminary Assessments and Site
Investigations?
EPA or State lead
Field Investigation Team (FIT)
contractors
-------
EVALUATING SITES FOR LISTING ON THE NPL (cont'd) STUDENT NOTES
Current Issues
Scoring - How to prioritize sites
Disposal of waste during PA/SI
Site discovery
• Universe
• Strategy and priorities
SCORING AND LISTING SITES
The current Hazard Ranking System (MRS)
Required by statute
Identifies sites that require remedial response
Evaluates four pathways of exposure:
• ground water
• surface water
• air
• on-site exposure
-------
SCORING AND LISTING SITES (cont'd)
National Priorities List,
Observed Contamination at 1219 Final and Proposed Sites
(October 1989)
STUDENT NOTES
Itodla
Kurt mom
Ground Mater
(A site may have more than
one type of contamination)
I11.89
37
72.68
1O 30 3O 4O SO 6O 70
-------
SCORING AND LISTING SITES (cont'd)
STUDENT NOTES
The current Hazard Ranking System
- Uses information gathered during the
site investigation to score each site
using the following formula:
Probability
of a release
Nature of X
the materials
that might be
released
Potential
targets
Calculates a value of 1-100 which
indicates relative severity of a hazard
at a site
Uses 28.5 as the cutoff (not a measure
of risk)
Relative
threat
-------
SCORING AND LISTING SITES (cont'd)
National Priorities List,
Observed Contamination at 1219 Final and Proposed Sites
(October 1989)
STUDENT NOTES
(A site may have more
than one activity)
Cui>fao«
Hanuf
70
-------
SCORING AND LISTING SITES (cont'd) STUDENT NOTES
The National Priorities List (NPL)
Lists the nation's highest priority sites for remedial
action
Only final and proposed NPL sites can receive
Federal Superfund money
Criteria for listing on the NPL
• MRS score is above the 28.5 threshold
• Site is State's priority site
• EPA's determination that site poses
significant threat
SCORING AND LISTING SITES (cont'd)
Q Current Issues
Deferral policy
Sites rated close to 28.5
-------
KEY CONCEPTS STUDENT NOTES
Q Sites "discovered" through several means
Q First evaluation Is for Immediate action
Q PA/SI process, using MRS, for NPL listing
-------
UNIT THREE
CONDUCTING REMOVAL ACTIONS
-------
UNIT OBJECTIVES STUDENT NOTES
Q This unit describes:
The purpose and scope of the removal program
The legislative authorities governing the removal
program
The three major types of removal actions
The removal process
Key players in the removal program
LEGISLATIVE AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
Q The Removal Program predates Superfund
Initially established in Section 311 of the Clean Water
Act (CWA)
CERCLA added and formalized requirements
The NCR lays out the framework for Federal response
Most successful part of Program
-------
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THE REMOVAL PROGRAM STUDENT NOTES
Q Removal Actions are Short-Term Actions
Designed to respond to immediate threats
Do not require NPL listing
Can be followed by or be a part of remedial response
Statutory limits of 12 months and $2 million
TYPES OF REMOVAL ACTIONS
Q Removal Actions are classified according to urgency:
Emergency Actions
Time-critical response actions
Non-time critical response actions
Q Regional variation in using these actions
-------
TYPES OF REMOVAL ACTIONS (cont'd) STUDENT NOTES
Q Emergency Actions
Require immediate response
Approval to proceed usually obtained after the fact
Numbers and characteristics
TYPES OF REMOVAL ACTIONS (cont'd)
Q Time-critical response actions
Require response within six months
Require public notice and comment on the
administrative record
Numbers and characteristics
-------
TYPES OF REMOVAL ACTIONS (cont'd) STUDENT NOTES
Non-time critical response actions
Generally allow for a 6-month planning period prior to
initiation of removal action
Require approval before site activities are initiated
Require preparation of an engineering evaluation/cost
analysis (EE/CA) of removal alternatives before the
removal begins
Requires public notice and comment on the EE/CA
Often part of remedial process as expedited response
action (ERA)
-------
OVERVIEW OF THE REMOVAL PROCESS
STUDENT NOTES
SELECTION
APPROVAL
IMPLEMENTATION
-------
OVERVIEW OF THE REMOVAL PROCESS (cont'd)
DETERMINING WHETHER TO CONDUCT A REMOVAL ACTION:
STUDENT NOTES
Terminate PA or refer lo
Remedial Program, if
appropriate
Notification or
Discovery
Conduct
Preliminary
Assessment
Assess results of
PA against NCP
Criteria
incident meet NCP
Criteria lor a
Removal''
SELECTION
res
OVERVIEW OF THE REMOVAL PROCESS (cont'd)
OBTAINING APPROVAL:
Prepare Action
Memorandum &
Obtain Approval
APPROVAL
-------
OVERVIEW OF THE REMOVAL PROCESS (cont'd)
STUDENT NOTES
IMPLEMENTATION:
Initiate Site
Actions
Prepare
Contractor Cleanup
Services
Oversee
Cleanup
Contractors
Demobilize
Contractors
Actions
Completed
IMPLEMENTATION
-------
IMPLEMENTATION STUDENT NOTES
Implementation consists of
Planning
Conducting cleanup activities to meet Federal and
State ARARs
Ensuring an orderly transition to remedial action, as
appropriate
COMMUNITY RELATIONS IN
THE REMOVAL PROGRAM
Q For emergency actions:
-- Agency appoints a spokesperson
Focus is on getting information out
-------
COMMUNITY RELATIONS STUDENT NOTES
IN THE REMOVAL PROGRAM (cont'd) •===============
For time critical removals:
EPA must also publish a notice of availability and
provide a 30-day public comment period
If site activity is expected to last more than 120 days,
EPA must also conduct interviews, prepare a
community relations plan, and set up at least one
information repository
For non-time critical removals:
All activities listed above before completion of the
EE/CA
-------
KEY PLAYERS IN THE REMOVAL PROCESS STUDENT NOTES
Q Key Players
The On-Scene Coordinator (OSC)
Contractors (TAT, ERCS)
States under cooperative agreements with EPA
U.S. Coast Guard for certain releases
Other Federal agencies, including FEMA, ATSDR,
OSHA, DoD, DOI, DOE
ERT
REMOVAL ACTIONS
Q Success of Removal Process
Over 1900 Removal Actions since enactment of
CERCLA
322 in fiscal year 1989
Training
RQ responsibilities
Oil response planning
-------
ARARS AND THE REMOVAL PROCESS STUDENT NOTES
Q Removal actions must comply with ARARs to extent practicable
G Extent practicable defined by:
Exigencies of situation
Scope of removal action
Statutory limits
Q Permits
Q Off-site rule
KEY CONCEPTS
G Removals are fast response
Q Three types, vary by planning time
Q Straight-line process
Evaluate
Approve
Conduct
Q Success of program
-------
UNIT FOUR
EVALUATING REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES AND
SELECTING A REMEDY
-------
UNIT OBJECTIVES STUDENT NOTES
This unit describes:
Key players in the remedial process
EPA's process for investigating sites, evaluating
remedial alternatives, and selecting a remedy
Scope of Investigations and Remedies
Also covered In this unit:
ARARs as they relate to the RI/FS process
Managing the RI/FS process (State roles)
-------
KEY PLAYERS IN THE RI/FS AND REMEDY SELECTION STUDENT NOTES
Q Key Players Include:
The Remedial Project Manager (RPM)
Technical Advisory Committee (TAG)
Contractors
• Remedial Planning (REM)
• Alternative Response Contracting Strategy
(ARCS)
• Technical Enforcement Services (TES)
• Policy
States, either as the lead agency or as a support
agency to EPA
Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs)
Other Federal agencies
The public
-------
OVERVIEW OF THE RI/FS PROCESS (cont'd)
STUDENT NOTES
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
V
$»*
Ctwsctiirizstion
i
tnvesugattans:
-------
Rl: OBJECTIVES STUDENT NOTES
G Results of the Rl are used to:
Develop risk assessments
Establish cleanup objectives
Identify remedial action alternatives
Support the technical and cost analyses of the
alternatives
Rl: MANAGEMENT PRINCIPLES
Q Rl builds on SI, and scope fits nature of problem
Bias for action
Streamlining/phasing
Q Identify operable units
-------
THE REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION STUDENT NOTES
Q The Remedial Investigation (Rl) consists of:
Planning
Data Collection and Site Characterization
Identification of Possible Response Actions
Treatability Studies
Baseline risk assessment
Rl: PLANNING
Q Careful upfront planning (workplan) is key to a successful Rl:
Arrange for site access
- Develop Sampling and Analysis Plan
Develop Health and Safety Plan
Prepare Community Relations Plan
- Ensure coordination with other Federal or State
Agencies
Scope out possible alternatives
Plan for Treatability Studies
-------
Rl: PLANNING (cont'd)
STUDENT NOTES
Q
Type of
Sampling
Air Moni-
toring
Soil Gas
Ground-
Water
Subsurface
Soil
Surface
Water
Sediments
Surface Soil
Air Sampling
Summary
Analytical
Level
1
II
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
of data uses and data quality objectives
Health and Site Charac- Risk Evaluation of
Safety terization Assessment Alternatives
o
0
o o o
O 0
o o
o o o
o o o
0 O
Engineering
Design
o
0
o
o
-------
Rl: PLANNING (cont'd) STUDENT NOTES
Field investigation objectives
Magnetometer Survey/Test Pit
• Identify areas of buried drums
Soil Gas Sampling
• Delineate the horizontal extent of soil
contamination
Subsurface Soil Sampling
• Delineate the horizontal and vertical extent and
degree of soil contamination
• Obtain data on the types of contaminants and
the depth of contamination in order to evaluate
soil remediation alternatives
-------
Rl: PLANNING (cont'd) STUDENT NOTES
Field Investigation objectives (cont'd)
Monitoring Well Sampling
• Characterize horizontal and vertical extent and
degree of groundwater contamination
• Provide data on groundwater quality to be used
in the Endangerment Assessment
• Obtain data on the types of contaminants in
order to evaluate groundwater remedial action
alternatives
Pump Test/Permeability
• Characterize groundwater flow rates and
potential for a pump and treat remediation
-------
Rl: PLANNING (cont'd) STUDENT NOTES
CD Field investigation objectives (cont'd)
Surface Water/Sediments
• Characterize impact on surface water body
• Characterize background chemical composition
• Assess the downgradient (off-site) extent and
degree of contamination
Surface Soil Sampling
• Provide data on surface contamination and
potential public health risk
• Characterize background soil chemical
composition
-------
Rl: DATA COLLECTION AND SITE CHARACTERIZATION STUDENT NOTES
Site characterization information is collected In phases:
Limited data collection in initial phases
Results of each phase define scope of work for
subsequent phases
Tradeoff uncertainty vs. quality
Data must be collected with Idea it wilt be used in court
Cost recovery
PRP identification
RCRA waste identification
-------
Rl: RELATIONSHIP OF RISK AND DATA
QUALITY/QUANTITY
STUDENT NOTES
INCREASING
RISK OF
MAKING WRONG
DECISIONS
INCREASING DATA QUALITY/QUANTITY
-------
Rl: COMMON ISSUES WITH DATA STUDENT NOTES
Q Selecting right laboratory
Contact Lab Program
O Validation
ESAT
Q Timing and schedules
Q Data integrity vs. cost
Q Detection Limits
Q Bad Data
QA/QC
Holding times
-------
Rl: IDENTIFICATION OF POSSIBLE RESPONSE ACTIONS STUDENT NOTES
Q Consider types of possible response actions during the Rl
Containment
Collection
Treatment
Q Type of information needed will vary with the type of response
action
Q Past RODs as a guide to what works
Rl: TREATABILITY STUDIES
Q Site-specific circumstances create need for studies
Q Collect additional field data as necessary
Q Conduct treatabiltty tests
Assess feasibility of technologies
Furnish design data
Generate cost estimates
Bench or pilot-scale
-------
Rl: RISK ASSESSMENT
STUDENT NOTES
ROLE OF THE HUMAN HEALTH EVALUATION IN
THE SUPERFUND REMEDIAL PROCESS
PARTC
Rbfc EntiMlion
aTRmudliJ
AilnaMlvn (FS)
Rl: RISK ASSESSMENT (cont'd)
Evaluate baseline risk to human health and environment
Quantify current and potential risk posed by site
Results used to
Evaluate threats
Assist in selecting protective remedies
Uncertainty and assumptions
-------
Rl: RISK ASSESSMENT (cont'd)
STUDENT NOTES
STEPS IN BASEUNE RISK ASSESSMENT
flail Collection «nd
KvaliMlion
(infer Hd raalyu rrltvul
ill, la,
• Idraliffy potential ftwniM»Uu<
Exposure Asscismcnl
• Analyu coMamtalol ntoun
• Enloufr cipMurv
CDxnlraltailbf
• Eslloult raalimliiMl lolakn foi
Toxklly Assusmenl
lukky
Riik Characlcrizalion
Ckmcurin polmUl for «dn
— Eulaili mcMm tautd
-------
Rl: EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
STUDENT NOTES
ILLUSTRATION OF EXPOSURE
PATHWAYS
PKVlllIng Wind Dlr.cllon
TiinipoM
Medium (Ah)
Mechanism
(Volelllllltion)
Inhalllion
Exposure
Reul* 1,
OWmWIyr'l/ 'WeilePlle
\. / HXI (Source)
Ral«ar,« Machanlsm
(Sll* Leichlng)
• nipotl Medium
(Ground W.l.r)
-------
Rl: COMMUNITY RELATIONS STUDENT NOTES
Typical activities include:
Setting up an information repository in a central
location
Holding public meetings
Preparing fact sheets updating the community of site
activities
The actual level of activity depends on the level of public
interest
THE FEASIBILITY STUDY
Q The Feasibility Study consists of:
- Development of alternatives
Screening of alternatives
Evaluation of alternatives against the 9 criteria
RI/FS Report
-------
THE FEASIBILITY STUDY (cont'd)
STUDENT NOTES
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
V
Site
Characterization
Investigations
Development
of
Alternatives
i i
1 Screening
1 of
1 Alternatives
i
Dettilatf
Analysis
01
ARemaiNM
Decision
FEASIBILITY STUDY
-------
FS: DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVES STUDENT NOTES
Establish remedial action objectives
Contaminants of concern
Media of concern
Potential exposure pathways
Remediation goals
Identify treatment technologies to meet these objectives
Combine technologies Into remedial alternatives that meet
cleanup requirements (containment and treatment)
Alternatives range based on amount of long-term management
No action
Source control, limited treatment
Treatment, limited long-term care
-------
FS: DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVES (cont'd)
[_] Conceptual Treatment Range for Source Control
STUDENT NOTES
1. No action
JHof Spots
Soil
Exceeds
Soil
Exceeds
1x10"* Risk
Background
2. Treatment which eliminates or minimizes to the extent feasible the need for long-term
management.
2A. All Contaminated Soil
Excavated and Treated
2B. All Soil Above 1 x10'4
Excavated & Treated
-------
FS: DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVES (cont'd)
Conceptual Treatment Range for Source Control (cont'd)
3 Alternatives using treatment as a principal element
'Hot' Spots Excavated
& Treated
STUDENT NOTES
4. Containment with little or no treatment
-------
FS: SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVES STUDENT NOTES
Purpose of screening:
Reduce the number of alternatives for detailed analysis
Number that is appropriate for site
Screening criteria include:
Effectiveness
• Protectiveness
• Use of treatment
• Time to achieve
Implementability
• Technical
• Administrative
Cost (new NCP use of this factor)
• Gross differences vs. effectiveness
• Similar effectiveness vs. different costs
-------
FS: DETAILED ANALYSIS STUDENT NOTES
Comparative analysis using nine criteria
Protection of human health and environment
Compliance with ARARs
Long-term effectiveness
Reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume
Short-term effectiveness
Implementability
Cost effectiveness
- State acceptance
Community acceptance
REMEDY SELECTION
SARA requires EPA to evaluate each alternative against three
categories of criteria:
Threshold
Balancing
Modifying
-------
REMEDY SELECTION (cont'd)
STUDENT NOTES
Relationship of Screening Criteria to the Nine Evaluation
Criteria
SCREEHINQ
CRITERIA
NINE EVALUATION
CnrTERIA
ROUE OF CRITERIA OURINO
REMEDY SELECTION
Ovaiaa Pioiaeoon ol Human Haallh
and Fn»OMiMf4
Confine* wilhARARS I
•TtiMhoW Factor.
Long Him EPwtonnm and Pwrmninn
OtOuexm In Torfdt». MaUly. and
Vohrnw Ihraugh TiMtaMrt
Stan laim Eflatavanaaa
•Primaiy Balancing- Factoia
SliU Accaplanc*
Commuraly Aeeaptanca
•Modlying* CornidauMra
-------
REMEDY SELECTION (cont'd) STUDENT NOTES
Threshold criteria:
Overall protection of human health and the environment
• From unacceptable risks
• Done by eliminating, reducing, or controlling
exposure
• Carcinogens - 10"* to 10"6 risk range
• Noncarcinogens - Hazard Index
Attainment of ARARs (or waivers)
REMEDY SELECTION (cont'd)
Q Balancing criteria:
Long-term effectiveness/permanence (emphasized)
Reduction of toxicrty, mobility or volume (emphasized)
Short-term effectiveness
Implementability
Cost effectiveness
-------
REMEDY SELECTION (cont'd) STUDENT NOTES
Modifying criteria:
State acceptance
Community acceptance
REMEDY SELECTION: DOCUMENTATION
Q Remedy Selection consists of
Preparation of the RI/FS Report
Preparation of the Proposed Plan
Preparation of the Record of Decision
-------
REMEDY SELECTION: THE RI/FS REPORT STUDENT NOTES
Q Report to EPA by RI/FS contractor
Q Includes all data and analysis generated during investigation
Q Includes:
Detailed evaluation of alternatives
Justification for all decisions
Q Basis for Proposed Plan and ROD
REMEDY SELECTION: THE PROPOSED PLAN
Q SARA requires lead agency to develop a Proposed Plan and
make it available for public comment.
Q The Proposed Plan provides:
A brief summary of the remedial alternatives considered
A rationale for the selected alternative.
Opportunity for public comment
-------
REMEDY SELECTION: THE RECORD OF DECISION STUDENT NOTES
Q The ROD includes:
A summary of the decision
A statement regarding the remedy's protectiveness
A description of public comments on the preferred
alternative and major community concerns
Q The ROD Is signed by the Regional Administrator or
designated State representative
REMEDY SELECTION: COMMUNITY RELATIONS
Upon completion of the RI/FS, EPA must notify the public and
provide an opportunity for public comment on the RI/FS and
the proposed plan.
Public comments must be received and considered prior to
preparation of the Record of Decision (ROD)
EPA prepares a Responsiveness Summary after the public
comment period.
Part of the ROD
Summarizes public concerns and questions and EPA's
response
-------
UNIT FIVE
ARARS IN SUPERFUND
-------
ARARS AND THE REMEDIAL PROCESS STUDENT NOTES
Q History of ARARs
Q Requirements can be
Applicable
Relevant and appropriate
To-Be-Considered (TBC)
Not an ARAR
Q Comply with applicable or relevant and appropiate to same
degree
ARARS AND THE REMEDIAL PROCESS (cont'd)
RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS
Q Address similar, but not identical, situations
Q Two-step identification process
Relevant: sufficiently similar
Appropriate: well-suited to site circumstances
Q Use best professional judgment
-------
ARARS AND THE REMEDIAL PROCESS (cont'd)
ARABS IN CERCLA ACTIONS
Q Compliance with ARARs mandatory only in remedial actions
Q Removal actions should attain ARARs to extent practicable
Q Three types
Chemical-specific (MCL)
Location-specific (wetlands)
Action-specific (incineration)
STUDENT NOTES
ARARS AND THE REMEDIAL PROCESS (cont'd)
Types of
Requirements
to be Met
Elements of
Requirements
to be Met
On-Site Actions
Applicable and
Relevant and
Appropriate
Substantive
Elements
Only
Off-Site Actions
Applicable
Requirements
Only
Administrative
and Substantive
Elements
-------
ARARS AND THE REMEDIAL PROCESS (cont'd) STUDENT NOTES
WAIVERS FROM ATTAINING ARARS
Q Section 121 allows waivers from ARARs only under 6 specific
circumstances:.
Interim remedy
Greater risk implementation
Technically impracticable
Equivalent performance
Inconsistent application by State
Fund Balancing
Q Remedy always must assure protection of human health and
the environment
-------
ARARS AND THE REMEDIAL PROCESS (cont'd) STUDENT NOTES
ARARS AND PROTECTIVENESS
Q Risk assessment determines protective cleanup goals, using
ARARs and TBCs
Q ARARs define the minimum: may need to go beyond
Q 10~D point of departure used if ARARs are unavailable or are
not sufficiently protective
ARARS AND THE REMEDIAL PROCESS (cont'd)
ARARS MANUAL AND FACT SHEETS PROVIDE TOOLS
Q Describe processes and "factors to consider" in Identifying
ARARs
Q Contain matrices of potential chemical, location, and action-
specific ARARs
Q Two parts
I: Overview, RCRA, Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking
Water Act
II: Clean Air Act, TSCA (PCBs), FIFRA, Mining, State,
and other laws
n Fact sheets
-------
ARARS AND THE REMEDIAL PROCESS (cont'd) STUDENT NOTES
RCRA • A MAJOR POTENTIAL ARAR
Q Regulates ongoing waste management activities
Prevents future Superfund sites
Establishes design and operating standards for waste
management facilities
ARARS AND THE REMEDIAL PROCESS (cont'd)
Q RCRA includes three distinct programs:
RCRA Subtitle C - Hazardous Waste Management
RCRA Subtitle D -- Solid Waste Management
RCRA Subtitle 1 - Underground Storage Tanks
-------
ARARS AND THE REMEDIAL PROCESS (cont'd)
SUBTITLE C - HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT
Q Regulates hazardous waste generators, transporters, and
treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (TSDFs)
Q Subtitle C requirements will frequently be ARARs
Q Superfund sites may be generators of hazardous waste
Q Remedies designed In accordance with RCRA requirements
STUDENT NOTES
ARARS AND THE REMEDIAL PROCESS (cont'd)
Placemen! of Newly
Generated Wastes
DIlpOHl
UnH
Placement of Previously
Disposed Wastes
-------
ARARS AND THE REMEDIAL PROCESS (cont'd) STUDENT NOTES
SUBTITLE C ARARS
Q Design and Operating Standards
For storage (tanks, containers . . .)
For treatment (incinerators . . .)
For disposal (landfills, surface impoundments . . . )
Q Closure Requirements
Including landfill and clean closure
Q Requirement for corrective action
From monitoring to cleanup standards
Q Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs)
ARARS AND THE REMEDIAL PROCESS (cont'd)
Q When is Subtitle C applicable?
The waste is a RCRA hazardous waste
and
(a) Was treated, stored, or disposed after effective date of the
pertinent requirement
Pi
(b) CERCLA action constitutes current treatment, storage, or
disposal as defined by RCRA
-------
ARARS AND THE REMEDIAL PROCESS (cont'd)
STUDENT NOTES
What is Disposal/Placement?
Consolidate
Outside of Area
of Contamination
Treat
and
Replace
Consolidate
In Same
Area
NO
Cap
ARARS AND THE REMEDIAL PROCESS (cont'd)
DISPOSAL/PLACEMENT OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
Q Triggers Important requirements
Closure standards for land disposal units
Land disposal restrictions
Minimum technology standards
Corrective action (Subpart F)
Q Disposal occurs when waste Is placed on or in the land
Q Movement within a "unit" is not disposal
Q Area of Contamination (AOC) - a "unit"
-------
ARARS AND THE REMEDIAL PROCESS (cont'd) STUDENT NOTES
State ARARs
Promulgated
Legally enforceable
Consistently applied
ARARS AND THE REMEDIAL PROCESS (cont'd)
OTHER MAJOR ARARS
Clean Water Act
- NPDES discharge standards
Water quality standards
Safe Drinking Water Act
MCLs
Clean Air Act
NAAQS
NESHAPS
-------
ARARS AND THE REMEDIAL PROCESS (cont'd) STUDENT NOTES
OTHER MAJOR ARARS (cont'd)
Q TSCA
PCB standards
States
More stringent RCRA standards
Air Emissions
Siting
Nondegradation
-------
UNIT SIX
STATE ROLES IN SUPERFUND
-------
FUND AND ENFORCEMENT LEAD STUDENT NOTES
r-I At Fund-lead sites
Superfund money finances investigation and
remediation
EPA may cost recover funds later
For remedial sites, NPL listing is necessary
FUND AND ENFORCEMENT LEAD (cont'd)
Q At Enforcement-lead sites (non-Fund financed)
Potentially responsible parties manage action
EPA and/or State provide oversight
EPA and/or State select or concur on remedy
-------
STATE ROLE: CERCLA STUDENT NOTES
CERCLA Section 104
State consultation on remedy
State must provide certain assurances
Major assurance is cost share
CERCLA Section 121
Substantial and meaningful involvement of States in all
activities
Notice to State of negotiations with PRPs and
opportunity to participate
State concurrence in remedy selection and cleanup
standards
EPA may conclude settlement with PRPs without State
concurrence
-------
STATE ROLE: MECHANISMS STUDENT NOTES
Cooperative Agreements (CAs)
Formal agreements to transfer money from EPA to
State
40 CFR Part 35 Subpart O
Superfund State Contract (SSC)
Legal contract to provide State assurances
Required before a Federal-lead action can commence
Superfund Memorandum of Agreement (SMOA)
Voluntary, non-binding agreement
May provide responsibilities for all parties at multiple
sites
Concurrence
Review and approval of remedy selection
-------
STATE ROLE: MECHANISMS (cont'd)
STUDENT NOTES
FUND-lead
NON-FUND
lead (PRP- or
enlorcement-
lead)
EPA-lead
SSC required
belore action
Siare Involvement
In negotiations
STATE-lead
Cooperative
Agreement
required
EPA Involved
(Slate law may
be used)
• Superfund Memorandum of Agreement (SMOA)
— Voluntary, non-binding agreement
— May provide responsibilities for multiple sites
• Concurrence of other party may be required
STATE ROLE IN ACTIONS
Removals
Pre-remedial
RI/FS
Selection of Remedy
Remedial Design/Remedial Action
-------
STATE ROLE: REMOVALS STUDENT NOTES
Q State may undertake through a Cooperative Agreement
Q States generally
Identify ARARs
Provide post-removal site control
Review EPA decisions
Q States not required to pay unless site was owned or operated
by State or a political subdivision
STATE ROLE: PRE-REMEDIAL
Q States have roles in listing and delisting process for all
remedial sites
Q Roles Include
Review
Consultation
Concurrence
O Source of information for HRS
-------
STATE ROLE: RI/FS AND SELECTION OF REMEDY STUDENT NOTES
Always have role In Identifying ARARs
Can be lead or support agency for Fund-financed or non-
Fund
financed actions
Based on EPA evaluation of capability, interest, and resources
of State
Decided through SMOA, or on a case-by-case basis
STATE-LEAD RI/FS ACTIONS
Fund-financed
Requires Cooperative Agreement
EPA is support agency and provides technical
assistance
Non-fund financed
- PRPs pay costs
May be carried out under State law
-------
STATE AS SUPPORT AGENCY IN RI/FS ACTIONS STUDENT NOTES
Fund-financed
- Requires a Superfund State Contract before remedial
action can commence
State reviews and comments on all documents
Non-fund financed
Mandatory State role in negotiating with PRPs and
signing consent decree
-------
SELECTION OF REMEDY STUDENT NOTES
Goal is agreement between EPA and State on remedy and
ARARs
Lead agency issues Proposed Plan. EPA must concur on
Proposed Plan or
EPA takes over Fund-financed sites
State may continue conducting non-fund financed
under State law
Agreement forged on who prepares ROD, seek other party's
concurrence
EPA concurrence always required for Fund-financed
State concurrence not required on EPA-lead sites
State always can continue action on its own at non-
fund financed, State lead sites
-------
SELECTION OF REMEDY (cont'd)
STUDENT NOTES
Concurrences Required for EPA- and State-lead Sites
FUND-lead
NON-FUND
lead (PRP- or
enforcement-
lead)
EPA-lead
EPA selects;
State concurrence
nol necessaiy
EPA selects.
Slate concurrence
not necessary
STATE-lead
EPA must
concur
on remedy
Stata may
lake action
undei own law
without EPA
concurrence
• Principles embodied in new NCP
• State may always select remedy for non-
NPL sites
-------
STATE ROLE: REMEDIAL DESIGN/REMEDIAL ACTION STUDENT NOTES
Q Negotiation on lead party
Q Generally lead on RI/FS will take lead on RD/RA
Q Review and consultation always applies to other party
Q On Fund-financed actions, joint inspection at closeout If State
has the lead
FOUR ISSUES ABOUT STATE ROLE
Q Operation and Maintenance (O&M)
Q ARARs
Q Enhancement of Remedy
Indian Tribes
-------
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE (O&M) STUDENT NOTES
EPA provides construction, State O&M
Source control maintenance measures (e.g., caps)
EPA funds construction
State funds care after measure is operational and
functional
Ground water or surface water
Treatment or other measures to restore funded up to
10 years
EPA does not consider following as eligible for 10-year
share
• Drinking water supply measures
• Source control measures
-------
ARARs STUDENT NOTES
Q Major area of disagreement
Q Which State requirements does EPA have to meet?
Q Non-degradation requirements major problem
Q EPA looks at
Promulgation
Timely identification, and
Consistent application
ENHANCEMENT OF REMEDY
Q State may request "enhancement"
Q EPA determines Is suggestion is
Necessary
Not necessary, not conflict
Not necessary, conflict
Q Arbitration procedures in CERCLA 121(0
-------
INDIAN TRIBES STUDENT NOTES
Statute requires they be afforded same status as States if
Federally recognized
Have tribal body performing government functions for
health, safety, and welfare
Have jurisdiction over site
EPA distinguishes between "having same status as State" and
"eligibility for Funding"
For funding, case-by-case basis
State role also may be required to supplement tribal
capabilities
-------
UNIT SEVEN
ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITIES AND PROCESS
-------
UNIT OBJECTIVES STUDENT NOTES
This unit describes:
The legislative and regulatory framework for Superfund
enforcement activities
The enforcement process
Cost recovery procedures
OBJECTIVES OF THE ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM
Q There are three major thrusts of the Enforcement Program
Achieving private-party responses
- Overseeing private party responses
Recovering costs of EPA cleanups
-------
LEGISLATIVE AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK STUDENT NOTES
Q CERCLA and SARA provide the basic legislative framework
Definition of potentially responsible parties (PRPs)
Section 106 allows EPA to seek PRP cleanup of sites
or spills
Section 104 allows EPA to require an RI/FS without
proving that an imminent and substantial endangerment
exists
- Section 107 authorizes EPA to seek repayment of
government expenditures (cost recovery) from PRPs
Section 122 provides mechanisms for reaching
settlements between EPA and PRPs
LEGISLATIVE AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK (cont'd)
Q SARA formalized and strengthened many CERCLA enforcement
procedures
Issuance of special notices
Notification moratoriums
Additional settlement options
• Mixed funding
• de minimis
• Non-binding allocation of responsibility (NBAR)
More stringent criminal provisions
Q Key RCRA and TSCA provisions supplement and complement
CERCLA/SARA
-------
LEGISLATIVE AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK (cont'd) STUDENT NOTES
The NCP further defines the enforcement framework:
- Provides criteria for acceptable PHP cleanups
Sets standards for documenting agency actions for
cost recovery
Fund balancing does not apply to private cleanups
The 90-Day Study emphasizes "enforcement first"
OVERVIEW OF THE ENFORCEMENT PROCESS
Q The major activities in the enforcement process are
Identifying PRPs
Negotiating with PRPs to reach a settlement
Taking administrative or judicial action if negotiations
fail
Overseeing PRP cleanup activities
-------
OVERVIEW OF THE ENFORCEMENT
PROCESS (cont'd)
STUDENT NOTES
SUPEHFUND REMEDIAUENFORCEMENT PROCESS
THE ENFORCEMENT PROCESS
PRPs are the focus of the Superfund Enforcement Program
a
a
Before EPA can Initiate enforcement action, the Agency must
determine
Who the PRPs are
The extent of PRP liability at a site
-------
THE ENFORCEMENT PROCESS (cont'd) STUDENT NOTES
Q PRPs are potentially responsible parties
Generators
Transporters
Past and present owners and operators
• SARA exempts some current landowners if they
did not know about the hazardous substances
on their property
THE ENFORCEMENT PROCESS (cont'd)
Q EPA identifies PRPs by conducting a PRP search
Title searches
Record reviews
Interviews with site operators, etc.
Q Requests and analyze information from PRPs
Q Performs a PRP financial assessment
Selects and notifies PRPs
-------
THE ENFORCEMENT PROCESS (cont'd) STUDENT NOTES
EPA pursues appropriate action by PRPs through a process
that Involves:
Negotiations
Administrative or judicial action
THE ENFORCEMENT PROCESS (cont'd)
Q Notice letters inform PRPs of potential liability and next steps
provide them with the opportunity to do the work
request information
obtain samples
Q Notice letters trigger a moratorium on taking action at the site
90 days for RI/FS
120 days for RD/RA
Q Regional Offices prepare the letters
-------
THE ENFORCEMENT PROCESS (cont'd) STUDENT NOTES
DETERMINING THE EXTENT OF PRP LIABILITY
Q Strict liability
Explicit in the statute
Not necessary to prove negligence or bad faith
Liability without fault
Q Joint and several liability
Not explicit in the statute
Any one of several PRPs can be liable for the total
cleanup cost
Not necessary to consider extent of PRP's contribution
to the problem where harm is not divisible
-------
THE ENFORCEMENT PROCESS (cont'd) STUDENT NOTES
NEGOTIATIONS ARE
Q A forum for discussing actions EPA wants from PRP
Q Flexible In context, timing, and topics
General timeframe for RI/FS negotiations is 90 days
- General timeframe for RD/RA negotiations is 60-120
days
Q Conducted In non-emergencies
THE ENFORCEMENT PROCESS (cont'd)
FACTORS AFFECTING SETTLEMENT OUTCOMES
Q Volume and nature of the waste involved
Q Strength of the evidence tracing the waste
Q PRP ability to pay for cleanup
Q Lftlgative risks of proceeding to trial
Q Public interest considerations
Q Precedential value
Q Expected outcome of the case after settlement
-------
THE ENFORCEMENT PROCESS (cont'd) STUDENT NOTES
SUCCESSFUL NEGOTIATIONS ARE DOCUMENTED IN SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENTS
Q Administrative orders on consent
Issued by EPA and signed by PRP
Can be enforced in court
Used for removals and RI/FSs
Q Judicial actions (Consent Decrees)
Require DOJ involvement and a Judge's approval
Usually require 2-4 years, substantial resources to
achieve settlement
SARA requires consent decrees for RD/RA settlements
Required for large settlements (> $500,000)
-------
ENFORCEMENT PROCESS (cont'd) STUDENT NOTES
IF NEGOTIATIONS ARE UNSUCCESSFUL:
Q §106 Unilateral administrative orders
Direct PRP to undertake specific actions
Non-compliance sets stage for seeking treble damages
Q Judicial Actions
- If an administrative order is disregarded
ENFORCEMENT PROCESS (cont'd)
OVERSEEING PRP CLEANUPS
Q Federal oversight is critical to ensure that the PRP cleanup is
performed properly and on schedule
Q Typical oversight activities Include
analyzing samples
reviewing PRP reports
approving PRP workplans
Q PRPs usually pay for EPA/State Oversight
-------
COST RECOVERY STUDENT NOTES
Q Cost Recovery (CERCLA §107) includes:
Sending a demand letter requesting payment from PRP
Negotiating with the PRP to determine the terms of
payment
- Reaching a settlement to outline the terms of payment
Q Types of settlements
Administrative actions when value < $500,000
Judicial actions when value > $500.000
COST RECOVERY (cont'd)
Q The demand letter provides
Accurate accounting of Federal, State, or private party
costs incurred for response action
Basis for negotiations with PRPs
-------
COST RECOVERY (conf d) STUDENT NOTES
Judicial action is required for recovery of costs over $500,000
Priority is for cases with costs over $500,000
DOJ files suit in cooperation with EPA Regions and
Headquarters
Detailed evidence and documentation required
COST RECOVERY (cont'd)
Administrative Actions allowed for recovery of costs under
$500,000
Subject to more relaxed rules of evidence
PRP gets a hearing before an Administrative Law
Judge
Non-compliance can result in treble damages
-------
COMMUNITY RELATIONS STUDENT NOTES
EPA retains responsibility for community relations
Community relations plan must be independent from
negotiations with PRPs
PRPs can assist in Implementing certain community relations
activities at EPA's discretion
KEY CONCEPTS INCLUDE:
Q Key CERCLA/SARA enforcement provisions
Section 106 authorizes PRP cleanups
Section 104 allows EPA to require an RI/FS
Section 107 authorizes EPA to recover costs
Q Potentially responsible parties (PRPs)
Q Types of settlements
Administrative actions
Judicial actions
Q Cost recovery
-------
UNIT EIGHT
CONDUCTING REMEDIAL ACTIONS
-------
UNIT OBJECTIVES STUDENT NOTES
This unit describes:
EPA's process for designing and implementing
remedial actions after the ROD
Key players in this process
REMEDIAL IMPLEMENTATION
Q Remedial Implementation phase consists of:
- Remedial Design (RD)
Remedial Action (RA)
Operation and Maintenance (O&M)
-------
KEY PLAYERS IN CONDUCTING REMEDIAL ACTIONS STUDENT NOTES
a EPA
Oversight
Federal Contractors
a COE
Interagency Agreement (IAG)
Q States
Q Responsible Parties
AGREEMENTS
Interagency Agreement (IAG)
EPA and COE
Cooperative Agreement
EPA and States
Superfund State Contract
EPA and States
Settlement Agreement
(Consent Decree or Administrative Order)
EPA and RP
-------
REMEDIAL DESIGN STUDENT NOTES
Translates the generic remedy selected in the ROD Into a s'rte-
specffic remedy
Provides a detailed plan for building and conducting the
remedial action
Can be completed by EPA contractors, the Corps of Engineers
under an Irrteragency Agreement with EPA, States, or PRPs
-------
REMEDIAL DESIGN STEPS STUDENT NOTES
Q Pre-Deslgn Report
Transfer from RI/FS to RD phase
Engineering parameters and issues
Q Statement of Work (SOW)
Plan for design process
Q Design
Multiple stages
Addresses ROD agreements
• ARARs
• Off-site rule
REMEDIAL DESIGN REVIEW
Government Environmental
RD LEAD Review Review Technical Review
Federal COE EPA and State —
State State EPA COE or EPA
RP EPA State COE or EPA
Community Relations Plan Updated
-------
MINOR REMEDIAL DESIGN CHANGES FROM ROD STUDENT NOTES
Q Examples
Treatment with equivalent performance
Cost savings
Q Approved by Project Officer and RPM
Q ROD does not need change or amendment
MAJOR REMEDIAL DESIGN CHANGES FROM ROD
Q Examples
From treatment to disposal or vice versa
Proposed remedy will not work
Significant increase in costs might change evaluation
Q Explanation of Significant Differences (ESD)
ROD Amendment
-------
REMEDIAL ACTION STUDENT NOTES
Begins with award of a construction contract to implement the
remedy
Includes construction of the remedy, quality assurance, and
Initial operation of the remedy
TYPES OF REMEDIAL ACTIONS
Q Examples of remedial actions:
Expedited Response Actions (ERAs)
Interim Actions
Source Control Actions
Management of Migration Actions
Ground-Water Response Actions
Combinations of these actions
Q Bias for action during RI/FS (if warranted)
EE/CA that becomes part of ROD
-------
TYPES OF REMEDIAL ACTIONS (cont'd) STUDENT NOTES
Expedited Response Actions:
Remedial actions conducted using removal program
authorities
Can include any activity from site security to stabilizing
a slope at a landfill
Require EE/CA
Interim Actions
Temporary while remedy is selected
Bottled water
Management of Migration Actions:
Installation of barriers to prevent further migration of
contamination
Removal and cleanup of contaminated ground water
-------
TYPES OF REMEDIAL ACTIONS (cont'd) STUDENT NOTES
Q Source Control Actions
Can include excavation and incineration of
contaminated soil to reduce toxicity, mobility and
volume of the source
Q Ground-Water Response
Pump and treat
Often (very) long term
Q Combinations
Most remedial actions include both source control and
management of migration activities
Often divided into operable units
REMEDIAL ACTION PROCESS
Q Super-fund State Contract (SSC) required for Federal-lead
Actions
Q Followed by IAG with COE
Q Procurement
Q Action, followed by Final Report and Closeout
State can undertake with CA
-------
EXPEDITING ACTIONS STUDENT NOTES
Q Engineering Tools
Q Contract Procedures
ARCS
Q Early Identification of need
CHANGES FROM REMEDIAL DESIGN
Is an explanation of significant differences or ROD amendment
required?
Allowable contingencies
Review and approval
-------
LONG TERM RESPONSE ACTIONS (LTRA) STUDENT NOTES
Many response actions can continue indefinitely
Operation of ground-water remedies is considered part
of the RA for up to 10 years after construction is
complete
Thereafter, activities are considered O&M
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE (O&M)
Q EPA shares the cost of O&M with the States during first year
Q Cost share depends on whether the site Is privately or publicly
owned
Split is 90% EPA, 10% State for privately owned sites
Split is at least 50% State for publicly owned sites (all
response activities)
Q After first year, State assumes full responsibility
-------
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE (O&M) (cont'd) STUDENT NOTES
O&M activities can include:
Maintaining leachate collection/treatment systems
Operating ground water pump and treatment systems
Five-year Review:
If wastes remain on-site, remedies are evaluated every
5 years to ensure they continue to be protective
-------
COMPLETION OF REMEDIAL ACTIONS STUDENT NOTES
Steps leading to site completion include:
Achieving specified clean-up levels
Establishing that no further remedial action is required
Determining that there is no further threat to human
health
Obtaining Superfund site close-out report approval
Deleting the site from the NPL
• Rulemaking
• State review and approval
-------
UNIT NINE
RCRA/CERCLA INTERFACE,
PROGRAM STATUS, AND SUMMARY
-------
RCRA/CERCLA INTERFACE STUDENT NOTES
Q RCRA governs active waste management; CERCLA inactive
Q In reality, a facility may be potentially covered under both
Facility going bankrupt
Industrial area with some active and some inactive
units
Q Federal facilities subject to both requirements
RCRA CORRECTIVE ACTION
Q Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) mandates
corrective action program for Solid Waste Management Units
(SWMU)
Q Current regulations - 264.101
Q (Proposed) Subpart S rule will expand greatly
-------
CORRECTIVE ACTION AND CERCLA - PHILOSOPHY STUDENT NOTES
Q Designed to be consistent
Q Differences In
Statutory mandates
• Cost considerations
• Use of treatment vs. source control
• Scope of alternatives considered
Who's paying
Oversight and process (RCRA is a permit program)
CORRECTIVE ACTION AND CERCLA - PROCESS
Q RCRA more a straightline vs. interactive approach of CERCLA
Q RCRA Stages are
RCRA Facility Assessment (RFA)
RCRA Facility Investigation (RFI)
Corrective Measures Study (CMS)
Remedy Design and Implementation
Q Similarities (risk driven) and differences (when to stop, no NPL)
-------
CORRECTIVE ACTION AND CERCLA - IMPLEMENTATION STUDENT NOTES
Corrective Action as an ARAR for CERCLA?
Does the process for one satisfy the other?
Will facilities be able to bargain?
How will Regions implement?
PROGRAM STATUS
Significant issues about priorities
- Which sites first
To what degree of cleanup
Discovery vs. investigate vs. remediate
Reauthorlzatlon could bring major changes
More targets and mandates
New directions and priorities
Policy vs. Investigation and construction management
Further developing the tools, such as risk assessment
and technologies
More spades and shovels
-------
SUMMARY STUDENT NOTES
Superfund has and will continue to evolve
Basic processes are generally established
Management issues and tough decisions
-------
A. RPM Primer
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Emergency and
dial Resp>
Washington DC 20460
EPA 540 G 87 OOb
(OSWER Directive 9355 1 02)
September 1987
Super •
EPA
The RPM Primer
An Introductory
Guide to the Role and
Responsiblities of the
Superfund Remedial
Project Manager
-------
EPA/540/G-87/005
(OSWER Directive 9355.1-02)
September 1987
The RPM Primer
An Introductory Guide to the Role and Responsibilities
of the Superfund Remedial Project Manager (RPM)
September 1987
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
401 M Street, SW
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
NOTICE
This document has been reviewed in accordance with U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency policy and approved for
publication. Mention of trade names or commercial products
does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
-------
Preface
The purpose of this document is to familiarize new Remedial Project Mangers (RPMs) with their roles and
responsibilities in the Superfund remedial program. It also can serve as an orientation to the Superfund
remedial program for EPA program staff, and the public. It is not intended to be a training document. EPA
has developed other materials and conducts courses specifically for training purposes. (See Attachment A
for a selected course listing.)
The Acme Waste Disposal Co. site, the people, and the events described in this document are hypothetical
and were created to depict the cleanup of an abandoned hazardous waste site. This example illustrates
typical Superfund remedial response activities and was written to demonstrate specifically the important
role of the RP in managing site cleanup and in coordinating the various participants. Key terminology and
concepts appear in bold face.
For simplicity, the example depicted in the Primer is a Fund-financed, Federal-lead project from start to
finish. In reality, a project may switch from Fund- to Enforcement-lead, and from Federal- to State-lead
during the remedial process, thereby altering roles of the participants. In addition, the example portrays
the RPMs involvement with only one site, when an RPM actually may be involved with several concurrent
projects.
References for detailed information on the various aspects of the Superfund program are provided in an
annotated bibliography (Attachment B). It is important to note that these documents are frequently up-
dated.
in
-------
Contents
Page
List of Exhibits vi
Acknowledgement vii
Acronyms ix
Site Background 1
Your Assignment 1
Background of the Superfund Program 1
The Remedial Response Process 1
Removals 3
Enforcement and Legal Counsel 3
Community Relations 4
Other Program Participants 4
Project Management Concepts 4
Project Kickoff 5
Phased RI/FS 8
Initial Site Visit and Site Planning 8
Technical Advisory Committee 9
Site Management Plan 11
Work Plan Review 12
Rl Phase I 14
FS Phases I and II 15
Rl Phase II 16
FS Phase III 16
TAG Meeting and Remedy Selection 17
Public Comment Period 18
Transition to Design 18
ROD Approval 18
State Assurances 19
Remedial Design 19
Remedial Action 20
Operation and Maintenance 20
Attachment A: RPM Training Course A-1
Attachment B: Information Sources and Selected OSWER Directives B-1
-------
List of Exhibits
Exhibit Number Page
1 Fund-Financed, Federal-Lead Remedial
Response Process 2
2 Map of Acme Waste Disposal Co. Site 5
3 Site Management Plan for Acme
Waste Disposal Co. Site 10
4 Generic Schedule for Federal-Lead RI/FS 13
vi
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This document was prepared for EPA's Hazardous Site Control Division - Russel Wyer; Director, under the
direction of Paul Nadeau and Don White, both of HSCD. The EPA Project Coordinators were Steve Hooper
and Caroline Roe. Additional support was provided by other EPA Headquarters and Regional personnel.
Booz, Allen & Hamilton, Inc., Bethesda, Maryland, prepared the Primer (EPA Contract No. 68-01-7376).
The Booz, Allen Project Managers were Raymond Rose and Robert Kravitz.
The camera-ready copy was prepared by Ebon Research Systems, 1173 Spring Centre South Boulevard,
Altamonte Springs, Florida 32714. (EPA Contract No. 68-03-3507).
vii
-------
ACRONYMS
A/OSWER
Assistant Administrator for the Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response
A/E
Architectural/Engineering
ARARs
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Re-
quirements
ATSDR
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry
CERCLA
Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980
CLP
Contract Laboratory Program
CRP
Community Relations Plan
DQOs
Data Quality Objectives
EE/CA
Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ERA
Expedited Response Action
ERCS
Emergency Response Cleanup Services
ESD
FEMA
Federal Emergency Management Agency
FIT
Field Investigation Team
HRS
Hazard Ranking System
HSWA
Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments
IAG
Interagency Agreement
IFB
Invitation for Bid
NCP
National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollu-
tion Contingency Plan (40 CFR Part 300)
NEPA
National Environmental Policy Act
NPDES
National Pollution Discharge Elimination
System
NPL
National Priorities List
O&M
Operation and Maintenance
ORC
Office of Regional Counsel
osc
On-Scene Coordinator
Environmental Services Division
ix
-------
PA/SI
Preliminary Assessment / Site Inspection
PR
Procurement Request
PRPs
Potentially Responsible Parties
QAO
Quality Assurance Officer
RA
Remedial Action
RCRA
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RD
Remedial Design
RI/FS
Remedial Investigation / Feasibility Study
ROD
Record of Decision
RPM
Remedial Project Manager
RSCRC
RPO
Regional Superfund Community Relations
Coordinator
SARA
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization
Act of 1986
SCAP
Superfund Comprehensive Accomplishments
Plan
ssc
Superfund State Contract
TAG
Technical Advisory Committee
TAT
Technical Assistance Team
USGS
U.S. Geological Survey
VOCs
Volatile Organic Compounds
Regional Project Officer
-------
Site Background
The Acme Waste Disposal Co. site received both
municipal and industrial wastes for 15 years until
the owners declared bankruptcy 5 years ago and
abandoned the facility. Two years ago, a fishkill in
nearby Lazy Creek prompted State and local health
officials to investigate. They found partially
covered, corroded, and leaking drums at the site,
along with eroded berms and trails of discolored
soil in areas around two unlined waste ponds on
the 55-acre property. Testing of 12 nearby private
water wells revealed low levels of several
suspected carcinogens.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) sent an EPA On-Scene Coordinator (OSC),
assisted by the Technical Assistance Team (TAT)
contractor, to inspect the site. Based on the
results, EPA mobilized the Emergency Response
Cleanup Services (ERCS) contractor to conduct a
removal action that included removing leaking
drums at the surface, stabilizing berms around two
waste ponds, erecting a security fence around the
property, and supplying the 12 affected residences
with bottled drinking water.
Following the removal action, EPA assigned the
Field Investigation Team (FIT) contractor to per-
form a preliminary assessment and site inspection
(PA/SI) to evaluate the need for further long-term
response. The PA/SI results were used to assign
the site a numerical ranking based on potential
hazard, using the Hazard Ranking System (MRS).
EPA then placed the site on the National Priorities
List (NPL), making it eligible for Fund-financed
remedial response actions. Acting in accord with
community concerns and Regional priorities, EPA
budgeted funds for initiating a remedial response
project in October, the beginning of the fiscal year.
Your Assignment
It's now August. You have just begun work with
the Waste Management Division in your Region.
You have been on the job 1 week when things get
really busy. You are called into your Section
Chief's office, where she tells you, "I'm assigning
you to the Acme site. You will be the RPM and it's
your responsibility to manage the site cleanup.
Funds are budgeted on the coming year's SCAP
for an RI/FS. Pull the site file. Find out what you
can from the OSC. Also, we will need a CRP
ASAP."
It's a great opportunity for you...and a big
responsibility. There's much to become familiar
with—tasks, tools, terminology. Fortunately, you
have some valuable resources available to help
you in completing this important assignment.
Background of the Superfund Program
There are many inactive, abandoned sites
throughout the nation, like the Acme site, where
hazardous wastes have been inadequately or care-
lessly disposed of in the past. These sites are
releasing, or threaten to release, hazardous sub-
stances that endanger human health and the en-
vironment. The Superfund program was created to
address the potentially hazardous conditions at
these sites.
The original Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA), Public Law 96-510, was enacted in
December 1980. Under this law, the Federal
Government was given the authority to clean up
hazardous waste sites and to respond to spills of
hazardous substances with money from the Hazar-
dous Substances Response Trust Fund (commonly
called the "Fund"). In addition, the Federal govern-
ment was given the authority to compel those
responsible for the hazardous waste problem,
through judicial action, if necessary, to conduct or
finance the cleanup. The Superfund Amend-
ments and Reauthorization Act (SARA), enacted
in October 1986, strengthened the authorities
under CERCLA for responding to hazardous waste
sites and significantly increased the size of the
Fund. EPA is responsible for managing the Super-
fund program.
The guidelines and procedures for implementing
CERCLA (as amended by SARA) are delineated in
a regulation called the National Oil and Hazar-
dous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
(NCP). 40 CFR Part 300. The NCP provides fac-
tors to consider in determining the extent of
cleanup that is appropriate for a particular site.
The NCP also describes the process for conduct-
ing a remedial response (Exhibit 1).
The Remedial Response Process
Once a site is proposed for or placed on the NPL
it is eligible for a Fund-financed remedial response.
Remedial response activities are aimed at im-
plementing long-term permanent remedies at NPL
sites. Initial site planning defines the roles and
-------
Exhibit 1
FUND-FINANCED, FEDERAL-LEAD REMEDIAL RESPONSE PROCESS
PRE-RE
ACTIV
REM
PLW
REM
IMPLEME
L
SITE DISCOVERY
OR
NOTIFICATION
i
J PRELIMINARY
| ASSESSMENT
MEDIAL
TT1ES J
j
SITE
INSPECTION
i
APPLY HAZARD
RANKING SYSTEM
L
r
1
EDIAL
FUND-FINANCED,
FEDERAL-LEAD
1
REMEDIAL
INVESTIGATION
(PHASESI.il)
1 REMOVAL1
I ENFORCEMENT 2
|
1 EXPEDITED
4 RESPONSE
1 ACTION^
FEASIBILITY STUDY
(PHASES 1, II, III)
1
RECORD OF
DECISION
i
(REMEDIAL
DESIGN
* ™~""~" "
f~
CITATION
1 ,
L L
1
REMEDIAL
ACTION
1 COST RECOVERY
OPERATION &
MAINTENANCE
Removals may occur at any point in the remedial process. If the lead agency determines that there is a threat to human health or the
environment, the lead agency may take a removal action to abate, minimize, stabilize, mitigate, or eliminate the release or threat of
release.
Where the responsible parties are known, efforts are made, to the extent practicable, to have them perform the response actions.
Enforcement negotiations commonly occur just prior to the RI/FS and again just prior to the RD/RA.
Expedited Response Action (ERAs) are taken at NPL sites by the remedial program using removal program authorities. ERAs must
comply with the policies, procedures, and regulations of the removal program. Like removals, ERAs may occur at any point during the
remedial process.
-------
responsibilities of the response program par-
ticipants and outlines a course of action, EPA, the
State, contractors, other Federal agencies, and the
public, including parties responsible for creating or
contributing to the problem, all play a role in carry-
ing out remedial response activities. EPA, the
State, or the responsible parties may be desig-
nated as the lead organization for planning and
conducting remedial response activities.
Following initial planning, the lead organization
conducts a remedial investigation / feasibility
study (RI/FS). For the Acme site, EPA is the lead
organization. The Rl focuses on collecting data
and characterizing the site in order to assess
threats or potential threats to human health and the
environment posed by the site. The FS provides a
detailed evaluation of remedial alternatives using
environmental, engineering, and economic factors
in accordance with the NCP and CERCLA. The Rl
and FS are conducted as interdependent phases
so that the data gathered during the Rl support the
evaluation needs of the FS. The phased RI/FS
results in a recommendation and selection of
remedial action, which EPA documents in a
Record of Decision (ROD). Together, the RI/FS
and ROD process typically takes 22 months to
complete.
A remedial design (RD) is the next step. During
RD, detailed engineering plans, drawings, and
specifications are prepared. These are used to
solicit competitive bids to implement the remedial
action (RA). Site cleanup is conducted during the
RA, as specified in the engineering design. This
may involve treatment, disposal, and/or contain-
ment of the hazardous waste and cleanup, restora-
tion, or replacement of the affected resources. The
final step in the remedial process is operation and
maintenance (O&M), designed to ensure continued
functioning and effectiveness of the remedial
response action. The total remedial response
process may take 4 to 6 years, or more, to com-
plete and may cost millions of dollars.
Removals
Removals are another type of response action
that may be conducted under Superfund.
Removals are conducted to reduce or stop hazard-
ous substance releases or potential releases to the
environment. In general, removal actions require
less detail in planning than remedial actions be-
cause the emphasis is on finding a relatively rapid
and short-term solution, consistent with long-term
remedial action, to a problem having some degree
of urgency. Removals may be time critical
(response needs to be initiated within 6 months of
discovery) or non-time critical, depending on the
urgency of the situation.
CERCLA sets cost and duration limits on
removal actions; they may not exceed $2 million or
last more than 1 year. EPA can waive these limita-
tions, however, under certain situations and with
appropriate approval.
EPA On-Scene Coordinators (OSCs) direct and
coordinate Fund-financed, Federal-lead removal
activities. In some cases, a U.S. Coast Guard rep-
resentative may serve as the OSC. OSCs receive
support from governmental entities—for example,
EPA's Environmental Response Team—and from
EPA contractors, such as the Emergency
Response Cleanup Services (ERGS) and the Tech-
nical Assistance Team (TAT). At sites, where both
removal and remedial activities are undertaken, the
OSC and RPM must coordinate closely. The Su-
perfund Removal Procedures (OSWER Directive
9360.0-3A) provides guidance on conducting
removal activities.
Enforcement and Legal Counsel
For all Superfund sites, EPA and the States
make significant efforts to identify potentially
responsible parties (PRPs) and to compel them,
through legal action, if necessary, to undertake the
required cleanup activities. If EPA cannot compel
PRPs to undertake the necessary response ac-
tions, EPA will proceed with the cleanup and will at-
tempt to recover the costs later. Thus, maintaining
complete and detailed records of site activities is
essential for the purposes of enforcement activities.
During a Superfund remedial response, legal
questions often arise. EPA's Office of General
Counsel and Office of Regional Counsel provide
legal interpretation and direction to program par-
ticipants. The RPM is encouraged to coordinate
closely with the Office of Regional Counsel, par-
ticularly in the identification of applicable or
relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs)
and in determining applicability of State cleanup
standards.
-------
Community Relations
Community relations activities also are an impor-
tant part of the Superfund program. Conducted
from the beginning of all Superfund responses, ef-
fective community relations encourages two-way
communication between the government agencies
involved and the local residents on site-related is-
sues. The overall objectives of Superfund com-
munity relations activities are to:
• Gather information about the local community
to identify how citizens would like to be in-
volved in the Superfund process
• Give citizens the opportunity to comment on
and to provide input to technical response
decisions
• Inform the public of planned or ongoing ac-
tions
• Focus and resolve conflict
These objectives guide the planning and im-
plementation of community relations efforts in each
Superfund response project.
Each Regional office has a trained Regional Su-
perfund Community Relations Coordinator
(RSCRC) to work with the RPM to meet these ob-
jectives at each site. Community Relations in Su-
perfund: A Handbook (OSWER Directive 9230.0-
3A) provides additional guidance on the com-
munity relations program.
Other Program Participants
Many organizations assist EPA in responding to
the nation's hazardous waste problems. For ex-
ample, States are encouraged to take responsibility
for planning and managing site cleanups under
agreement with the Federal Government (State-
lead projects). In remedial actions for which the
Federal Government has lead responsibility, the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers often manages the
remedial design and implementation for EPA. The
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
assists EPA if a Superfund response involves the
relocation of residents. Under CERCLA, the Agen-
cy for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
(ATSDR) conducts health assessments at Super-
fund sites to supplement EPA's public health
evaluations. The Coast Guard assists with hazard-
, ous waste spills that occur in coastal areas. EPA
also can call on other Federal agencies (e.g.,
Department of Interior, National Oceanic and At-
mospheric Administration) to provide support, as
appropriate.
Project Management Concepts
The RPM, acting on EPA's behalf, manages
remedial activities. This individual is accountable
for the technical quality, schedule, and cost of the
work. As in most real management situations,
however, the RPM does not have the authority or
control over external factors to "require" that the
project proceed according to plan. Instead, the
RPM must develop a good management approach
and draw on interpersonal skills to facilitate needed
coordination and communication among the or-
ganizations and individuals on the project. Form-
ing and leading a project team are critical to the
success of Superfund projects.
The RPM must bring together individuals, or-
ganizations, and resources with a well formulated
plan to accomplish effectively and efficiently a set
of objectives. The RPM ensures success by:
(1) planning, monitoring, and controlling the
project
(2) directing, coordinating, and communicating
with project participants.
Soon after being assigned to a site, the RPM
must plan the project by:
• Establishing scope-determining project ob-
jectives and identifying discrete tasks needed
to achieve them.
• Scheduling—identifying time frames for each
task and the total project. The RPM may use
project scheduling systems such as, milestone
charts, bar charts, and critical path method
(CPM) diagrams to aid in scheduling.
• Budgeting-assigning costs to individual tasks
and the total project as outlined in the scope
and schedule.
Organizing—arranging personnel and other
resources to achieve the project objectives.
Monitoring and controlling involves observing
technical performance and taking corrective ac-
tions, as needed. The RPM's primary method for
monitoring activities is by comparing actual and
planned performance. The RPM should use
progress review meetings in conjunction with
regular reports on project status. In addition, the
RPM should conduct on-site field inspections
during key field activities. Variances from the
-------
planned project can be avoided or controlled by
taking one or more of the following actions:
• Anticipatory Actions-modify external factors
so that project variances do not occur.
• Work-Around Strategies-respond to an exist-
ing negative variance to accommodate chan-
ges, but with no impact to overall project plan.
• Plan Modifications—accommodate variances
by altering project, schedule, or scope.
To control and manage a project effectively, the
RPM must develop strong leadership, com-
munication, and coordination skills. The RPM
must direct EPA contractors in the technical and
administrative aspects of the remedial response.
For example, the RPM must ensure that environ-
mental regulations and policies affecting a par-
ticular site are understood by the contractor as well
as by other program participants.
To avoid project delays, the RPM must coor-
dinate project activities with programs, organiza-
tions, and individuals both internal and external to
EPA, including for example:
• State and local officials.
• The affected community.
• Programs providing services to the project
(e.g., analytical data reviews).
• Offices responsible for other environmental
laws (e.g., the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act).
• Organizations external to EPA (e.g., ATSDR).
Finally, regular communication with fellow
RPMs and supervisors is an important activity.
These individuals can often suggest innovative
solutions to complex problems previously en-
countered at other sites.
For additional information on program manage-
ment concepts, the reader should consult the Su-
perfund Federal-lead Remedial Project Manage-
ment Handbook (OSWER Directive 9355.1-1), com-
monly referred to as the RPM Handbook. The RPM
Handbook also provides a list of project manage-
ment references.
Project Kickoff
After a month with the program you are feeling a
bit more knowledgeable. You have obtained valu-
able information about the Superfund program (see
Attachment B for an annotated bibliography) and
have established a file on the Acme site. Several
basic observations about the site are apparent:
• Two unlined waste ponds on the site contain
unspecified waste materials.
• The site contains a 30-acre landfill.
• Volatile organic compounds (VOCs), probably
from the site, have been detected in local
drinking water wells.
Exhibit 2 is a map of the Acme site.
Exhibit 2
MAP OF ACME WASTE
DISPOSAL CO. SITE
CME WASTE; DISPOSAL sm
: :L)nlined Waste Ponds
J.C. Michaels, a veteran RPM whom you have iden-
tified as a potential "mentor", suggests that you as-
sign a remedial response contractor to the project
as soon as possible. He explains that the contrac-
tor will provide valuable assistance in conducting
-------
initial planning for the remedial response project.
J.C. also suggests that you schedule a project
kickoff meeting.
With a somewhat clearer picture of what needs
to be done, you contact the Regional Project Of-
ficer (RPO) responsible for the remedial contract
serving your Region. The RPO explains how to ob-
tain assistance from the remedial contractor. He
also supplies you with a copy of Work Assignment
Procedures for Remedial Contracts (OSWER
Directive 9242.3-3A).
EPA selects remedial response contractors for
their expertise in conducting hazardous waste site
engineering studies and design. The contractor is
responsible for planning and conducting the RI/FS
and is accountable to EPA for its contracted role.
As the RPM, you have other responsibilities.
You must oversee the remedial response, act on
EPA's behalf in the project, and direct the contrac-
tor to keep the project on course and within
schedule and budget. You monitor the
contractor's progress in achieving project mile-
stones and coordinate with the contractor to
develop preventive or corrective actions in order to
keep work on target as problems arise.
Your first step in getting the contractor underway
is to develop a Work Assignment Package, which
consists of:
• A Work Assignment Form
• An interim Statement of Work
• A complete Statement of Work for the total
work assignment, and
• A Procurement Request (PR) (EPA Form
1900-8)
You develop the Work Assignment Package by fol-
lowing an example package supplied by the RPO.
You coordinate with the RPO to ensure that the
package is complete and accurate. You also verify
that sufficient funding is available on the Super-
fund Comprehensive Accomplishments Plan
(SCAP).*
* The SCAP is the official document from the Assistant Ad-
ministrator for the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response (AA/OSWER) identifies funding needs for proposed
Superfund activities. Activities must be on the approved SCAP
to receive funding. In this example, the Acme Site was on the
SCAP prior to the RPMs involvement.
After completing the Work Assignment Package,
you forward it to the RPO for approval. The RPO
transmits the completed package to the Contract-
ing Officer, with a copy for the Project Officer. The
Contracting Officer then issues a work assignment
to the contractor, who must prepare a Work Plan
Memorandum for your approval within 10 days.
This is a 5-10 page plan for the interim tasks to be
completed, the technical level-of-effort and
schedule, and the name of the proposed Site
Manager. In this case, interim tasks would include
a project kickoff meeting, an initial site visit, Rl
scoping, development of general response objec-
tives, site survey / topographic mapping, sub-
contracting, and preparation of a Site Management
Plan and a final Work Plan. The expenditure limit
indicated on the Work Assignment Form is based
on the tasks in the interim Statement of Work.
With these administrative tasks completed, you
arrange a project kickoff meeting. This meeting will
provide an opportunity to introduce the key par-
ticipants for the project and define their various
roles and responsibilities. You invite the following
participants:
• Contractor's Site Manager
• State Project Officer
• EPA's OSC for the completed removal effort
• EPA's Regional enforcement program repre-
sentative
• EPA's Office of Regional Counsel (ORC) repre-
sentative
• EPA's Regional Superfund Community Rela-
tions Coordinator (RSCRC)
You prepare and distribute informational packages
and an agenda prior to the meeting to ensure that
all participants are prepared. You also speak with
all invited participants to confirm their receipt of the
information and agenda, and to identify specific
subjects that they should be prepared to discuss.
The meeting runs smoothly. You begin by intro-
ducing everyone and presenting a schedule for in-
itiating the project. The schedule includes an initial
site visit (for which the contractor is already
developing an interim Health and Safety Plan),
development of an overall Site Management Plan,
and development of the contractor Work Plan. The
Site Management Plan will serve as an in-house
planning tool that lays out a schedule of site ac-
tivities from start to finish—from field investigation
and alternatives analysis through implementation of
-------
the remedy and eventual O&M. The plan incor-
porates activities, schedules, and resources and is
used in managing site activities.
Next, you announce that you will establish a
Technical Advisory Committee (TAG) for the
Acme site. The TAG will be composed of the in-
dividuals present at the meeting, plus technical
specialists and other interested parties who will
meet at key points in the remedial process to
review and discuss site issues and progress. You
welcome suggestions for other TAG members from
the group.
As the meeting proceeds, each participant offers
his or her thoughts on the project:
• The OSC describes removal actions conducted
at the Acme site and supplies you with copies
of important documents from the site file, in-
cluding the final Removal Summary Report
prepared by the TAT contractor.
• The RSCRC provides a brief history of com-
munity relations activities conducted during the
removal action and identifies any significant
community concerns associated with the site.
A site-specific Community Relations Plan
(CRP) was developed, as the removal lasted
more than 120 days. Also, during the removal
action an information repository was estab-
lished at the local library and will continue to
serve as a repository for the Administrative
Record for the Acme site*. The RSCRC sug-
gests that it would be wise to have a meeting
with community leaders and the local press
before the initial site visit is conducted. At this
meeting, the RPM can be introduced to com-
munity leaders and can discuss the initiation of
remedial activities at the site. The RSCRC
notes that communities are sometimes con-
fused when the remedial process begins,
believing that EPA's prior removal action was
intended to eliminate all problems associated
* The Administrative Record contains all information upon
which EPA bases the selection of a remedial response
(OSWER Directive 9833.3 Administrative Records for Decisions
on Selection of CERCLA Response Actions). The record must
be availiable to the public at or near the facility, so that the
community can participate in its development and have ac-
cess to important information. Additionally, a duplicate ad-
ministratiive record must be maintained at EPA's Regional
office.
with the site. Also, communities frequently do
not recognize the extensive study that is re-
quired before actual cleanup work begins.
• The Regional enforcement program and ORC
representatives discuss the enforcement status
of the site. Acme Waste Disposal Co. declared
bankruptcy 5 years ago; however, EPA is pur-
suing enforcement actions against other poten-
tially responsible parties (PRPs) who allegedly
wastes to Acme for disposal. These parties
have declined to perform the RI/FS. The cur-
rent enforcement strategy, therefore, is to
negotiate an agreement with PRPs to conduct
the RD/RA. If such an agreement cannot be
achieved within the mandated period of time**,
EPA will proceed with the cleanup and attempt
to recover costs after completion.
• The State Project Officer expresses the State's
willingness to cooperate in the cleanup effort
and desire to participate in technical meetings,
technical document reviews, and remedy
selection. Because they have been involved
with the site since it was identified 2 years ago,
the State adds a historical perspective to the
project. The State Project Officer notes that
the Intergovernmental Review has taken
place and that the State is satisfied with EPA's
responses to their concerns. The State also is
in the process of identifying any contaminant-
or location-specific State ARARs which may
apply to the Acme site. In addition, the State
Project Officer indicates that the State will be
submitting an application to amend its current
Multi-Site Cooperative Agreement with EPA
in order to receive funds for its management
assistance activities (e.g., meeting attendance,
document reviews) for the Acme site.
Your planning paid off. Not only was the meeting
informative to participants and well organized, but
you have time at the end of the day to meet with
J.C. Michaels and Art Becket, the contractor's Site
Manager. The three of you discuss the more tech-
nical aspects of the site and the scope of the initial
tasks of the phased RI/FS.
** PRPs have 60 days to respond to EPA's enforcement
notice. If EPA receives a "good faith" proposal from the PRPs,
the negotiations window may be extended up to 120 days
from the date they receive the notice receipt.
-------
Phased RI/FS
A phased RI/FS approach uses the close inter-
dependecy of the Rl and FS activities to make the
remedial process more efficient. In this approach,
RPMs and contractors identify potential remedial
approaches and technologies prior to developing
sampling strategies so that the Rl can focus specifi-
cally on the data needs of the FS.
J.C. explains that previous RIs and FSs were
planned as two distinct steps with only one major
sampling period. During the Rl, EPA contractors
would analyze numerous soil, air, and water
samples. However, the data did not always allow
for thorough evaluation and development of
remedial alternatives during the FS. In such cases,
additional, unscheduled sampling was necessary,
requiring added time and expense.
By conducting the Rl/FS in phases, EPA now in-
corporates schedule- and activity-related decision
points into the RI/FS process. This allows future ef-
forts to be redirected, rescheduled and/or re-
scoped, as necessary, in response to important
new information. During the phased RI/FS, data
quality objectives (DQOs) are established prior to
sampling and analysis, sampling episodes are rela-
tively small in scope, and field screening techni-
ques are used to limit the number of analyses.
Mobile laboratories are commonly used for quick
analyses. In addition, treatabitity data are often col-
lected expressly for assessing the feasibility of an
alternative. Each phase may take only 2 or 3
months. The types of decisions that must be made
at the end of each phase include:
• Is the Rl meeting the data requirements of the
FS? If not, how will the Rl be redirected to
provide the data?
• Can the scope and/or schedule of the Rl be
reduced and still achieve the technical objec-
tives of the RI/FS?
• Have sufficient types and amounts of validated
data been generated to terminate the Rl and
still complete the FS?
• Have the nature and extent of contamination
been adequately defined?
The phased approach allows the RPM to exert
more control over the project. In a phased RI/FS,
funds are approved incrementally (i.e., through the
expenditure limit on the Work Assignment Form) to
correspond with resource needs for each phase of
the project. Because the decision points are in-
tegrated into the planning for the phased ap-
proach, the budget and schedule for the total Ri/FS
are likely to change. The phased RI/FS approach
should lead to savings in both time and money.
Initial Site Visit and Site Planning
The initial site visit will provide a good oppor-
tunity to observe the integrity of the waste pond
berms that were stabilized during the removal ac-
tion. The contractor's Health and Safety Officer in-
forms you that protective boots are the only
precautionary measure necessary for this initial site
visit assuming you remain at least 15 feet from the
waste ponds. If you want to inspect the ponds
more closely, a self-contained breathing apparatus
is required.
The local residents should not be surprised to
see you at the site. You and Art met with com-
munity leaders last week, and the local newspaper
ran an article describing EPA's field investigation
plans.
The first stop on your site tour is the waste
ponds. The berms seem to be holding up welt.
There are no signs of breaches or erosion. The
pond levels, however, are quite elevated from the
recent rains.
At the next stop, where the unnamed creek bor-
ders the site on the west, you make a new and im-
portant observation. There are stained strata and
stressed vegetation in an area along the embank-
ment providing evidence of intermittent seepage of
contaminated leachate. Art proposes taking
several grab samples along the bank and analyzing
them for priority pollutants. Quick turnaround
analyses will be needed to allow project scoping
activities to proceed on schedule. Depending on
the results, another removal action may be war-
ranted to provide short-term control of surface-
water contamination.
You move on to the designated landfill area.
Using site maps, you identify where the ERCS con-
tractor removed the drums and the visibly con-
taminated soils. Information from site files indi-
cates that other portions of the landfill received
only municipal wastes.
This initial site visit was useful. You and Art are
now more familiar with the site layout and with
potential problem areas. You can now prepare a
-------
more realistic Site Management Plan. The first step
in developing this plan is defining project objec-
tives. The long-term objective, of course, is clean-
ing up the site. The shorter-term objectives are to:
• Control on-going contamination of the
creek
• Define the extent of ground-water
contamination
• Define the source of the ground-water
contamination
• Assess risk to human health and the
environment
• Evaluate alternatives to remedy site
problems
To assist in planning response actions, you and Art
divide the site cleanup into conceptual "operable
units." Operable units help you think of the overall
cleanup as discrete efforts that will be undertaken
to decrease a release, threat of release, or pathway,
of exposure. You envision two initial operable
units:
• Operable Unit 1 — Evaluate source control
measures by characterizing the pond wastes
and assessing various options for removing the
probable source of ground-water and surface-
water contamination.
• Operable Unit 2—Characterize ground-water
contamination and evaluate remedial alterna-
tives.
Work can proceed on both operable units concur-
rently.
Based on progress in conceptualizing your ap-
proach to needs at the site, you develop an overall
Site Management Plan (Exhibit 3), keeping it
general, in order to have the larger picture in mind.
As work progresses and more information be-
comes available, you can update and further
develop the plan. For example, results from initial
field investigations may indicate the need for a
removal action to supply affected residents with a
permanent uncontaminated drinking water source.
Also, short-term relief may need to be provided for
the apparent periodic contamination of the un-
named creek from seepage observed in the initial
site visit.
Technical Advisory Committee
You're now a month into the project, and it's
time for the first meeting of the TAG. You never
realized how difficult it could be to coordinate
everyone's schedule in addition to your own. You
did not anticipate being out of the office for 3 days
to attend contract administration training, but a slot
opened up and your Section Chief selected you to
attend. The training was well-timed for your new
responsibilities. It gave you a good understanding
of the contracting process and your critical role in
contract administration, particularly your authority
in obligating government resources. However, it
also made preparation for the first TAG meeting a
little hectic.
The TAG for the Acme site consists of a core
group of individuals that includes your Section
Chief, the contractor's Site Manager, the enforce-
ment program representative, the RSCRC, the
State Project Officer and yourself. The TAG may
be supplemented by various specialists and other
interested parties whose time and extent of par-
ticipation will depend on the particular stage of the
project and the specific technical expertise re-
quired. Present at this first meeting are the core
group plus the Regional Quality Assurance Officer
(QAO) from the Environmental Services Division
(ESD), a U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) repre-
sentative, and a ground-water specialist from the
Region's Water Division. Also on the TAG is a
private consultant, hired by the community under
an EPA Technical Assistance Grant, who will act as
a spokesman for the community and report back
on project issues. Invited, but not able to attend
the first TAG meeting, were representatives from
ATSDR and the Corps. ATSDR did indicate in a let-
ter, however, that the data from the site inspection
would be sufficient to develop a preliminary health
assessment. ATSDR anticipates no special data re-
quirements beyond those normally generated
during an Rl. In order to do the final assessment,
however, ATSDR will need the Rl reports as they
become available.
Your Section Chief begins the meeting by
reiterating EPA's commitment to achieving site
cleanup. She is encouraged to see the appropriate
involvement of other programs both inside and out-
side EPA.
You describe your site visit and your plan to
divide the site into two operable units: source con-
trol measures aimed at the on-site waste ponds
-------
Exhibit 3
SITE MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR ACME WASTE DISPOSAL CO. SITE
Project Year
Months
Activity
Operable units 1 & 2:
Source Control;
GW Remediation
Pre-RI/FS Planning
RI/FS
ROD
Remedial Design
Remedial Action
O&M
1
T T ?
4Months
16Months
2
f T T
MM
3 Months
•
3
T T T
12Months
•
4
T T T
I^SMonths,
?Mo
•1
5
f ? ?
iths ^
^^
Legend:
GW
RI/FS
ROD
O&M
Ground Water
Remedial Investigation / Feasibility Study
Record Of Decision
Operation and Maintenance
and ground-water activities aimed at evaluating
and, if necessary, cleaning up the contaminated
aquifer.
You also recommend an Expedited Response
Action (ERA) to stop the threat of surface-water
contamination from the seepage area observed at
the initial site visit. The grab samples taken at the
unnamed creek embankment show elevated levels
of heavy metals, including chromium, and other
priority pollutants, such as vinyl chloride. You ex-
plain that the ERA should focus on preventing
seepage from flowing into the unnamed creek and
suggest that the 12 affected residents be supplied
with a permanent source of drinking water.
To prevent further contamination of the creek,
the contractor's Site Manager suggests that the
flow be intercepted and diverted away from the
creek into a holding area. The collected leachate
could then be treated on-site and discharged to the
creek. The batch treatment facility also can be
used for future ground-water treatability studies.
Your Section Chief notes that permits are not re-
quired for Superfund response activities involving
on-site actions, however, the substantive require-
ments of a National Pollution Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permit should be met.
The ERA also will address the drinking water
problem of the 12 affected residents. These
residences, currently using bottled water, will be
permanently connected to the town's water dis-
tribution system which is uncontaminated. You will
10
-------
need to meet with the RSCRC and the contractor
to discuss the technical, budget, and scheduling is-
sues associated with this operation, including com-
munity relations activities.
The on-site waste ponds also were assessed for
inclusion in the ERA. However, lack of an im-
mediate threat and statutory limits of $2 million and
1 year timeframe precluded pond cleanup as an
ERA. Early estimates for the pond cleanup far ex-
ceeded the $2 million statutory limit. Thus, the
ponds will be addressed as an operable unit for
source control.
You explain that in order to initiate an ERA, a
threat or potential threat to the public or the en-
vironment must exist. In fact, an ERA is officially
a removal action and therefore must comply with
the regulations, procedures, and policies of the
removal program. One major distinction from a
removal action though, is that EPA's remedial
program and remedial contractors carry out the
ERA. You and Art believe that the contaminant
levels in the seepage, and the potential for con-
taminants to migrate as a result of rainfall, con-
stitute the degree of threat required for an ERA.
The degree of threat is not so significant, however,
to warrant a time-critical removal, which would be
conducted by a removal contractor.
The ERA plan will begin with an Engineering
Evaluation / Cost Analysis (EE/CA), which is
similar to a feasibility study although smaller in
scope. The EE/CA must consider all Federal and
State ARARs and should stress the use of per-
manent solutions and alternative treatment
technologies to the maximum extent prac-
ticable. In addition, the EE/CA must meet National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) equivalency and.
therefore, must undergo a public comment period
and include a responsiveness summary. Like a
removal, the EPA Regional Administrator must offi-
cially approve an Action Memorandum for the ERA.
After formal presentations at the TAG meeting,
you open the floor to discussion. Everyone agrees
that your plans seem reasonable. The USGS rep-
resentative indicates that the area had been sur-
veyed recently and that he would gather and pass
along this data. The hydrogeologist from the Water
Division notes that the site overlays an aquifer cur-
rently used for drinking water, and thus requires
protection under the Safe Drinking Water Act. The
State Project Officer also notes that State drinking
water standards are more stringent than Federal
standards for certain contaminants. Both the
Federal and State requirements will need to be ap-
propriately considered in planning and conducting
the remedial response.
Data quality is a major concern in conducting
remedial activities, and in discussion of this impor-
tant subject the Regional QAO provides some valu-
able guidance on developing DQOs for the
remedial response project. He explains that to en-
sure that data generated during the remedial
response at the Acme site are adequate to support
EPA's decisions, the project planning process must
clearly define the objective and the method by
which decisions will be made. This is ac-
complished through the development of site-
specific DQOs, which are qualitative and quantita-
tive statements made to ensure that data of known
quality are obtained.
The QAO goes on to explain the three-stage
process of developing DQOs:
• Identify decision types
• Identify data users and needs
• Design a data collection program
This is a lot to absorb at one meeting. Fortunately,
Data Quality Objectives for Remedial Response
Activities, Volumes I and II (OSWER Directive
9355.0-7B) are available for you to study, and the
QAO will provide further consultation as needed.
Generally, the first TAG meeting was very infor-
mative. The next time the TAG gets together it will
discuss the contractor's draft Work Plan, which
should be available for review in about 6 weeks. In
addition to drafting the Work Plan, the contractor
will also be working on the EE/CA for the ERA and
a CRP update. You amend the interim scope of
work activities to include preparation of the EE/CA.
This is done via approval of an interim amendment
on the Work Assignment Form.
Site Management Plan
You've just reviewed the contractor's detailed
Site Management Plan outlining the many tasks in-
volved in cleaning up a hazardous waste site; it
looks pretty good. Of course, most of the detail is
devoted to the immediate tasks, the interim RI/FS
tasks and the ERA involving leachate collection /
treatment and permanent water supply connection.
Since you are new to the program, you decide to
11
-------
confer with senior RPM J.C. Michaels again. He
suggests that you look at some of his old files to
compare schedules and unit costs for various
tasks. You also want to meet with Art Beckett to
discuss the Site Management Plan before the con-
tractor drafts the final Work Plan.
In the Site Management Plan, there is a potential
problem with the schedule. It calls for the ERA to
be implemented toward the end of winter. This
may be a problem if it includes construction ac-
tivities that cannot be performed under conditions
of cold temperatures and possible snow. You and
Art must consider weather impacts on the schedule
and develop appropriate anticipatory actions and
contingency plans.
The Superfund program will be conducting
studies at many other sites this spring. For
Federal-lead sites, samples are usually sent to the
Contract Laboratory Program (CLP) for analyses.
This may strain the CLP's capacity in the spring. In
order to expect reasonable turnaround time on
analyses, you should plan to avoid the seasonal
log jam. The Regional Sample Control Center
Coordinator for the CLP offers some advice:
• Schedule early if you plan to use the CLP
during the busy season
• Limit analyses to those truly needed to meet Rl
objectives
• Use field screening to limit sample numbers
• Use unvalidated data, with caution, to continue
project work and adjust, as necessary, when
validation is complete
These are all good ideas assuming that they fit in
with your project objectives and DQOs.
After discussing the Site Management Plan, Art
describes the automated system recently brought
on-line in the Region to monitor and control site
progress. With the software available (both the
Region and the contractor have copies), you can
enter site data (task, schedule, budget, and
responsibility) and generate critical path analyses,
progress reports, resource requirements analyses,
and other project management functions. This
computer program helps monitor site progress and
anticipate future events such as schedule slippages
and cost overruns. The data to be entered into the
program can be taken from the contractor's
monthly progress reports and other communica-
tions. (Exhibit 4 shows an example of the
software's output.) You recognize, of course, that
you cannot just sit behind a computer terminal and
make things happen. This automated system,
however, can prove to be an excellent tool, if used
effectively.
Work Plan Review
The contractor has just submitted the draft Work
Plan, the Sampling and Analysis Plan, and an up-
dated CRP for the initial phases of the RI/FS. You
had seen portions of these plans earlier. Now your
job is to review the plans for approval. You may
use specialists to help with the reviews, but you
must coordinate their involvement to prevent
schedule slippages. These specialists may include
the Regional QAO and other RPMs with particular
expertise in chemistry, biology, toxicology, or
hydrogeology. The TAC members also will be
reviewing these plans. In addition, you may want
to consider asking J.C. Michaels to briefly look at
the plans. You've allowed 3 weeks for review, fol-
lowed by a meeting to discuss any comments.
J.C. suggests that you involve the Corps now,
since EPA has selected them to be the lead for
design and construction activities. This is handled
through a site-specific Interagency Agreement
(IAG) for technical assistance. You will need to
prepare the IAG paperwork and obtain approvals in
the Region.
Meanwhile, the contractor is well into the EE/CA
portion of the ERA. A problem with the diversion
system requires additional grading to stabilize the
slope. This will add $50,000, bringing the ERA cost
to $450,000. The total cost for the previous
removal action plus the ERA is below the $2 million
statutory ceiling for removal actions. The response
time, however, will likely exceed 1 year, which will
require approval of an exemption request by the
Regional Administrator.
You confer with another RPM experienced in
civil engineering before approving the additional
work. You also check the SCAP to ensure that suf-
ficient funds are available. The diversion system is
designed to collect and treat an estimated 95 per-
cent of the leachate discharging to the creek. With
the EE/CA complete and the public comment
period underway, you develop an Action Memoran-
dum for the Regional Administrator to sign. Once
this memo is signed, you can issue funds and a
work assignment amendment to instruct the con-
tractor to prepare plans and engineering specifica-
12
-------
Exhibit 4
GENERIC SCHEDULE FOR FEDERAL-LEAD RI/FS
Yearl Year 2 Year 3
Jul Sep Nov Jan Mar May Jul Sep Nov Jan Mar May Jul
Work Planning / Mobilization
WP Memo Submitted
Draft WP CRP & Supp. Plans Submit.
WP, CRP & Supp. Plan Review
Final Plans Submitted
WP, CRP & Supp. Plan Approval
Public Info Meeting
Reid Investigation
Sample Analysis / Validation
Analysis & Rl Report
Rl Report Submitted
Tech Assist. Funds to Corps
Rl Report Review
Analysis & FS Report
Draft FS Submitted
FS Review
Prepare ROD
Rnal FS Submitted
FS to Public
Public Comment Period
Pre-design Activities
PRP Negotiations
Design Assist. Funds to Corps
A/E Selection for RD (Corps)
Public Meeting
Prepare IAG for RD
Prep. Responsiveness Summary
Draft ROD Circ. for Comment
ROD Briefing Period
State Concurrence
ROD Signature
P
C
C
PC
PC
C
C
C
C
P
C
P
C
C
C
P
C
P
C
PC
C
P
C
M
M
M
M
M@
M
D — Done
C - Critical
R - Resource Conflicts
P - Partial Dependency
Task ••m Slack Time
Started Task EHOH Resource Delay
M - Milestone - Conflict
Scale: Each character equals 1 week
TIME LINE Gantt Chart Report
This Is a generic schedule for a Federal-lead RI/FS. Specific RI/FSs may have different tasks and schedules.
13
-------
tions for the ERA. The contractor subsequently will
select a construction sub-contractor and manage
construction of the ERA.
Rl Phase I
The RI/FS Work Plan and the Sampling and
Analysis Plan for the first phase of the RI/FS are on
target. Only a few minor adjustments are neces-
sary. You also question some of the level-of-effort
allocations. The contractor makes the necessary
revisions and resubmits the Work Plan 2 weeks
later for approval. You then approve the Work Plan
and increase the expenditure limit to authorize the
Rl Phase I.
The first phase of sampling and analysis is a
screening effort aimed at defining where further
work should be directed. In this case, you want to
determine the nature and extent of ground-water
contamination and identify the constituents in the
two on-site ponds. With this information, you can
establish initial cleanup goals, characterize con-
centration ranges and profiles, and determine
waste types, mixtures, and volumes. The data also
will be used to analyze contaminant transport and
determine danger to human and environmental
receptors. During this phase, you will evaluate and
refine DQOs to ensure meeting the needs for en-
vironmental, treatability, and health effects data.
Identifying the various constituents in the ponds
will be a tricky job since apparently several discrete
layers of materials are present. The job will require
sophisticated sampling. You think it would be a
good idea to arrange for J.C. Michaels, a senior
RPM, to accompany you to observe the first
several days of sampling.
Only limited hydrogeologic sampling is required
since Rl scoping revealed that a few years earlier
the USGS had collected data on ground water flow
and subsurface strata in the area. Based on your
review of USGS data, ground water appears to flow
: in a northwesterly direction under the site. The first
monitoring phase calls for six wells—four along the
site's northwestern boundary and two upgradient
from the site. The 12 contaminated local wells,
which are no longer used for drinking water, will
also be sampled. The need for further wells will be
determined from initial sampling results. The con-
tractor also plans to use a volatile organics
analyzer to assess the presence of VOCs in the un-
saturated zone as an indicator of potential con-
tamination in the ground water below.
Initial field samples will be analyzed in the
contractor's mobile laboratory. Subsequent
samples will be sent to a CLP laboratory for or-
ganic and inorganic analyses. Because of prior
scheduling of the CLP analyses with the Regional
Sample Control Center Coordinator, you should
receive validated data 6 weeks after submitting
samples.
The field investigation seems to be off to a good
start. However, just as you are congratulating
yourself, Art Beckett, the contractor's Site
Manager, informs you that ground-water sampling
will be delayed a week or two. Evidently, the sub-
contractor hired to drill the monitoring wells had
limited hazardous waste experience. The individual
scheduled to operate the drilling rig would not take
seriously the clothing requirements in the Health
and Safety Plan and refused to wear proper safety
gear. It may take a week to mobilize a qualified
drilling team.
You wish you had taken a closer look at the
subcontractor's qualifications. However, it is the
contractor's job to screen qualifications of sub-
contractors before assigning tasks to them. You
note this oversight in your logbook. It will be in-
cluded in your Performance Evaluation Report of
the contractor during the next trimester Award Fee
Determination, in accordance with the Regional
Award Fee procedures.
Your immediate concern though, is how the
delay will affect your scheduled CLP analyses. You
inform the Regional Sample Control Center Coor-
dinator of the problem. He no longer can guaran-
tee a 6-week turn-around for analysis and valida-
tion. You hope your earlier discussion and well-in-
tentioned efforts to plan and coordinate with the
CLP through the Sample Control Center will have a
positive influence on turn around time.
If not, you da have a contingency plan. You and
Art had previously discussed the option of using
data produced by the laboratory but not validated
by the ESD. Another option is to have your con-
tractor prepare for the next phase of sampling (if
needed) while the data is being validated.
Previously you thought the benefits of saving a few
weeks would not outweigh the risks of proceeding
with unvalidated data. Now, however, you con-
sider the risk worth taking to get back on schedule.
14
-------
FS Phases I and II
While the R! activities are underway, you begin
the process of developing alternatives for cleaning
up the site. In this first phase of the FS, you want
to identify potential remedial technologies,
prescreen them for application at the site, and as-
semble technology and/or disposal combinations
into alternatives.
The contractor has been doing some preliminary
work on potential remedies. You ask Art to
prepare a preliminary list with general descriptions.
You schedule a meeting with the TAG to discuss
possible alternatives, and to identify their preferen-
ces and concerns.
The TAG meeting is being held at the Regional
Office. In attendance are the Regional Coordinator
from EPA Headquarters, the RSCRC, a Regional
representative from the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA) program, the State
Project Officer, the Corps' representative, the
ATSDR Regional liaison, and the contractor.
You begin by describing the types of alternatives
being considered. At a minimum, alternatives
should range from remedies that eliminate the
need for long-term management (including
monitoring) at the site to those that involve treat-
ment and that reduce toxicity, mobility, or volume
of waste as their principal element. Although alter-
natives may involve different technologies (that will
most often address toxicity and mobility) for dif-
ferent types of waste, they will vary mainly in the
degree to which they rely on long-term manage-
ment of treatment residuals or low-concentration
wastes. In addition to the range of treatment alter-
natives, containment options involving little or no
treatment and a no-action alternative should also
be developed.
The Corps' representative notes his concern
about using remedies involving alternative tech-
nologies such as chemical and/or physical fixation
of pond wastes. Preliminary evidence suggests
that these are not feasible alternatives for the Acme
site. You indicate that treatability testing will be
conducted to fully assess these alternatives.
The State Project Officer is also concerned that
the selected remedy attains State drinking water
standards for lead and chromium. You explain that
under CERLCA, EPA must meet State ARARs, or
obtain a waiver. You stress the importance of
achieving both the drinking water standards and
other standards related to health and the environ-
ment for additional media such as soil and air. In
addition, you indicate that the contractor will be as-
sessing any action-specific ARARs for the remedies
under consideration. These include any require-
ments stemming from the remedial actions being
considered (e.g., thermal destruction and removal
efficiencies or land ban restrictions under the
RCRA Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments
[HSWA]).
The RSCRC reports on the community relations
activities to date and the public's attitude toward
the site cleanup. Generally, the citizens seem
satisfied with site progress. They are, of course,
concerned that the contamination of ground water
and Lazy Creek be stopped. Several citizens have
expressed their appreciation for receiving routine
updates on site progress. Typically, these updates
include site fact sheets, community interviews,
public meetings, and telephone communication
with key community representatives.
There has been some negative public response
as well. The RSCRC reports that several citizens
have called her complaining of project delays,
especially in obtaining hook-ups to town water.
The RSCRC also learned that the delivery of the
bottled water to these twelve families has been late
on several occasions. The RSCRC believes that
resolution of that problem will reassure citizens of
EPA's concern for their health.
You instruct the contractor to inquire about
water deliveries. Upon verification of the delays,
the RSCRC will telephone the affected residents to
acknowledge the problem and explain the correc-
tive actions that will be taken. You note these
problems in your logbook for future reference
when evaluating contractor performance.
At the conclusion of the TAG meeting, you out-
line the next steps for completing the RI/FS. Prior
to releasing the FS Report for public comment, you
plan to reconvene the TAG to receive internal com-
ments on the report and to plan for the selection of
remedy process. This process culminates in the
development and approval of the ROD which forms
the basis for future administrative and legal ac-
tivities.
15
-------
With the meeting concluded, you instruct the
contractor to continue work on developing and
screening alternatives and agree to a tentative
schedule for drafting the FS Report.
Rl Phase II
You and Art meet to discuss the second phase
of the Rl. The first phase indicated ground-water
contamination from the site and a slow rate of con-
taminant migration. However, the extent of the
plume and specific source(s) of contamination can-
not be defined sufficiently from the data. The
ponds are a likely source since some of the same
hazardous substances were found in both the
ground water and the ponds. Based on results
from the first phase of sampling, however, it could
not be determined if materials buried in the landfill
also were contributing to the ground-water con-
tamination. In Phase II, your goal is to develop
data that is sufficient to clearly define sources and
to make a remedy decision.
Sampling of the ponds from the first phase of the
Rl revealed four distinct layers:
• A bottom layer consisting of a highly viscous
sludge containing heavy metals, including lead
and chromium, paint sludges, long-chain
hydrocarbons, and an assortment of other or-
ganics
• A second layer of organics with high specific
gravities
• A third layer of organics soluble in water
• A top layer of low specific gravity organics in-
soluble in water
During the first Rl phase, you identified the
materials in the ponds, but gathered little informa-
tion on the best way to handle them. A couple of
remedial alternatives under consideration are in-
situ chemical fixation and thermal destruction.
Characteristics such as heats of combustion, vapor
pressure versus temperature profiles, and vis-
cosities need to be defined in order to evaluate
various options for treating and/or disposing of
these wastes. The CLP does not routinely conduct
such physical analyses, thus you will need to make
special arrangements for these analytical services.
You recommend that, during Rl Phase II, the
contractor initiate bench-scale tests to determine
the effectiveness of these alternatives and to
provide cost estimates. This information will
enable you and the contractor to evaluate in detail
the various treatment and/or disposal options. The
results also can be used to develop performance
standards to be included in the Invitation for Bid
(IFB) package for remedial action. This second
phase of sampling also should determine the full
extent of the contaminant plume and whether the
landfill area is a contributing source of ground-
water contamination.
You approve the second phase of the Rl by issu-
ing a Technical Direction Memorandum that in-
creases the expenditure limit for the work assign-
ment and approves the more detailed scope of ac-
tivities. You also decide to have the contractor up-
date the Work Plan at this time and develop a fact
sheet to inform the local community of progress
achieved and future plans.
You revise your Site Management Plan accord-
ingly and schedule a meeting with your Section
Chief to brief her on the project and to obtain her
input. As a courtesy and to continue good com-
munications, you also prepare a short report to in-
form key parties (State, the Corps, ATSDR,
RSCRC, and Regional Coordinator) of site
progress and the planned course of action.
FS Phase III
The second phase of sampling was completed
and analytical results validated. It was clear that
the ponds were the major source of ground-water
contamination in the area. The contaminants ap-
parently are leaching from under and around the
unlined waste ponds, entering the aquifer, and
migrating under the landfill and beyond to the
northwest. With this information in hand, you con-
fer with the contractor and decide to discontinue
further sampling.
During the third phase of the FS, the contractor
evaluates in further detail the alternatives that
passed through the initial screening in FS Phases I
and II. The alternatives are analyzed against a
range of factors and a comparative analysis is con-
ducted. The major factors considered are effec-
tiveness, implementability, and cost.
Under effectiveness, the alternatives must be
evaluated for their protectiveness of human health
and the environment (compliance with ARARs).
Preference also is given to alternatives that per-
manently and significantly reduce the toxicity,
mobility, or volume of contaminants. When as-
16
-------
sessing the implementability of alternatives, EPA
must consider the technical feasibility, administra-
tive feasibility, and availability of the various
remedies. Finally, EPA must evaluate the alterna-
tives in terms of short-term (capital) and long-term
(operation and maintenance) costs. These are all
key factors in the final selection of remedy.
As RPM, this is also an appropriate time for you
to submit a ROD delegation request and briefing
package to EPA Headquarters for the Acme site.
The briefing package describes the site, and iden-
tifies significant issues, waivers, and Regional
recommendations. The ROD delegation transfers
remedy selection authority from the AA/OSWER to
the Regional Administrator.
Generally, these next few months are going to
be busy. Among the activities upcoming are:
• Development of the draft FS report and
Proposed Plan
• Public comment period on the FS, including
a public meeting
• Intergovernmental review of the proposed ac-
tion
Enforcement negotiations with PRPs
Updating the Administrative Record
ROD preparation, briefing to the RA, and ROD
signature
IAG with the Corps for remedial design
Pre-selection of design contractor by the
Corps
• Transfer of information between the contractor
and the Corps
• RI/FS closeout
It will take all of your planning, communication, and
coordination skills to keep things on track.
However, if you can overlap these various ac-
tivities, you can save 3 to 6 months.
EPA's Regional enforcement program will be
negotiating with PRPs to reach an agreement to
conduct the RD/RA. EPA has set a 60- to 120-day
enforcement window, which usually begins no later
than with release of the FS Report. If there is no
agreement with PRPs by the end of that period,
cleanup will proceed as a Fund-lead project, and
the enforcement program will pursue cost recovery
actions with the PRPs at the end of the cleanup.
TAG Meeting and Remedy Selection
Within a matter of weeks you receive a draft FS
Report from the contractor. You had seen a
preliminary draft about a month earlier so there are
no surprises. You distribute this version to the TAC
for review. After a 3-week review period, the TAC
meets to discuss the draft FS Report and outline
the next steps and responsibilities in the remedial
process. In general, the committee has no major
problems with the report. The contractor had been
responsive to everyone's concerns. You note this
in your logbook as a reminder for when it is time to
evaluate the contractor's performance.
The report outlines five basic alternatives, some
with various options that would alter the degree of
cleanup. The options address both operable units,
source control, and ground-water cleanup.
1) In-situ fixation of pond wastes, construction of a
slurry wall around the ponds, construction of an
impermeable clay cap over the site, and off-site
monitoring.
2) Thermal destruction of pond wastes and
underlying soils, land disposal of treatment
residues, and off-site monitoring.
3) Same as No. 1, plus on-site pumping and
reatment of ground water.
4) Same as No. 2, plus on-site pumping and
reatment of ground water.
5) No action alternative.
The TAC is leaning towards alternative No. 4,
believing that in-situ fixation is too risky and would
not receive public support. Also, alternative No. 4
includes thermal destruction of portions of the
pond wastes, which is consistent with EPA's policy
of using alternative treatment technologies and
selecting permanent remedies to the maximum ex-
tent practicable. Thermal destruction residues and
nonburnable wastes will be landfilled at an ap-
proved facility as needed. The State Project Officer
also prefers alternative No. 4.
Originally, both you and Art thought it was un-
necessary to pump and treat ground water after
removing the source and minimizing the migration
routes. Initial modeling efforts indicated that
17
-------
natural dilution and other natural chemical and
biological processes would reduce contaminants
to acceptable levels beyond the site boundaries
once the major source of contamination was
removed. However, the time-frame in which
natural attenuation would occur is not acceptable
in terms of the immediate public health concerns.
The option of pumping and treating the ground
water will reduce contaminants to an acceptable
level in a reasonable period and will restore the
ground water to its original beneficial use as a
drinking water source, and help prevent further
contamination of adjacent surface waters. Ground-
water monitoring will also be initiated to track the
change in contaminant levels in response to pump-
ing and treatment.
With the TAG in agreement, EPA can develop a
proposed plan for public comment. The proposed
plan is a companion to the FS and the administra-
tive record. It describes the alternatives con-
sidered in the detailed evaluation. Most important-
ly it identifies, describes, and explains the rationale
for selecting the preferred remedy. EPA also must
publish a notice and brief analysis of the proposed
plan in a major local newspaper and make the plan
available to the public. You plan to enlist the sup-
port of the RSCRC and ask the contractor to assist
you in preparing these documents.
Public Comment Period
During the public comment period, a number of
activities must be accomplished, one of which in-
cludes drafting as much of the ROD as possible.
At this point, the ROD will include any background
information, RI/FS data, and a summary of
remedial alternatives considered. At the end of the
comment period, the RSCRC will work with you to
prepare the Responsiveness Summary, which
documents the public's substantive comments and
EPA's responses. You will have a better feel for
what this will entail following the public meeting
scheduled in 4 weeks.
To prepare for the public meeting, you meet with
the RSCRC to go over the meeting agenda. The
RSCRC will lead the meeting and discuss the Su-
perfund remedial response process in general
terms. She also will discuss community relations
activities that have occurred and how the public
contributes to EPA's remedy selection decision.
You will then discuss the technical points of the
project including the Rl, the ERA, and any sig-
nificant project delays / changes (why they were
necessary and how you corrected them). You will
devote most of your presentation to providing an
overview of the various alternatives considered,
highlighting the advantages and disadvantages of
each. Finally, you will discuss the preferred alter-
native and your reasons for choosing it. A week
before the meeting, you and the RSCRC plan to
rehearse your presentations to improve them and
learn of any problems in delivery.
The meeting will conclude with a question and
answer session, which the RSCRC will moderate.
To prepare for this and the press interviews that will
follow, you and the RSCRC try to anticipate ques-
tions that are likely to be asked.
Transition to Design
Since PRP negotiations do not seem to be going
well, you can issue a Phase I design work assign-
ment to the Corps to develop a short list of
qualified architectural / engineering (A/E) firms.
This could have been done earlier, however, since
the negotiating window with the PRPs was still
open and their intentions were not clear, you chose
not to proceed at that time.
All of these activities should go smoothly be-
cause all parties were involved early in the process.
The Corps should have a good understanding of
the site and, therefore, should be able to develop
an appropriate short list of A/E firms. The State is
expected to concur in writing on the remedy
selected since the State helped to develop the al-
ternatives and had the opportunity to voice its con-
cerns earlier.
ROD Approval
The ROD is now prepared and authority has
been delegated to the Region for its approval.
Now you must brief the Regional Administrator, to
obtain approval of the ROD. You're slightly nerv-
ous about this. Public speaking was never your
strong point; however, you did a very credible job
at the public meeting. This is also an excellent op-
portunity for you to demonstrate your abilities to
your supervisors. To prepare, you attend several
ROD briefings for other sites in the Region.
18
-------
Since the Regional Administrator will decide if an
appropriate remedy has been selected, he normal-
ly asks for a brief comparison of alternatives,
paying particular attention to community concerns
compliance with ARARs, and cost-effectiveness.
You also note that the Regional Administrator re-
quires that the ROD specify performance levels.
Performance levels provide a baseline for
demonstrating remedy effectiveness and com-
pliance with other environmental regulations. They
also provide criteria for future decisions regarding
deletion of sites from the NPL
Your planning and preparation pay off again.
The ROD briefing goes extremely well. The
Regional Administrator has a few tough questions,
but you handle them well. The past four months
were certainly hectic, but you obtain the Regional
Administrator's signature on the ROD—a sig-
nificant achievement in the remedial process.
State Assurances
During all phases of the RD/RA, you must con-
tinue to coordinate with the State. Specifically, you
must negotiate a Superfund State Contract (SSC)
for the remedial action during RD and execute it
when the RD is completed. The SSC is a legally
binding document in which the State agrees to
provide:
• An off-site treatment / disposal facility, if neces-
sary
• A share of the costs for the response
• Post-remedial O&M
Since the selected remedy for the Acme site invol-
ves disposal of residues from the treated pond
wastes, you must ensure that the off-site facility
chosen complies with applicable RCRA regula-
tions. You consult EPA's policy and Procedures
for Planning and Implementing Off-Site Response
Actions (OSWER Directive 9330.2-1) and also meet
with Regional RCRA program personnel. Although
CERCLA requires that the State ensure the
availability of an off-site facility as needed, this is
normally done by the construction contractor
through the bidding process. During bidding the
contractor will identify and select such a facility
based on marketplace conditions and availability of
a facility in compliance with RCRA regulations.
Under CERCLA, the State must provide a per-
centage of the cleanup costs. In this case, since
the site was privately-owned at the time of disposal,
the State must contribute at least 10 percent of RA
costs. For a State-operated site, the State would
be responsible for at least 50 percent of both the
planning (i.e., RI/FS, RD) and the RA costs. In
either case, the State's cost share is not due until
the RA begins.
The State must make assurances to provide
O&M for the Acme site following the RA. O&M en-
sures continued functioning and effectiveness of
the RA. As the RA begins to wind down, you will
have to execute a Cooperative Agreement for
O&M, the mechanism for transferring Federal funds
to a State. For now, however, you need only the
State's assurance in the SSC.
The State also is responsible, to the extent of its
legal ability, for obtaining access to the site for the
RD/RA if necessary. This was not a problem for the
RI/FS, since the State condemned the property fol-
lowing Acme's bankruptcy. However, you should
consider any additional access rights needed for
off-site drilling. None are anticipated, but it would
be wise to check on this. Site access problems
have delayed many response actions at other sites.
Remedial Design
With the ROD signed, you should execute the
site-specific IAG with the Corps for design procure-
ment and contractor oversight to initiate design ac-
tivities. Although the Corps will be managing the
RD/RA for EPA, as EPA's representative you still
have oversight responsibility for the project. You,
therefore, must monitor project activities and
provide timely and meaningful input to the Corps.
You also will continue to be involved with com-
munity relations efforts, such as developing fact
sheets for key milestones of the RD/RA.
As outlined in the Superfund Remedial Design
and Remedial Action Guidance (OSWER Directive
9355.0-4A), several items require your attention
during RD. Once you have started the design, you
will be reviewing design plans and specifications at
various stages of development. Your primary
focus during these reviews is to ensure that the
plans and specifications are consistent with EPA
regulations, policies, and the approved ROD. You
will also review the design value engineering study,
if one is prepared for the site, for consistency with
the intent of the selected remedy. In value en-
gineering, plans and specifications are reviewed for
potential cost savings through the replacement or
modification of high-priced design items. For ex-
19
-------
ample, it may be possible to use on-site rather than
off-site materials as fill for the emptied ponds
without reducing the effectiveness of the remedy.
When cost estimates for construction are avail-
able, you should contact the enforcement repre-
sentative working on the cost recovery case
against the PRPs. EPA will need this information
when presenting their case to the Department of
Justice.
Remedial Action
Once the RD package has been completed and
approved by the Corps, and the EPA and the State
have concurred, you should execute the SSC with
the State. Also, you will need to prepare and ex-
ecute a site-specific IAG with the Corps to procure
a construction contractor.; The Corps then issues
the bid package and invites contractors to bid for
the construction project. Again, although the
Corps has the lead for the RA, you must remain in-
volved to provide EPA oversight and guidance.
Your participation may include attending review
meetings, inspecting construction, and reviewing
progress reports.
As the RPM, you also may get involved with
these procurement / contractor issues:
• Bid protests, which are written complaints
filed by parties with a direct financial interest
that is affected by the Corps' procurement ac-
tion. Complaints typically concern the solicita-
tion or the actual award of contracts. The
Corps is responsible for handling bid protests.
Your main concern, however, is that any
protest be resolved quickly to avoid excessive
project delays.
• Change orders, which are written orders is-
sued by the Corps authorizing an addition to,
deletion from, or revision of a contract for
either engineering or construction services.
They are usually issued in response to a re-
quest from the contractor. Change orders may
be necessary during any phase of the remedial
response. However, they are most likely to be
needed during construction, when there is a
greater chance of encountering unforeseen
site conditions, changes in estimated quan-
tities, or other potential problems impacting
contractor performance. The Corps is respon-
sible for managing change order requests.
Each remedial project has a construction con-
tingency of 8 to 10 percent of total project
costs. The Corps has the authority to approve
any change order that totals up to 20 percent
of the project contingency fund. Any change
order exceeding 20 percent requires EPA/RPM
approval. The Corps may continue to approve
such change orders until 75 percent of the total
contingencies has been depleted. Thereafter,
EPA/RPM also must approve. In addition, the
RPM must ensure that any needed revisions to
agreements with the State or modifications to
EPA management systems (e.g., SCAP) result-
ing from the change order are made. (State
cost share also applies to RA change orders
and claims.) Of course, if the change order
significantly modifies the scope of work, the
RPM must get involved with evaluating impacts
on the project.
• Claims, which are demands or written asser-
tions by a contractor seeking, as a matter of
right, changes to the contract which the Corps
has originally rejected through the change
order process. As with change orders, the
Corps has lead responsibility for managing the
claim.
Once the Corps completes the RA, they will con-
duct a final inspection and prepare a report certify-
ing completion of the RA. The Regional Ad-
ministrator then shall provide written notice to the
Corps of EPA's acceptance of the completed
project. You also must coordinate with EPA enfor-
cement staff in order to pass along final cost data
for the project and revised O&M estimates for cost
recovery purposes.
Operation and Maintenance
The Corps'/EPA's acceptance of the completed
RA indicates that the project has been built as
designed and is operating and functioning proper-
ly. This also is the point at which the State takes
over O&M responsibilities.
As the RPM, you must work with the State to
develop a Cooperative Agreement for that phase of
O&M involving EPA funds. EPA shares (90 or 50
percent) in that phase of response necessary to
ensure that the remedy is operational and function-
al for up to 1 year. After that, the State must as-
sume full responsibility for O&M under a Coopera-
tive Agreement with EPA. This agreement should
be in place when EPA and the State accept the
remedy as complete. Consult State Participation in
20
-------
the Superfund Program, Volume I (OSWER Direc-
tive 9375.1-4) for details on executing a Coopera-
tive Agreement.
You will need to negotiate with the State to work
out the details for the transition from RA to O&M, in
particular, defining when RA ends and O&M
begins. This is important when the RA involves on-
site treatment such as the systems for pumping
and treating ground water at the Acme site. Under
CERCLA. up to 10 years of ground-water or sur-
face-water treatment may be considered part of the
RA.
Finally, as the RA nears completion, you must in-
itiate the NPL deletion process. Deletion signifies
that EPA has completed what is considered to be
appropriate and necessary actions at the site and
that the site no longer presents a threat to human
health and the environment. It is the culmination of
the remedial response. Detailed procedures for
deleting sites from the NPL are given in Guidance
on Deletion of Sites from the National Priorities List
(NPL) (OSWER Directive 9320.2-3).
A remedial project may take 4 to 6 years, or more,
and cost millions of dollars. The process involves
many participants representing a variety of inter-
ests. In addition, each site has unique characteris-
tics, both technical and administrative.
As a new RPM 5 years ago, you had little or no
experience with planning, budgeting, and schedul-
ing projects of this magnitude. You were ap-
prehensive about public speaking. Now, you have
proven your abilities in all of these areas. New
RPMs are now approaching you for advice.
You have learned that a key element to being an
effective RPM is establishing clear and open com-
munications with program participants, particularly
with the public. By effectively using and coordinat-
ing available resources (contractors and technical
specialists) you were able to complete the remedial
project on time and under budget.
You recognize that the ability to anticipate and
respond to obstacles is another key factor in keep-
ing the project moving towards completion. You
anticipated and resolved such problems as poor
weather conditions, inexperienced well drillers, and
irate citizens. In addition, you have successfully
worked within a system of changing regulatory and
administrative requirements.
As a result of your successes, you have gained
valuable knowledge, experience, and confidence
that will help advance your career. The article in
the local newspaper complimenting EPA's efforts
at the Acme site certainly caught your Section
Chief's eye. In fact, she has nominated you for a
cash award for outstanding achievement.
Taken as a whole, the RPM's job is varied and
challenging. It requires a unique blend of technical
and managerial skills, many of which can be
learned only on the job.
21
-------
Attachment A
RPM Training Courses
-------
RPM TRAINING COURSES
The following training courses are available to EPA
RPMs:
CERCLA Orientation
OSC/RPM Basic Course
Personnel Protection and Safety
Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study
Contracts Administration
Risk Assessment in Superfund
Basic Ground-Water Course
Hazardous Materials Cleanup Technologies
Corrective Actions for Containing and
Controlling Ground-Water Contamination
Community Relations in Superfund:
Concepts and Skills
Management of Construction in the Superfund
Program
CERCLA ORIENTATION
(3 Days)
This introductory course is designed to intro-
duce new employees to the Superfund Program.
Course presents an overview of the CERCLA and
RCRA legislation, the National Contingency Plan,
program implementation and policy implications,
community relations, and the removal, remedial,
enforcement and support programs. Includes
classroom lectures, group discussion, problem
solving, case studies, and student exercises. Par-
ticipants will be offered insights into the actual
"nuts and bolts" of these programs.
OSC/RPM BASIC COURSE
(41/2 Days)
This introductory course is designed to intro-
duce new OSCs or RPMs to their roles and respon-
sibilities and to provide interaction among
employees from various Regions.
Presents an overview of the tasks new OSCs and
RPMs perform, including notification, evaluation
and planning, and removal operations for OSCs;
and site plan development, RI/FSs, RODs, RD/RAs
for RPMs. Consists of classroom lectures, group
discussion, case studies, and student exercises.
PERSONNEL PROTECTION AND
SAFETY (165.2)
(5 Days)
This course is for relatively inexperienced per-
sonnel who respond to accidents involving hazard-
ous substances or investigate uncontrolled hazard-
ous waste sites. Topics include: fundamentals of
respiratory protection; types of respiratory protec-
tion apparatus; use and limitation of equipment;
selection of respiratory protection equipment;
protective clothing; air monitoring; and safety pro-
cedures for conducting response operations.
Course familiarizes personnel with general con-
cepts, principles, and procedures for protecting
themselves from the harmful effects of hazardous
materials.
Segments require wearing of respiratory equip-
ment which precludes the use of glasses. Par-
ticipation may be limited for students who are
severely restricted without glasses. Portions of this
course and course 165.5, Hazardous Materials Inci-
dent Response Operations, are redundant. Per-
sons considering application to both courses
should confer with the registrar.
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION AND
FEASIBILITY STUDY
(3 Days)
This introductory course is primarily intended for
Regional and State program management
employees and for technical and enforcement staff
members. Provides extensive discussion of
remedial investigations, feasibility studies, and
program management.
Some topics for the remedial investigation in-
clude purpose and objectives and how to plan an
investigation. Topics for the feasibility study are
purpose, available criteria, alternatives, and con-
ceptual design. Consists primarily of classroom
lectures and discussions.
A-1
-------
CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION
(3 Days)
This course is designed to provide EPA Project
Officers, Work Assignment Managers, and Delivery
Order Officers with a better understanding of the
contract administration process and their critical
roles in the process. Consists of combination of
lecture, video presentation, and active student par-
ticipation. Includes an open-book examination at
the end of the course.
The text for the course is Contract Administra-
tion: A Guide for Project Officers, which serves as
a handy, desk-top reference long after completion
of the course.
RISK ASSESSMENT IN SUPERFUND
(2 Days)
This beginning course is intended for Federal
and State employees responsible for reviewing, su-
pervising or facilitating the work of consultants or
technical experts in performing risk assessments.
Consists of lectures, discussions, and practical ex-
ercises. Topics include an overview of chemical
risk assessment, hazard identification and dose-
response assessment, exposure assessment and
risk characterization, and risk communication.
Day 2 provides an overview of the Superfund
Public Health Evaluation Process, including an in-
ensive case study exercise.
After completing the course, students will have a
better understanding of toxicology for use in
recommending or reinforcing site safety proce-
dures, supervising or reviewing site activities, and
presenting site related lexicological data to the
public as well as direct experience in utilizing the
Superfund Public Health Evaluation Process.
BASIC GROUND-WATER COURSE
(3 Days)
This introductory course is intended for all EPA
and State employees who require a better under-
standing of ground-water issues. Offers a general
overview of basic hydrogeology and ground-water
movement, contaminant transport, ground-water
investigations, aquifer restorations and ground-
water modeling. Consists of lectures, demonstra-
tions, and classroom discussions. Upon comple-
tion of the course, students will have a better un-
derstanding of basic hydrogeology, ground-water
movement, and related subjects.
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS CLEANUP
TECHNOLOGIES
(2 Days)
This introductory course is intended for State
and Regional CERCLA program management staff.
Offers an in-depth review of the full range of haz-
ardous cleanup technologies applicable to the
variety of Superfund sites on the National Priority
List. Consists of lectures, discussions and case
studies. Topics include hazardous materials
cleanup technologies and a methodology for
selecting appropriate technologies. Course ex-
amines costs for each technology, institutional
constraints, and other pros and cons.
After completing the course, students will have a
better understanding of the available hazardous
material cleanup technologies and the appropriate-
ness of those technologies to a particular site.
CORRECTIVE ACTIONS FOR
CONTAINING AND CONTROLLING
GROUND-WATER CONTAMINATION
(3 Days)
This is an intensive introductory course
developed by the National Water Wells Association
to provide training in containing ground water pol-
lution. Emphasis is on practical aspects and ap-
plications with a minimum of theoretical discussion.
Course is directed toward EPA, State and local
employees with RCRA or CERCLA responsibilities,
especially those involved in cleanup of leaking un-
derground storage tanks.
Participants will develop an understanding of
regulations governing the application of corrective
actions, proper application of available tech-
nologies, and effectiveness of technologies in
specific situations. Topics include hydrogeologic
considerations in corrective action planning, inves-
tigative techniques for defining contaminant
plumes, exhumation and waste removal, caps and
cover design and installation, remedial actions in
the vadose zone, active physical containment, pas-
sive physical containment with low permeability
barriers, field applications, treatment technologies,
physical recovery of petroleum hydrocarbons, and
in-s'rtu aquifer restoration.
A-2
-------
COMMUNITY RELATIONS IN
SUPERFUND: CONCEPTS AND SKILLS
(2 Days)
This course is intended for Regional and State
Program Management and Technical staff. The
course involves skill development in dealing with
citizens and local officials, building good media
relations, and conflict management. Case studies
are used in the course for instruction as well as for
discussion purposes.
MANAGEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION
IN THE SUPERFUND PROGRAM
(3 Days)
This course provides an introduction to manage-
ment of construction in the Superfund program. It
is intended to help provide Regional and State
managers with a perspective on what is needed to
plan, schedule and control a Superfund construc-
tion project. The course addresses the manage-
ment issues to be considered in the construction
activity, and provides a foundation from which at-
tendees will grow in their technical and administra-
tive competence.
Course topics include successful management
practices, the bidding process, procurement prac-
tices, project design, management of change or-
ders and claims, and construction inspections.
Training is provided by means of classroom lec-
ture, case studies, and group discussion.
Upon completion of this course, participants will
be able to act more effectively as managers in the
Superfund program. Participants will be more
familiar with construction management and will
have a clearer understanding of authorities and
responsibilities of all parties involved in construc-
tion.
A-3
-------
Attachment B
Information Sources and
Selected OSWER Directives
-------
INFORMATION SOURCES
An annotated bibliography of documents specifically related to Superfund site remedial processes follows.
These documents are accessible through the EPA library network as part of the Hazardous Waste Collec-
tion. The referenced documents are frequently updated.
The Hazardous Waste Collection
The EPA library network has a hazardous waste library collection consisting of EPA Reports, OSWER
policy and guidance directives, books, periodicals, and a listing of commercial databases containing haz-
ardous waste information. Hard copies of these documents are available in the Headquarters and Regional
libraries, the National Enforcement Investigations Center, and some EPA laboratory libraries.
dBASE ill Access
The entire hazardous waste collection is accessible on a database using an IBM PC/AT. EPA reference
librarians search the database at no charge to EPA staff. The database provides automated search and
retrieval capability by the following access points:
Keyword/subject heading
Abstract
Title
Author
Sponsoring organization/office
Project manager's name
Contact number.
The data base collection is organized into three areas:
• Periodicals
• Monographs: books; non-EPA reports; EPA reports; OSWER policy and guidance directives
• Commercial databases.
B-1
-------
SUBJECT INDEX TO SELECTED OSWER DIRECTIVE
SUBJECT
OSWER DIRECTIVE
1. Remedial Project Management
9355.1-1, 9355.2-1
2. Remedial Investigation / Feasibility Study (RI/FS)
General
Alternatives development
and evaluation
Compliance with other
environmental laws
Contracts (REM)
Health and safety
Public health assessment
Site characterization
9355.0-5C, 9355.0-6B
9355.0-8, 9355.0-10,
9355.0-13, 9380.0,
9280.0, 9283.1-2, 9380.2-3
9234.0-2, 9234.0-3,
9347.0-1
9242.3
9285.1-18, 9285.2
9285.4, 9285.5, 9295.1
9240.0-1, 9285.2,
9355.0-7A, 9355.0-14
3. Record of Decision (ROD)
General
Functional NEPA equivalency
9340.2-1
9318.0
4. Remedial Design / Remedial Action (RD/RA)
General
Off-Site response actions
9355.0-4A
9330.2
5. Site Closeout
NPL deletion
Operation and maintenance
9320.2
9355.0-4A
6. Other
Community relations
Enforcement
Federal facilities
Interagency agreements
Removal / remedial interface
State participation
9230.0-3, 9320.4
9234.01-1, 9340.1
9272.0
9295.1, 9295.2,
9295.3, 9295.5
9360.0-3A, 9360.0-6A
9375.1-4, 9375.1-5
B-2
-------
Abstract of Selected Oswer Publications
9230.0-3 Community Relations in Superfund:
A Handbook
Provides program guidance for conducting
community relations activities in the Superfund
program. Offers specific guidance for EPA and
State staff on how to design and implement an
effective community, relations program.
Describes community relations activities during
both removal and remedial actions. (March
1986)
9234.0-1 CERCLA Compliance/Enforcement
Policy Compendium
Compiles all currently enforceable guidance
relating to CERCLA compliance enforcement
activities. (February 1984)
9234.0-2 CERCLA Compliance With Other
Environmental Statutes.
Describes policy on applicability of standards,
criteria, advisories, and guidance of other State
and Federal environmental and public health
statutes to actions taken pursuant to Sections
104 and 106 of CERCLA. Addresses con-
siderations for on-site and off-site actions taken
under CERCLA. (J.W. Porter, October 2,1985)
(also included in NCP [50 FR 47912], Novem-
ber 20, 1985) (See also 9234.0-3 and 9330.2-1).
9234.0-3 Draft Guidance on CERCLA Compliance
With Other Environmental Statutes
(RCRA Requirements)
Expands CERCLA Compliance With Other En-
vironmental Statutes (9234.0-2). Current draft
addresses only the requirements of RCRA that
may be applicable or relevant and appropriate
for CERCLA response actions. Other Federal
public health and environmental statutes will be
addressed subsequently. (December 16,
1985)
9240.0-1 User's Guide to the Contract Laboratory
Program
Describes procedures for using the CLP. Outlines
organic, inorganic, and dioxin analytical program
requirements, and analytical procedures of CLP
protocols. (October, 1984)
9242.3-3A Work Assignment Procedures for
Remedial Contracts
Outlines various steps and stages of a work as-
signment from inception through completion.
Includes a streamlined Work Plan Memoran-
dum package and provides several scenarios,
including phased approval and execution, and
a strong emphasis on more Regional manage-
ment control. (November 1986)
9242.3-5 REMII Contract Award Fee Performance
Evaluation Plan
Describes REM II award fee procedures, which
are essentially the same as the revised
REM/FIT procedures. The one exception is the
need for each Region to assess the
contractor's Regional management activities.
Describes specific procedures and review
schedules. (July 25,1984)
9272.0-1 Implementation of CERCLA Strategy at
Federal Facilities
Describes implementation phase of Federal
Facility CERCLA Strategy (Memorandum, April
2,1984, J. Cooper, AAfor External Affairs, to L.
Thomas, AA, OSWER).
9272.0-2 Initial Guidance on Federal Facilities
CERCLA Sites
Outlines status and direction of OSWER efforts
to implement hazardous site cleanup at
Federal facilities. Divides primary responsibility
for national management of Superfund Federal
facility programs between OWPE and OERR.
(L Thomas, Decembers, 1984)
B-3
-------
9272.0-3 Responsibilities for Federal Facilities
Clarifies responsibilities of OWPE and OERR
on Federal facilities. (Memorandum, August
19, 1985, G. Lucero, Director OWPE, to W.
Hedeman, Director OERR)
9272.0-4 Federal Facilities
Clarifies responsibilities and direction of efforts
within OWPE for Federal facility activities.
(Memorandum, August 19,1985, G. Lucero)
9272.0-5 Responsibilities for Federal Facilities
Provides transition for the OERR Facilities
Program. Describes manual development
responsibilities that OWPE assumed and
clarifies responsibilities between OERR and
OWPE for Federal facilities. (Memorandum,
August 26, 1985, W. Hedeman, Director,
OERR, to G. Lucero, Director, OWPE).
9280.0-1 Flood Plain Requirements
Adopts policy that CERCLA actions must meet
the requirements of the Rood Plains Manage-
ment Executive Order (E.O. 11988) and EPA
implementing regulations (40 CFR 6 Appendix
A). (W. Hedeman, November 14, 1983) (Sup-
plemented by 9280.0-2)
9280.0-2 Policy on Flood Plains and Wetlands
Assessments
Discusses situations that require preparation of
a flood plains or wetlands assessment, and the
factors which should be considered in prepar-
ing an assessment for response actions under-
taken pursuant to CERCLA sections 104 and
106. (W. Hedeman, August 6, 1985) (Supple-
ments 9280.0-1)
9283.1 -2 Guidance on Remedial Actions for Con-
taminated Ground Water at Super-
fund Sites
Focuses on key decision-making issues in the
development, evaluation, and selection of
ground-water remedial actions at Superfund
sites. Outlines key considerations during the
selection of a ground-water remedy, provides a
consistent approach to cost-effectiveness
decisions, and presents case studies of proper
ground water cleanup decision making proces-
ses. Does not discuss in detail technical
aspects of ground-water investigation,
evaluation, and cleanup. (October 1986)
9285.1 -1B Standard Operating Safety Guide Manual
Revises guidance on health and safety to com-
plement professional judgment and ex-
perience, and to supplement existing Regional
safety criteria. Reflects additional experience
EPA personnel have gained in responding to
environmental incidents involving hazardous
substances. Not meant to be a comprehensive
safety manual for incident response.
(W. Hedeman, November 19,1984)
9285.2 Field Standard Operating Procedures
(FSOP) Manual
Provides additional guidance in a cookbook
format on health and safety to complement
professional judgment and experience and to
supplement existing Regional safety criteria.
[Not a manual on its own - made up of the fol-
lowing FSOPs.]
9285.2-1 FSOP #4 - Site Entry
Provides site entry procedures that field
response personnel can use to minimize risk of
exposure to hazardous substances. (January
1985)
9285.2-2 FSOP #7 - Decontamination of Response
Personnel
Provides decontamination procedures that
field response personnel can use to minimize
risk of exposure to hazardous substances.
(January 1985)
9285.2-3 FSOP #8 - Air Surveillance
Provides air monitoring procedures that field
response personnel can use to obtain data
needed to minimize risk of exposure to hazard-
ous substances. (January 1985)
B-4
-------
9285.2-4 FSOP #6 - Work Zones
9295.1 -1 MOU Between the ATSDR and EPA
Provides procedures for establishing work
zones for control of hazardous materials and to
minimize risk of exposure of field response per-
sonnel. (April 1985)
9285.2-5 FSOP #9 - Site Safety Plan
Establishes requirements for protecting the
health and safety of field response personnel
during all activities conducted at an incident.
Contains safety information, instructions, and
procedures. (April 1985)
9285.4-1 Draft - Superfund Public Health
Evaluation Manual
Establishes a framework for analyzing public
health risks at Superfund sites and for develop-
ing design goals for remedial alternatives
based on applicable or relevant and ap-
propriate requirements of other laws, where
available, or risk analysis where those require-
ments are not available. [Procedures are
designed to conform with EPA's proposed risk
assessment guidelines (49 FR 46294-46331,
November 23, 1984, and 50 FR 1170-1176,
January 9,1985)]. (December 18,1985)
9285.5-1 Draft - Superfund Exposure
Assessment Manual,
Outlines framework for a comprehensive, con-
sistent, and appropriate assessment of human
exposure associated with uncontrolled hazard-
ous waste sites. Presents an integrated
methodology designed to guide the three
major component analyses of such assess-
ments: (1) analysis of toxic contaminants
released from a site, (2) determination of en-
vironmental fate of such contaminants, and (3)
evaluation of nature and magnitude of human
population exposure to such contaminants.
(January 14,1986)
Establishes policies and procedures for con-
ducting response and non-response health ac-
tivities related to releases of hazardous sub-
stances. (J. McGraw, April 25,1985, and D. R.
Hoper, May 28, 1985)
9295.2-3 Interagency Agreement Between the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers and the USEPA
in Executing P.L 96-510, CERCLA
Defines the assistance the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers will provide to EPA in implementing
EPA Fund-lead, State Fund-lead, and EPA en-
forcement-lead projects. (J. McGraw and R.
Dawson, December 3,1984)
9295.3-1 MOU Between DOD and EPA for the
Implementation of P.L. 96-510, CERCLA
/>
Clarifies Department of Defense/EPA respon-
sibilities and commitments for conducting and
financing response actions authorized by
CERCLA and specifically delegated by E.O.
12088. Clarifies respective operational roles,
responsibilities and procedures. (L Korb and
L Thomas, August 12, 1983). (Expired on
December 1, 1985, - has now been extended
until December 1, 1986 OR until Reauthoriza-
tion of Superfund.)
9295.5-1 MOU Between FEMA and EPA for the
Implementation of CERCLA Relocation
Activities under P.L. 96-510, CERCLA
Describes major responsibilities and outlines
areas of mutual support and cooperation be-
tween EPA and Federal Emergency Manage-
ment Agency relating to relocation activities as-
sociated with response actions pursuant to
CERCLA; Executive Order 12316; and the
NCP, 40 CFR Part 300. (J. W. McGraw,
March 29, 1985, and S. W. Speck, April 5,
1985, effective until April 1989)
B-5
-------
9295.5-2 Implementation of EPAIFEMA MOU on
CERCLA Relocations
9320.2-1 Interim Procedures for Deleting Sites
from the NPL
Forwards EPA/FEMA MOU on CERCLA
Relocations (9295.5-1) to Regional Ad-
ministrators. Provides guidance in establishing
Regional/Headquarters/FEMA relocation con-
tacts and following standards established in
the MOU. (J. McGraw, June 14,1985)
Sets forth criteria and interim procedures for
deleting sites from the NPL to indicate sites
that have been cleaned up or that have been
determined not to present a hazard to health,
welfare or environment. (L Thomas, March 27,
1984)
9318.0-1 Interim Policy for Compliance with
the National Environmental Policy Act
9320.2-2 Guidance on Deletion of Sites from the
National Priorities List NPL
Addresses policy under NEPA for remedial ac-
tions, or long-term actions consistent with per-
manent cleanup of a site. Also requires that
design of remedies be the result of weighing al-
ternatives and be cost-effective. (M. Cook,
May 18,1981) (Supplemented by 9318.0-2)
9318.0-2 Guidance on Superfund NEPA Policy:
Areas of Responsibility
Identifies areas of responsibility of Superfund
staff for preparation of Environmental Impact
Statements to ensure compliance with NEPA
for Superfund remedial action projects. (M.
Cook and W. Hedeman, August 17, 1981)
(Supplements 9318.0-1)
9318.0-3 CERCLA Remedial Actions and NEPAIEIS
Functional Equivalency
Urges RA's to develop close working relation-
ship between OSWER, Office of Federal Ac-
tivities and Regions to ensure that reviews for
remedial actions under CERCLA are functional-
ly equivalent to the Environmental Impact
Statement requirements of section 102(2)(C).
(L Thomas and J. Cooper, August 22, 1984)
(Supplemented by 9318.0-4)
9318.0-4 Coordination between Regional
Superfund Staffs and OFA Regional
Counterparts on CERCLA Actions
Revises procedures and criteria for making
deletions to the NPL to indicate sites that have
been cleaned up or that have been determined
not to present a hazard to health, welfare, or
environment. (September 1986)
93204-1 Interim Information Release Policy
Provides interim policy for NPL information
release. For use by the Regions to prepare a
coordinated response to Public Citizen FOIA
Requests. (W. Hedeman, April 18,1985)
9330.2-1 Procedures for Planning and Imple-
menting Off-Site Response Actions
Addresses procedures for a response action
involving off-site storage, treatment, or dis-
posal of hazardous substances selected under
CERCLA and RCRA; also, discusses proce-
dures for selecting any off-site facility for
management of hazardous substances under
CERCLA. Prohibits use of RCRA facility for off-
site management of Superfund hazardous sub-
stances if it has significant RCRA violations or
other environmental conditions that affect
satisfactory operation. Also addresses require-
ments for analyzing and selecting response ac-
tions that involve permanent methods of
managing hazardous substances. (J. McGraw,
May 6, 1985) (Supplemented by 9330.2-2 and
9330.2-3)
Encourages coordination between the
Regional Superfund staffs and Office of Federal
Activities Regional counterparts in carrying out
CERCLA actions. (W. Hedeman and A. Hirsch,
October 29,1984) (Supplements 9318.0-3)
B-6
-------
9330.2-3 Guidance on Procedures for Planning
and Supplementing Off-Site Response
Actions
incinerators for on-site CERCLA use, and on-
site disposal of treatment residue. (March 26,
1986)
Provides follow-up to off-site disposal policy
(see 9330.2-1). Explains actions OSWER has
or will take to implement this policy. (Novem-
ber 1986)
9340.1 -1 Participation of Potentially Responsible
Parties in Development of Remedial
Investigations and Feasibility Studies
under CERCLA
Sets forth policy and procedures governing
participation of PRPs in development of RI/FS
under CERCLA. Discusses circumstances in
which RI/FS may be conducted by PRPs; pro-
cedures for notifying PRPs when Agency has
identified target sites for development of RI/FS;
and principles governing PRP participation in
Agency-financed RI/FS. (L Thomas, March 20,
1984)
9340.2-1 Preparation of Decision Documents for
Approving Fund-Financed and
Potentially Responsible Party Remedial
Actions Under CERCLA
Assists Regional Offices in preparation, of
decision documents required for approval of
Fund-financed and PRP remedial actions. A
Record of Decision, Enforcement Decision
Document or Negotiation Decision Document
is required for all remedial actions financed
from the Fund. Documents Agency's decision-
making process and demonstrates that the re-
quirements of CERCLA and the NCP have
been met. Procedure provides basis for any
future cost-recovery action. (J. McGraw,
February 27,1985)
9347.0-1 Interim RCRA/CERCLA Guidance on
Non-Contiguous Sites and On-Site
Management of Waste Residue
Addresses several RCRA/CERCLA interface is-
sues at MOTCO, Texas site, which have broad
implications for remedial actions at many other
Superfund sites. Lays out EPA policy on
several issues including combined treatment of
CERCLA waste from noncontiguous locations,
limitations on construction of hazardous waste
9355.0-4A Superfund Remedial Design and
Remedial Action Guidance
Assists agencies and parties who plan, ad-
minister and manage remedial design (RD) and
remedial action (RA) at Superfund sites. Per-
tains to Fund-financed RD/RA (i.e. Federal-lead
and State-lead) and responsible party RD/RA,
and provides procedural guidance to ensure
that RD/RA are performed properly, consistent-
ly, and expeditiously. (June 1986)
9355.0-5C Guidance on Feasibility Studies Under
CERCLA
Provides a more detailed structure for identify-
ing, evaluating, and selecting remedial action
alternatives under CERCLA and the NCP (40
CFR 300). (June 1985) (Supplemented by
9355.0-7B and 9380.0-3)
9355.0-6B Guidance on Remedial Investigations
Under CERCLA
Describes remedial investigations to obtain
data to evaluate and select measures to con-
trol specific problems caused by uncontrolled
hazardous waste sites. For use by other
Federal agencies and PRPs when undertaking
remedial response pursuant to the NCP and
CERCLA Section 104 or section 107. Com-
pliance with this guidance will help meet NCP
requirements. (June 1985) (Supplemented by
9355.0-7B and 9380.0-3)
9355.0-7B Dafa Quality Objectives for Remedial
Response Activities, Volumes I and II
Volume I guides user through process of
developing data quality objectives for generic
remedial response activities. Volume II il-
lustrates how the DQO development process
would be applied to a remedial investiga-
tion/feasibility study at a site with contaminated
soils and ground water. (March 1987) (Sup-
plements 9355.0-5C and 9355.0-6B)
B-7
-------
9355.0-8 Modeling Remedial Actions at
Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites
9355.2-1 Superfund State-Lead Remedial
Project Management Handbook
Provides guidance on selection and use of
models for evaluating effectiveness of remedial
actions at uncontrolled hazardous waste sites.
Provides a comprehensive set of guidelines to
regulatory officials for incorporation of models
into remedial action planning process at
Federal and State Superfund sites. (April 1985)
Assists EPA Remedial Project Managers
(RPMs) in managing State-lead remedial
response projects. Describes in detail respon-
sibilities of the RPM during planning, design,
construction, operation and close-out of
remedial response projects. (December 1986)
(Supplements 9355.1-1)
9355.0-10 Remedial Action Costing Procedures
Manual
Provides guidance to project managers and
decision makers in government and industry
for preparation of detailed feasibility cost es-
timates of remedial action alternatives required
under revised NCP. (September 1985)
9355.0-14 Quality Assurance/Field Operations
Methods Manual
Provides Remedial Project Managers and
quality assurance officers with a consolidated,
ready reference of existing field methods to
guide remedial field activities. Primary objec-
tives are to promote quality and consistency in
field work and to help streamline project plan-
ning process, particularly preparation of sam-
pling and analysis plans and Quality Assurance
Project Plans. Once approved, Compendium
will be used by the EPA remedial contractors,
and also can be made available to States and
private parties. The Compendium supplement
the Rl and FS Guidance documents and the
DQO guidance. (April 1986)
9355.1 -1 Superfund Federal-Lead Remedial
Project Management Handbook
Assists EPA Remedial Project Managers in
managing Federal-lead remedial response
projects. Describes in detail responsibilities of
the RPM during planning, design, construction,
operation, and close-out of remedial response
projects. Provides information on procedures
for conducting Federal-lead remedial projects
from pre-RI/FS activities through site close-out.
(December 1986) (Supplements 9355.2-1)
9360.0-3A Superfund Removal Procedures
Provides EPA response officials with uniform,
Agency-wide, guidance on removal actions.
Guidance provided is essentially procedural
and focuses on implementation of the hazard-
ous substances removal program for multi-
media releases from facilities and vessels
within EPA's area of responsibility.
(March 1986)
9360.0-6A Relationship of the Removal and
Remedial Program Under the
Revised NCP
Outlines revisions to the NCP that redefine
removal and remedial actions to expedite
cleanup activities. Addresses management is-
sues that may arise between the two programs
in Headquarters and the Regions. (March
1986) (Supercedes 9360.0-6)
9375.1-4 State Participation in the Superfund
Program, Volume I
Describes State participation in implementing
approved remedial response activities at NPL
sites in accordance with the NCP and options
now available to States for expediting cleanup
activities. (February 1984) (Being reissued by
OSWER Directive 9375.1-2 and 9375.1-2A on a
chapter by chapter and appendix by appendix
basis.)
B-8
-------
9375.1 -5 Sfate Participation in the Superfund
Program, Volume II
9380.0-6 Guidance Document for Cleanup of
Surface Impoundment Sites
Explains salient points of EPA's general regula-
tions that apply to all State procurement under
Superfund Cooperative Agreement; discusses
procurement of A/E services, and the type of
activities these firms can manage on behalf of
the State throughout response (RI/FS, RD, RA
and O&M); discusses procurement of con-
struction services, subagreement administra-
tion, and claims management. (March 1986)
9380.0-2 Slurry Trench Construction for
Pollution Migration Control
Provides in-depth guidance on use of slurry
walls for control of subsurface pollutants.
(February 1984)
9380.0-3 Guidance Document for Cleanup of
Surface Tank and Drum Sites
Provides guidance on carrying out concurrent
remedial planning activities and accelerating
project implementation for cleanup of surface
tanks and drums containing hazardous waste.
Provides systematic approach to remedial ac-
tion for hazardous wastes stored in tanks and
drums. (May 1985) (Supplements 9355.0-5C
and 9355.0-6B)
9380.0-4 Remedial Action at Waste Disposal
Sites Handbook (Revised)
Provides basic reference for understanding
remedial technologies; selecting potentially ap-
plicable technologies for a given waste site,
and planning for remedial action.
(October 1985)
Assists on-scene Federal, State, or local offi-
cials and private firms to develop remedial ac-
tions at NPL sites with one or more surface im-
poundments containing hazardous waste.
Provides detailed guidance for conducting a
limited remedial investigation and a limited
feasibility study for the purpose of selecting an
appropriate remedy. (June 1986)
9380.2-3 Superfund Innovative Technology Eval-
uation (SITE) Strategy and Program Plan
Presents EPA's strategy for implementing the
SITE program. Primary purpose of SITE is to
enhance development and demonstration,
thereby establishing the commercial
availability, of innovative technologies at Su-
perfund sites. (December 1986)
9833.3 Administrative Records for Decisions on
Selection of CERCLA Response Actions
Outlines requirements for establishing an ad-
ministrative record and lists significant docu-
ments to be included in the record. (May
1987)
Mobile Treatment Technologies for Superfund
Wastes, EPA Report No. 540/2-86-003F
Addresses the use of established and develop-
ing mobile systems to treat Superfund wastes.
Discusses capabilities and limitations of five
broad treatment categories: thermal, immobi-
lization, chemical, physical, and biological
treatment. (September 1986)
9380.0-5 Leachate Plume Management
Provides an overview of the fundamental con-
cepts, procedures, and technologies used in
leachate plume management. Discusses
plume generation dynamics and delineation.
Evaluates plume control technologies and
defines selection criteria. (November 1986)
B-9
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1988/548-158/67074
-------
B. Looking Back & Ahead
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Public Affairs(A-107)
Washington DC 20460
December 1987
OPA-87-007
Superfund:
Looking Back, Looking Ahead
.„
-------
The Birth of A Program
The Problem
The dimensions of the hazardous waste
problem are so vast they are almost
impossible to comprehend.
There are 240,000,000 people in the
United States. Try to imagine a ton of
hazardous waste piled next to each of
them, with another ton added each and
every year.
Hazardous waste is produced in this
country at the rate of 700,000 tons per
day. That's 250 million tons per
year—enough to fill the Superdome in
New Orleans 1500 times over.
Yet vast though it is, hazardous waste
is only a small fraction of all waste
generated in the United States. More
than six billion tons of waste are
produced in this country every year.
Industrial waste, the type most likely to
include hazardous substances subject to
EPA regulation, represents only 6.4
percent of total waste volume.
The other 93.6 percent (see graph)
consists mainly of agricultural and
mining waste, with a small share left
over for municipal and utility waste.
It should be emphasized that one
extremely hazardous form of waste
excluded from this graph—high-level
radioactive waste—is regulated not by
EPA, but by the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission and the Department of
Energy.
The wastes at Superfund sites consist
primarily of industrial chemicals, each
posing different threats to the
environment and to human health. In
most cases, these chemicals wound up
at the sites as a result of slipshod
disposal practices. For example, as
recently as a decade ago, dumping was
widespread, even among reputable
companies. Little thought was given to
the long-term consequences of such
behavior.
Today we are paying the price for
years of thoughtless neglect. Thousands
of abandoned or inactive sites
containing hazardous waste have been
identified nationwide. Many of these
sites are located in environmentally
sensitive areas, such as floodplains or
wetlands. Rain and melting snow seep
through the sites, carrying chemicals
that contaminate underground waters
and nearby streams and lakes.
At some sites, the air is also
contaminated as toxic vapors rise from
evaporating liquid wastes or from
uncontrolled chemical reactions. And
some pollutants, such as metals and
organic solvents, are known to damage
vegetation, endanger wildlife, and
threaten the health of people who
unknowingly drink contaminated
waters.
Most Superfund sites were created by
the chemical and petroleum industries.
Others were once municipal landfills
that may have become hazardous simply
as a result of accumulated pesticides,
cleaning solvents, and other chemical
products discarded in the household
trash. Many sites are the result of
transportation spills or other accidents,
and others are the final resting place of
persistent toxic pollutants contained in
industrial wastewater discharges or air
pollution emissions.
Whatever their source, it is the
responsibility of Superfund to ensure
that the hazardous substances
abandoned at the worst of these sites do
not imperil human health or the
environment. It is a truly massive
undertaking, and one of great
importance to the future of the United
States.
Growing Awareness
Hazardous waste is one of those
problems that "snowballs." It started off
a minimal concern on the extreme
periphery of public consciousness. In
the space of only a decade, however,
hazardous waste rapidly became a
central concern of citizens in every part
of the United States.
A series of headline-grabbing stories
in the late 1970s gave Americans a
crash course in the perils of ignoring
hazardous waste. First there was Love
Canal, the community in Niagara, NY,
that had to be evacuated after hazardous
waste buried over a 25-year period
contaminated ground water.
Then the Valley of the Drums tc
center stage. This noxious deposit of
leaking storage barrels quickly became
one of the most notorious places not
just in Kentucky but in the United
States.
The little community of Times Beach,
MO, became the next national
hazardous waste story. Oil contaminated
with highly toxic dioxin tainted the soil
and the water in this eastern Missouri
community.
In all these instances, lives were
disrupted, property values were ruined:
Suddenly Americans began to wonder
who would be next . . . and who would
be there to pick up the pieces.
-------
irdous Waste in the United J
Industrial 6.4%
Mumapat 3.1%
Utility 1.2%
Mining/milling 39.0°
iincludes uranium mill tailings,
The Program
It was felt that a federal law was needed
to protect U.S. citizens against the
dangers posed by hazardous waste
abandoned at sites throughout the
nation: both the short-term threat that
became all too apparent during
emergencies and the long-term
threat, often requiring years of cleanup
action.
The Comprehensive Environmental
Response. Compensation and Liability
Act of 1980 (CERCLA) was the first
najor response to the problem on a
national level. CERCLA had several key
objectives:
* develop a comprehensive program
to set priorities for cleaning up the
worst existing hazardous waste sites.
• To make responsible parties pay for
those cleanups wherever possible.
• To set up a $1.6 billion Hazardous
Waste Trust Fund—popularly known as
"Superfund"—for the twofold purpose
of performing remedial cleanups in
cases where responsible parties could
not be held accountable, and responding
to emergency situations involving
hazardous substances.
• To advance scientific and
technological capabilities in all aspects
of hazardous waste management.
treatment, and disposal.
Superfund was to be funded with
taxes on crude oil and 42 different
commercial chemicals. State
governments were to pay 10 percent of
the cost of Superfund work at privately
owned sites and 50 percent at those that
were publicly owned.
riculture 50.3%
The United States seemed ill-prepared
to deal with the problem of ha/.ardous
waste prior to the creation of
Superfund. Nevertheless, CERCLA did
not develop out of a complete vacuum.
In the Clean Water Act of 1972.
Congress had provided for the
regulation of hazardous waste
discharged into all navigable waters of
the United States. A $35 million trust
fund—an ancestor of Superfund—was
set up to deal with problems stemming
from such discharges. However, no
provision was made to deal with
damage to land resources resulting from
contamination by hazardous waste.
One important offshoot of the 1972
Clean Water Act was the formulation of
a National Contingency Plan for dealing
with emprgencies involving hazardous
waste. This plan has undergone main
refinements through the years, and it is
still the guiding principle behind the
implementation of Superfund.
Passage of the Toxic Substam es
Control Act (TSCA) and the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRAl
marked two more milestones in the
evolution of an active governmental
response to the hazardous waste crisis.
Both these statutes brought important
changes to the day-to-day operations of
the U.S. chemical industry.
TSCA gave EPA the task of
identifying and controlling chemical
products that pose an unreasonable risk
Source: EPA's Office of Solid Waste
(Excludes high-level radioactive waste!
to human health or the environment
through their manufacture, processing.
commercial distribution, use. or
disposal.
While the mission of Superfund was
to clean up the mistakes of the past and
cope with the emergencies of the
present. RCRA was designed to create
guidelines for prudent hazardous waste
management anil disposal in the present
and the future. It was to provide the
I'nited States with its first tracking
system for regulation of hazardous
waste from generation to disposal. If
fully successful, RCRA should someday
eliminate the need fora Superfund
program, n
"Superfund: Looking Back, Looking
Ahead" first appeared as a special
section in (he January/February 1987
issue of the EPA Journal, luck Lewis of
EPA's Office of Public Affairs edited the
section. Special thanks are owed to
Susan Bullard of the Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response, as iveJl
as these other EPA employees who
made valuable contributions to (In-
sertion: At headquarters/ Sylvia Malm;
Debbie Wood; Don White: June Taylor;
Rita Calvan. In Region 3/Nanci Sinclair:
In Region 5/Margaret McCue and John
Tanaka. The Journal also thanks Robert
Costa of Geo-Resource Consultants and
Jack Macy of Massachusetts'
Department of Environmental Qualify
Engineering.
-------
Superfund's First Six Years:
A Progress Report
Removing contaminated soil from a site
in CaJverton. AID. A/ore than 700
emergency removal
-------
Steps In Qeaning Up
/ Super-fund Site
Many Superf'und ci .;l the
National Hcs^ftusc Center, u-Jit n
Const Guard officers recure reports
over a (oll-fn.v linr of oil spills and
hazardous substum
1. The Initial Warning
Individuals report concerns about
abandoned hazardous waste sites or
incidents of illegal dumping to EPA's
National Response Center
(800/424-8802) or to a local, state, or
federal government official.
What circumstances could prompt a
report? It could be a citizen phoning to
report the presence of half-buried
barrels of hazardous waste in his
neighborhood. Or it could be a local law
enforcement official who had spotted a
midnight dumper. Or it could simply be
a facility manager making a formal
report to EPA.
In 1980, it was estimated that the
United States had roughly 9000 problem
hazardous waste sites. A mere six years
later, over 25,000 suspected sites had
been entered into CERCLIS—EPA's
computerized data base. In 1986 alone,
EPA and the Coast Guard received 2700
ru cations of releases from a variety
of auferent sources. It is currently
projected that as many as 2500 of these
sites will require cleanup under the
federal Superfund program.
2. Identification and Preliminary
Assessment
Once EPA learns of a possible
hazardous site, it collects all available
background information not only from
its own files but also from state and
local records and U.S. Geological
Survey maps. This information is used
to identify the site and perform a
preliminary assessment of its potential
hazards. EPA tries to determine the size
of the site, the identity of the parties
most likely to have disposed wastes
there, the types and quantities of wastes
most likely to have been disposed, local
hydrological and meteorological
conditions, and the impact of these on
the environment.
3. Site Inspection
If a preliminary assessment turns up
evi^nce that the site may pose a threat
tc; nan health or the environment,
inspectors actually go to the site to
collect sufficient information to rank its
hazard potential.
Site inspectors look first for obvious
signs of danger: leaking storage drums,
dead or discolored vegetation, etc. They
may, if circumstances warrant, take
samples of nearby soil or water. They
also analyze ways hazardous materials
from the site could be polluting
environmental resources (for example,
through run-off into nearby streams) and
check to see if children have access to
the site.
4. Ranking Sites for the National
Priorities List
The National Priorities List (NPL)
identifies the targets for long-term
remedial action under Superfund.
Updated at least once a year, the NPL
identifies the worst abandoned or
uncontrolled hazardous waste sites in
the United States according to a variety
of factors, including the type, quantities,
and toxicity of the wastes involved; the
number of people potentially exposed;
the likely pathways of exposure; and the
importance and vulnerability of the
underlying supply of ground water.
As of January 1987, 951 sites had
either been listed (703) on the NPL or
proposed for listing (248).
5. Remedial Investigation
The ultimate objective for hazardous
waste sites on the NPL is a permanent,
long-term cleanup. NPL sites are
subjected to a "remedial investigation"
in order to select the cleanup strategy
best suited to the traits of each site.
A remedial investigation can best be
described as a carefully designed field
study. Conducting a remedial
investigation entails extensive sampling
and laboratory analyses. These generate
more precise data on the types and
quantities of wastes at the site, the soil
type and water drainage patterns, and
resulting environmental or health
threats.
6. Feasibility Study and Cleanup
Cleanup actions have to be tailored
exactly to the needs of each individual
site. The feasibility study analyzes those
needs, and evaluates alternative cleanup
approaches on the basis of their relative
effectiveness and cost. A Record of
Decision is issued setting forth the
selected remedy based on these factors.
7. Removal Actions
EPA may initiate short-term removal
actions any time a site is found to
present an imminent hazard as a result
of its potential for fire or explosion or
its contamination of a drinking water
supply. Removal actions range from
installing security fencing to actually
digging up and removing wastes for safe
disposal. Such actions may be taken at
any site, not just those on the NPL. n
-------
Anatomy of a Superftind
Remedial Action
In a Superfund remedial action, EPA
undertakes a long-term effort to provide
a permanent remedy to an
environmental problem that poses a
serious, but not immediate, danger to
the public. Remedial cleanup at a
hazardous waste site can go on for
many years. It takes complex
engineering analysis and design work to
produce solutions that work and that
also meet legal requirements. EPA
Administrator Lee Thomas has said that
"the majority of sites on the National
Priorities List will not come off for five
to 10 years. There are many sites on the
list that will never come off because we
will monitor them in perpetuity to make
sure that cleanup is permanently
effective."
The following article describes how
events have unfolded at one of the sites
currently listed on EPA's National
Priorities List for remedial action: the
Verona Well Field in Battle Creek, MI.
rphe Verona Well Field presents
JL problems too complex for any quick
fix solutions. For four years, EPA has
been working to clean up contaminated
ground water at this site in Battle Creek,
MI, but persistent problems remain.
The problems began in 1981. In the
process of conducting routine tests, the
Calhoun County Health Department
discovered slight contamination of
drinking water by volatile organic
compounds, or VOCs. The water was
coming from the 100-acre Verona Well
Field, where a total of 30 city wells
supplied water to 35,000 Battle Creek
residents and many businesses.
Follow-up testing by both the county
and state health departments showed
that 10 of the 30 wells, as well as 80
nearby private wells, contained
detectable levels of VOCs. Some of the
VOCs detected—trichloroethylene;
tetrachloroethylene; 1,2 dichloroethane;
1,1,1 trichloroethane; and 1,1
dichloroethylene—were suspected
human carcinogens.
Could the contaminated wells be
cleaned? Could the non-contaminated
wells be preserved? Where was the
contamination coming from? Could it be
controlled? Each question led to
another, as EPA's work at the Verona
Well Field site became a combination of
detective work, laboratory study,
engineering feats, and construction
innovations.
In July 1982, the Verona Well Field
was included on the National Priorities
List, making it eligible under Superfund
for long-term remedial investigation and
cleanup money. EPA took its first action
at the site in October 1983, at the
request of Michigan's state government.
To meet the immediate threat to
drinking water quality, EPA used
Superfund emergency response money
to provide bottled water to residents
with contaminated wells. At the same
time, an EPA Technical Assistance
Team began a preliminary ground-water
survey to pinpoint the extent and
sources of the contamination. Any
number of facilities in the
commercial/industrial area could have
been potential sources.
In November 1983, building on the
results of the preliminary survey, EPA
launched an in-depth investigation,
installing monitoring wells in and
around the well field to measure the
types and concentrations of
contaminants in the ground water. It
took many months to drill the dozens of
wells that were required for adequate
measurements. And, since ground-water
flow fluctuates throughout the year, it
took more months to collect samples in
different seasons, and then analyze each
for almost 200 different contaminants.
hi December 1983, the State of
Michigan finished constructing a system
to supply city water to all homes in the
area. Residents who had been
depending on private wells, and then on
bottled water, were now hooked up to
city wells. But by January 1984, 24 of
the city's 30 wells had become
contaminated, and it was apparent that
the city would not have enough clean
water to meet peak demand in the
coming summer.
To resolve the city's water supply
problem, EPA began using certain
existing wells as barrier wells, to stem
the flow of contamination to still-clean
wells further north. Water from the
barrier wells was pumped and purged.
Since the barrier wells were started up
in May 1984, the spread of
contamination has been halted.
Next the Agency set up an air
stripping and carbon adsorption system
to clean well water that had already
been contaminated. In this system,
contaminated water is pumped from the
wells to the top of the air stripping
tower. Then the water cascades down
through a large tube, while a
high-powered fan actually blows the
contaminants out of the water and into
the air. The fan then sucks the
contaminated air out of the tower and
forces it through tanks containing
activated carbon. The contaminants
cling to the carbon. The system
discharges clean, treated air into the
atmosphere, and clean, treated water
into the Battle Creek River. Since the
system became fully operational in
August 1984, 16 of the city's
contaminated wells have been restored.
In the summer of 1984, EPA also
installed three new water supply wells.
These new wells, coupled with the air
stripping and carbon adsorption system
and the barrier wells, effectively sohied
Battle Creek's water supply problei
But another problem remained:
identifying and cleaning up the sources
of contamination.
By July 1984, EPA had progressed far
enough in its investigation to be able to
pinpoint one major source: a Thomas
Solvent Co. facility on Raymond Road,
one mile from the Verona Well Field.
Concentrations of VOCs in ground water
under and around the facility were 100
times higher than in the rest of the
ground-water plume, and the soil
around the facility was also heavily
contaminated. The Agency installed
monitoring wells at Thomas Solvent to
determine the extent of contamination.
The cost of a hazardous waste
cleanup should, whenever possible, be
paid by the parties responsible for the
contamination. But in the Verona Well
Field case, Thomas Solvent had
declared bankruptcy and ceased
operations in April 1984. EPA, one of
four major claimants against the
company's assets, decided not to wait
for the resolution of the bankruptcy
case. In August 1985, relying on input
garnered from an engineering evaluation
and public comments, the Agency
decided on a cleanup alternative at me
Raymond Road facility, site of the most
serious contamination.
-------
Pumps for uir stripping system lo drun
ground ivaler at the Verona U'ell Fie/d
in Michigan are housed in a dry ivell
constructed about 10 fee! below ground.
The best method for cleaning up
contaminated ground water at the site,
EPA decided, was to extract it via wells,
and then pipe it one mile to the well
field for treatment in the air
stripping/carbon adsorption system.
Engineering blueprints and construction
details were ironed out. With a dearth
of Superfund money in 1986, the State
of Michigan advanced EPA some $2.5
million so construction could begin.
The system should be ready to go on
line by June 1987. It will take about
three to five years to remove most of the
contaminants from the ground water.
Since the soil contains contaminants
which can eventually enter ground
water, soil cleanup at the site will also
be necessary. Several extraction wells
will be placed in the soil, and
connected by a vacuum pump. The
vacuum will pull VOCs out of the soil
and send them to a carbon adsorption
system for treatment. Because of the
innovative nature of this treatment
system, much of the design detail awaits
finalization by the contractor who will
win the bidding process. Once in place,
the vacuum process is expected to take
from six months to a year to reduce
contaminants in the soil down to the
established cleanup level.
Meantime, EPA continues its
investigations into other sources of
contamination at the Verona Well Field.
It has installed more monitoring wells at
a Thomas Solvent annex and at a
railroad yard east of the well field
which was identified as another
possible source of VOC contamination.
The work at Verona Well Field has
turned out to be more complicated than
first expected. In late 1986, the
bankruptcy case was settled, and EPA
will get a portion of the "bankruptcy
estate." That amount, however, is far
less than the amount of money EPA has
spent, so the Agency must continue its
cost recovery actions against other
parties. A quick fix to the problem of
the contaminated wells — bottled water
— was not enough. New remedies had
to be devised, and new remedies for
other sources still have to be designed,
constructed, and operated until cleanup
levels are achieved. EPA repeatedly has
had to expand its work, dig some more,
and seek new solutions to unique
problems, o
-------
Anatomy of a Superfund
Emergency Response
EPA has emergency response authorities
under the Comprehensive Emergency
Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act of 1980. CERCLA authorizes EPA to
intervene when hazardous wastes
present an imminent hazard of
explosion, air or water pollution, etc.,
that would pose an immediate
short-term threat to human health.
In many cases, emergency responses
involve removing contaminants from
the problem site and transporting them
to waste disposal sites in compliance
with the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act. Hence, they are usually
called "removal actions." Whatever
actions are taken, their purpose is to
"remove" the threat in whatever way
possible.
The cast of characters in a Superfund
removal action can include local, state,
and federal officials; private
contractors; owners or former owners of
a site; concerned citizens who live
nearby. No matter how many people are
involved, the goal is simple: identify
and eliminate the hazard as quickly
and as thoroughly as possible.
Until recently, the time limit on a
removal action was six months; the
Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986 extended
the limit to one year. A total of 728
Superfund removal actions had been
completed through January 1987.
This is how one response action
worked in the town of Lancaster, PA:
Row after row of modest brick homes
line North Mary Street in North
Lancaster, PA. Several years ago, an
abandoned brick warehouse stood
virtually unnoticed in the midst of this
quiet neighborhood. For 60 years, it had
been the site of an electroplating facility
owned by C. E. Brubaker, Inc.
Electroplating is an industrial process
that uses electrical current to plate one
kind of metal with another. It produces
hazardous wastes such as cyanide and
cadmium as well as acidic and basic
solutions.
Brubaker stored these wastes in large
open-top vats inside the warehouse.
Fumes from the vats mingled with air
circulating inside the building. The
polluted air was pumped into the
neighborhood outside the plant, putting
its unsuspecting residents at risk.
After a year of conflict with
Pennsylvania's Department of
Environmental Resources (PADER) over
unsafe handling of hazardous materials,
the Brubaker company declared
bankruptcy in September 1984 and shut
down its old North Mary Street site.
PADER officials then inspected the
closed facility and discovered over
14,000 gallons of liquid cyanide as well
as acidic and basic solutions. State
health experts determined that these
leaking vats posed a potential threat to
the health of nearby residents.
From December 1984 to the summer
of 1985, both PADER and the City of
Lancaster negotiated with Brubaker in
an effort to get the company to accept
responsibility for its abandoned facility.
Negotiations failed, however, and it
became obvious that any action at
Brubaker's Lancaster warehouse would
have to be publicly funded. Neither the
City of Lancaster nor the State of
Pennsylvania had the resources to
handle such large quantities of
hazardous waste, so in March 1985,
PADER and Lancaster City officials
made a formal request to EPA for help.
In July, EPA collected samples from
seven vats and three drums. Analysis of
the samples confirmed Pennsylvania's
findings about their contents. EPA
further concluded that through
vandalism or corrosion, the acids and
bases at the Brubaker site could mingle
with the liquid cyanide and release
deadly cyanide gas.
The Centers for Disease Control (CDC)
recommended that the problem
substances be removed from the
building. To protect residents of the.
area during the tricky removal peri
the CDC further recommended that an
residents within 200 yards of the
Brubaker facility be evacuated during
the cyanide pumping.
On September 10, 1985, EPA
announced the impending removal
action. The Agency also announced that
people in 46 homes and businesses
would be approached with a
recommendation to evacuate during
periods of cyanide pumping. The action,
scheduled to begin on October 2, called
for the pumping of cyanide liquids out
of containers at the site and into drums
destined for transfer to a Michigan
facility where the cyanide liquids would
be detoxified. Acidic solutions would be
sent to a waste conversion facility,
while floorboards and sludges would go
a hazardous waste acceptance facility.
EPA's Region 3, headquartered in
Philadelphia, would spearhead the
Lancaster operation. The Region 3 team
would include an On-Scene Coordinator
(OSC) to manage the project and a
Community Relations Specialist to
handle press and citizen inquiries as
well as coordinate with the City of
Lancaster. Technical experts from
Region 3's Environmental Response
Team (ERT) would advise the On-Scene
Coordinator on matters related to
community health and worker
-------
Technicians sample open veils n|
cyanide solution nf Bnibuki'i Mtc in
Lancaster, PA.
protection. The U.S. Coast Guard would
develop and implement a safety plan for
the site.
Many people assume that EPA
officials actually perform Superfund
removals and cleanups. This is seldom
the case. Federal officials devise the
plans for these actions; private
contractors execute them. In the case of
the Brubaker site, one contractor
handled removal and cleanup
operations, while another documented
site activity and provided technical
si: -Drt.
Once the regional team had
assembled, EPA and the CDC turned to
Pennsylvania and Lancaster officials for
advice and assistance. PADER promised
to provide further help during the
removal action. City officials offered
help in transporting residents to
evacuation centers on the three days
cyanide pumping would be taking
place. They also offered to provide
police manpower to patrol the
evacuated streets. The local hospital and
fire companies were placed on standby
in the event that a problem occurred
during the removal.
EPA held a press conference to
announce the site cleanup, and a public
meeting to answer residents' questions
concerning the evacuation and the
waste removal. To allay remaining fears
and confusion, an EPA Community
Relations Specialist and representatives
of the CDC and the Lancaster
Emergency Management Agency went
door-to-door down North Mary Street,
distributing flyers about the impending
operation and fielding questions about
its impact on their lives. On October 1,
1985—the day before cyanide pumping
began—more flyers were distributed.
The pumping began 8:30 a.m.,
Wednesday, October 2. Most of the
residents were at work by 8:30; others
stayed with friends or relatives during
the pumping, which was over each day
by 1:30 P.M. Local residents were free
to occupy their homes or businesses
both before and after the actual hours of
pumping. Only one family refused to
vacate its home during pumping hours,
which came to an end on Friday,
October 4.
The following weeks involved the
removal of acidic bases and solutions,
disposal of an underground storage
tank, and removal of floorboards and
sludges remaining in the building. On
December 6, EPA held a final tour of the
building for city officials and, five days
later, a closeout public meeting.
The removal operation had taken
about two months. At a total cost of
$472,450, 14,165 gallons of liquid
cyanide, acids, and bases, as well as 60
cubic yards of contaminated floor
boards and other solid waste, had been
removed from the North Mary Street
site—and with them, the health and
environmental threat posed by the
wastes that had been abandoned there.
Lancaster police escorted the final
truckload of wastes out of the city on
December 20, 1985. Once again, North
Mary Street was just another quiet road
in Lancaster, PA. n
-------
Key Aspects of the Super-fund
Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986
99th ( in/id
On October 17, 1986, President
Reagan signed into law a major bill
reauthorizing the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980.
This reauthorization lays down the
framework for CERCLA's Superfund
hazardous waste cleanup program
during the next five years.
A major feature of the reauthorization
is its scope. From 1980 to 1985, EPA's
Superfund program drew its resources
from a $1.6 billion Hazardous Response
Trust Fund. EPA will have more than
five times that amount of money to
spend on Superfund from 1986 to 1991:
the size of the new Hazardous Response
Trust Fund is $8.5 billion.
But the 1986 Superfund Amendments
and Reauthorization Act—now
commonly referred to as
"SARA"—introduces many other
improvements to the Superfund
program. These changes, largely the
result of lessons learned during the
program's initial years, are certain to
strengthen Superfund in the years
ahead.
Impact on Removal Actions
The 1986 reauthorization:
• Raises the limits on removal actions
from six months to one year and from
$1 million to $2 million; these changes
were adopted in view of the actual time
and cost constraints encountered during
the first six years of Superfund
emergency removals.
• Authorizes a waiver to the new time
and cost limits if an added
expenditure of time or money would be
consistent with the long-term goals of a
planned remedial action.
• Introduces a provision that all
short-term removal actions must be
designed to contribute to efficient
performance of any long-term remedial
action.
Impact on Remedial Actions
The 1986 reauthorization:
• Sets goals for the completion of
preliminary assessments of sites on
EPA's inventory of potentially
hazardous sites, which lists sites that
may one day qualify for ranking on
Superfund's National Priorities List.
• Sets mandatory deadlines for the
completion of two important types of
work at National Priorities List sites:
275 remedial investigations and
feasibility studies must be finished by
1989, and, even more importantly, 175
remedial actions must reach the final
cleanup stage by 1989, with 200 more to
follow by 1991.
• Requires that permanent remedial
cleanups produce environmental results
consistent with state and federal laws as
well as with EPA's National
Contingency Plan.
• Stipulates that EPA must consider
cost-effective cleanup alternatives that
foster the recycling or treatment of
waste rather than land disposal.
• Mandates that hazardous waste
targeted for removal to a new site
should go only to sites in compliance
with strict Resource Conservation a™*
Recovery Act standards.
-------
.
• Tlii'
Strengthened Enforcement
Authorities
One of the major goals of Superfund
enforcement has been to encourage the
parties responsible for generating the
problem to pay for the cleanup. SARA
enhances EPA's enforcement powers by:
• Giving statutory authority to the use
of settlement agreements and
establishing specific procedures for
reaching them. These agreements, which
spell out what is required of private
responsible parties to meet their legal
obligations under the Superfund statute,
were used extensively during the first
year- of the program's operation, but as
a n '.r of Agency policy, not of law.
• Authorizing increased criminal
penalties for failure to report releases of
hazardous waste, and making the
providing of false or misleading
information a criminal offense.
• Improving EPA access to hazardous
waste sites for the completion of
investigations and cleanups.
• Requiring enforcement authorities to
keep an administrative record of
enforcement actions at National
Priorities List sites.
Increased State Involvement
The first years of the Superfund
program involved state governments in
many decisions, but not as
systematically as many officials in the
states would have wished. SARA
requires EPA to develop and implement
regulations to assure involvement of
states, including their:
• Participation in identifying National
Priorities List sites.
• Re.v.iew of all preliminary documents
relf ito Superfund remedial actions,
as wen as final plans for the actions.
• Participation in all enforcement
negotiations and concurrence in
settlement agreements that EPA makes
with responsible parties.
• Concurrence in the deletion of sites
from the National Priorities List; that is,
agreement with EPA and responsible
parties that a Superfund cleanup is, in
fact, complete.
Emergency Planning
Under the 1986 reauthorization:
• Each governor must appoint
commissions to formulate plans for
dealing with hazardous waste
emergencies; mandated local planning
committees must develop local
emergency plans by November 1988.
• EPA must publish a list of extremely
hazardous substances and write
regulations establishing what quantity of
each substance would have to be
released before an emergency should be
declared.
• Facilities that produce, use, or store
extremely hazardous substances must
notify the state emergency planning
commission and local planning
committees of their practices; they must
also provide immediate notification of
releases in excess of EPA-determined
thresholds.
Expanded Research,
Development, and Training
The 1980 Superfund law made no
specific provisions for research and
development or for training. SARA:
• Establishes a comprehensive and
coordinated research and development
program, including demonstration
programs for technologies that offer
alternatives to conventional methods of
handling hazardous waste removals or
site cleanups, especially methods that
lead to the destruction or recycling of
wastes.
• Calls for the establishment of training
programs for hazardous substance
response and research.
Stronger Citizen Rights
The Superfund program takes pride in
its extremely active Community
Relations Program, which was begun in
1983. There was only limited statutory
provision for the program in the original
1980 Superfund law. That law also did
not define citizen rights to sue for
failure to meet statutory requirements.
The 1986 Superfund reauthorization:
• Establishes requirements ensuring
that the public can participate in the
formulation of plans for Superfund
actions.
• Authorizes technical assistance grants
so citizens can hire experts to explain
the complexities of hazardous waste
problems and the Superfund program.
• Permits citizens to sue any person or
any governmental entity for alleged
violation of a provision of the
Superfund law. n
-------
New Enforcement Powers
ffyhe polluter should pay." This is
J. the guiding principle behind
Superfund enforcement. It means that
those parties responsible for the
presence of hazardous substances at a
Superfund site must either clean the site
up themselves or pay for the cost of an
EPA cleanup. The goal of Superfund
enforcement is to encourage responsible
party cleanups through settlement.
Since 1980, responsible parties have
entered into 372 settlements with EPA
worth $619 million in actual cleanup
expenditures or cash. In addition, EPA
has recovered $37 million in
compensation for cleanups performed
by EPA. This added 40 percent in
buying power to the $1.6 billion
Superfund during its first five years of
operation, and represents a net return in
cash or cleanup of $4 for every $1 of
enforcement money expended.
The Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA)
further encourage prompt settlements.
They also reaffirm and strengthen the
principle of responsible party liability.
Principles
of Liability
Parties liable for payment of Superfund
cleanup costs include companies that
generated any hazardous substances
found at a site, present and former
owners and operators of a site, and
certain transporters who disposed of
hazardous substances at a site.
SARA affirms the federal
government's right to use two important
principles of liability, both of which
will make it much easier for EPA to win
enforcement cases:
• Joint and several liability means that
parties responsible at a Superfund waste
site can al! be sued together or any one
may be sued alone for 100 percent of
cleanup costs. This liability principle
gives EPA a great deal of legal leverage
with violators.
• Strict liability is liability without a
showing of fault. EPA has only to show
that some of a generator's hazardous
substances came to be located at the
site; it does not have to establish that
willful or inadvertent negligence was
involved.
As for harm to the site, EPA only has
to show that the harm was caused by
substances similar to those of the
generator. In other words, it is up to the
alleged violator to prove either that its
specific wastes had nothing to do with
the harm, or that they caused only a
discrete portion of it. In most cases, the
responsible party cannot present
evidence adequate to substantiate either
argument.
The value of these strong liability
principles is that they often force
responsible parties to aggressively
pursue settlement agreements as a
substitute for costly and
time-consuming litigation.
Innovative
Enforcement Tools
Whether EPA will settle with
responsible parties, rather than pursue
litigation, is governed by the terms of
the Interim CERCLA Settlement Policy
(50 Federal Register 5034). This policy
states that EPA prefers settlement but
will file suit where necessary to protect
public health and the environment. The
policy also provides guidance on issues
vital to settlement. SARA codifies much
of the policy.
The new Superfund amendments
endorse two particularly controversial
procedures that figure in the Interim
Settlement Policy: mixed funding and
de minimis settlements.
• Mixed Funding occurs when monies
from both Superfund and responsible
parties are used at the same site. Use of
mixed funding is most likely to be
approved where the parties willing to
settle are also willing to conduct the
cleanup, and where there are financially
viable nonsettlers that EPA may pursue.
However, Superfund's money is not
forthcoming until the cleanup is
complete. Responsible parties who cettle
in a mixed funding agreement mu ly
"upfront" 100 percent of the cost ui^i'ne
cleanup.
-------
Western Processing. Inc.. a hazardous
waste hand/ing and disposal firm in
Kent. U'A. Aerial view, Jeff. shows the
in 1982. nitli slomue kinks, liquid
;te; pits and ponds, and thousands a)
drums. Photo above slioivs the site as i!
looks today. jolloivin," a M .mup
carried out as a result of a consent
decree betiveen KPA and nearlv >00
potentially responsible parties. Last
year, responsible parties signed a
second consent decree to conduct o
sub-surface cleanup of the site.
.:;ig excavation of buried
containers and soil ivastes and
construction of a ground-water
treatment plant.
Once the cleanup is finished and
certified as properly done, EPA will
reimburse the settling parties for that
portion of the costs specified in the
settlement agreement. The Agency, in
the meantime, sues the parties that
would not settle to recover for
Superfund its share of the cleanup
costs.
Mixed funding permits cleanups to
proceed even in cases where some
responsible parties, out of a whole
group, refuse to settle out of court.
• De Minimis Settlements involve
parties that contributed very small
amounts of hazardous waste at a site. At
some Superfund sites, responsible
parties number in the hundreds. To
reduce the number of parties involved,
EPA can settle with the small, or de
minimis, contributors as a single group.
|n this way, the government achieves
. .nore manageable case, and the de
minimis parties end their involvement
in the case more quickly. This saves
money and manpower that might
otherwise be wasted on lengthy
negotiations.
• Nonbinding Preliminary Allocations
of Responsibility, known as NBARs, are
an altogether new enforcement tool,
unlike mixed funding and de minimis
settlements. The NBAR is an allocation
by EPA of total response costs among
responsible parties at a site. Congress
wrote NBARs into the 1986 Superfund
amendments as a discretionary tool to
hasten settlement in appropriate cases.
Under current Superfund policy,
responsible parties are expected to work
out among themselves the exact
allocation of the total cost of cleanup
each must bear. In some cases this
results in serious conflicts and delays.
Now EPA can step in, as needed, to
provide an NBAR to expedite a
settlement. EPA is preparing interim
guidelines for Nonbinding Preliminary
Allocations of Responsibility, expected
to appear for comment this spring in the
Federal Register.
Pilot studies are now underway for
mixed funding and de minimis
settlements, with more expected to
begin in the near future. Several pilot
projects will also be conducted before
NBAR procedures assume final form.
A conciliatory resolution of
enforcement problems is, in the
experience of Superfund, a far better
strategy than the tug-of-war of
never-ending litigation. EPA's quest for
out-of-court settlements will be
enhanced by enforcement tools that are
stronger than ever. It must be
emphasized, however, that settlements
will never be sought where they would
compromise Superfund's goals of
protecting public health and the
environment, n
-------
The Quest For Alternative
Technologies
When Superfund was launched
seven years ago, land disposal was
the most common method of handling
hazardous waste. Land disposal entailed
immobilizing hazardous waste in a
specially prepared pit, landfill, or
surface impoundment. Though
cost-effective in the short run, it often
led through leaks and other defects to
extremely expensive long-term
environmental problems.
By the time the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act was
reauthorized in 1984, the climate of
opinion had shifted dramatically in the
direction of more permanent methods of
handling hazardous waste. The
Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA)
continues the pendulum swing in that
direction.
SARA requires EPA, to the maximum
extent practicable, to select remedial
actions that create permanent solutions
and, in doing so, to make use of
alternative or resource recovery
technologies. The least preferred
remedial method is to transport
untreated Superfund wastes to landfills.
Even before the passage of SARA,
Superfund was making use of
alternatives to land disposal. Thermal
destruction technology has been
used in approximately 13 percent
of all Superfund removal actions. It is
currently planned for use in
approximately 10 percent of all
Superfund remedial actions. Various
forms of chemical and physical
treatment are included in current plans
for approximately nine percent of
remedial actions.
Let's take a quick look at the leading
technologies under consideration as
alternatives to land disposal. A good
way to categorize them is according to
whether they destroy, immobilize,
or separate^ the waste.
Waste Destruction
Technology
"Destroying" hazardous waste means
getting rid of most of it. Some harmful
residues may still be left behind,
however, and these must be properly
disposed of.
Thermal Treatment
The most common type of thermal
treatment heats waste over a
flame-powered incinerator. Currently, if
waste at a Superfund site is to be
burned, it is usually removed from the
site and taken to the incinerator. In the
future, EPA will make greater use of
mobile incinerators, which can be
moved from one site to another as
needed.
Various types of flame-free thermal
treatments are now being developed to
destroy hazardous waste, including
fluidized bed treatment, infrared
treatment, plasma arc, and pyrolysis.
Neutralization
Certain types of hazardous waste can be
"neutralized." For example, an acid can
be added to an excessively alkaline
waste, or a base to an overly acidic
waste.
Waste Immobilization
Technology
Immobilizing a waste puts it into a solid
form that is easier to handle and less
likely to enter the surrounding
environment. It is useful for dealing
with wastes, such as certain metals, that
cannot be destroyed. Once a waste has
been immobilized, the material resulting
from the immobilization process still
must be properly disposed of.
Fixation and Solidification
Two popular methods of immobilizing
waste are fixation and solidification.
Engineers and scientists mix materials
such as fly ash or cement into
hazardous waste. This either "fixes"
hazardous particles, in the sense of
immobilizing them or making them
chemically inert, or "solidifies" them
into a solid mass. Solidified waste is
sometimes made into solid blocks that
can be stored more easily than a liquid.
Waste Separation
Technology
Waste separation entails either
separating one hazardous waste from
another, or separating hazardous waste
from a non-hazardous material that it
has contaminated. Sometimes this
separation is achieved by changing the
waste from one form (solid, liquid, g
to another. Regardless of the way it L
achieved, separation results in
end-products that can be adaptable to
recycling.
Air Stripping and Steam Stripping
Air stripping is sometimes used to
remove volatile chemicals from water.
Volatile chemicals, which have a
tendency to vaporize easily, can be
forced out of liquid when air passes
through it. Steam stripping works on the
same general principle, except that it
uses heated air to raise the temperature
of the liquid and force out volatile
chemicals ordinary air would not.
It should be noted that the mixture of
air and chemicals that results from air
and steam stripping is still hazardous
and must be further treated before
release.
An interesting variation on this
technology is now being used at the
Verona Well Field site in Michigan to
remove volatile organic chemicals from
the soil above an aquifer. Another
promising variant is landfill gas
extraction, in which vacuum wells
are used to remove gases from soil.
-------
Carbon Adsorption
Carbon adsorption tanks contain
particles of carbon that have been
specially activated to treat hazardous
chemicals in gaseous and liquid
hazardous waste. The carbon chemically
combines with the waste or catches
hazardous particles just as a fine wire
mesh catches grains of sand.
Contaminated carbon must then be
disposed of, or cleaned and reused.
Precipitation
Precipitation involves adding special
materials to a liquid waste. These bind
to hazardous chemicals and cause them
to precipitate out of the liquid and form
large particles called "floe." Floe that
settles can be separated as sludge; floe
that remains suspended can be filtered.
Soil Washing and Flushing
Soil containing easily dissolved
chemicals can sometimes be cleaned by
soil washing. Cleaning liquid, added at
t' top of a tank of contaminated soil,
p s up waste as it passes through the
soil. The contaminant-laden cleaning
liquid must be further treated or
properly disposed of.
Soil flushing works on the same
principle, except that it occurs in the
ground rather than in a tank. Soil is
purified when cleaning liquid is passed
through it; each time the liquid passes
through, it is collected by pipes or wells
located at the base of the contaminated
area.
Removing Obstacles
to Innovation
While alternative technologies may be
currently available, there are often
serious impediments to their use at
Superfund sites. These include certain
factors that EPA cannot control, such as
economic and marketplace
uncertainties. One major uncertainty is
the degree to which the public will
accept a particular means of handling
hazardous waste; this has been a special
problem in the case of incineration.
But there are other steps EPA can take
to create a climate more receptive to
alternative technologies, and the Agency
is moving ahead with those.
For example, EPA is setting up a
quicker and more flexible method for
selecting contractors to clean up
Superfund sites and to determine how
A modular incineration system.
designed by a company in Arkansas to
be mounted on moveable skids
flatbed trailers and transported to
contaminated sites or ivasie genera/ion
facilities. More use will be made of
mobile incinerators at Superfund sites
in the future.
Superfund wastes may be treated. The
Agency's Office of Solid Waste is also
working to streamline the Superfund
permitting process to give high priority
to issuing permits for alternative
treatment technologies.
A new provision of SARA also fosters
the use of alternative technologies by
giving EPA the authority, under certain
circumstances, to assume liability for
contractor efforts to test or demonstrate
alternative technologies.
In addition, a Superfund Innovative
Technology Evaluation (SITE) program
has been established to demonstrate
new and innovative technologies.
Starting in the summer of 1987, such
technologies will be tested on real
wastes in full-scale situations at
Superfund sites.
The results of these tests will generate
vital cost and performance data, making
it easier for new technologies to
compete in the real world. EPA has also
developed a program to communicate
SITE data to appropriate offices within
Superfund.
What Lies
Ahead
Congress, EPA, and the U.S. public are
all seeking reliable long-term solutions
to the problem of managing Superfund
sites. Land disposal is no longer a
preferred remedy, but it will take some
time for alternative technologies to
develop sufficient capacity to fill the
gap-
During the years ahead, we can expect
to see alternative technologies
substituting for landfilling at an
increasing number of Superfund sites.
EPA is doing everything possible to
hasten the day when enough safe and
reliable remedies exist to ensure that
Superfund cleanups are permanent, n
-------
Other Statutory Authorities:
Title HI: Emergency Planning
and Community
Right-To-Know
The tragedy in Bhopal, India, an event
that occurred halfway around the
globe, shocked the United States and
the rest of the world into recognizing
the enormous potential threat that exists
regarding chemical accidents. It also
stimulated an aggressive series of
actions to develop and modify programs
dealing with the prevention of and
response to such accidents.
The message is clear: No matter how
good the intent to mitigate chemical
disasters, to deal with the causes of
chemical disasters, and to control the
conditions surrounding a potential
chemical disaster, accidents will still
happen and we must be be prepared to
respond.
Events such as Bhopal, as well as the
release in Chernobyl, made Americans
more concerned than ever before about
the need to be aware of chemicals and
the hazards they pose. These events did
not cause the federal government to
"start" dealing with this problem, but
rather to renew existing efforts with
greater force and resolve.
As part of EPA's Air Toxics Strategy,
announced by Administrator Lee
Thomas in June 1985, the Agency
developed the Chemical Emergency
Preparedness Program (CEPP). CEPP
provides guidance, training, and
technical assistance to states and local
communities to help them in preparing
for and responding to chemical
accidents.
Recognizing the need for better
preparation to deal with chemical
emergencies, Congress enacted the
Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA).
One part of SARA is a free-standing act
called Title HI: The Emergency Planning
and Community Right-to-Know Act of
1986.
Title III requires federal, state, and
local governments and industry to work
together in developing emergency plans
and "community right-to-know"
reporting on hazardous chemicals.
These requirements build upon EPA's
Chemical Emergency Preparedness
Program and numerous state and local
programs aimed at helping communities
deal with potential chemical
emergencies. The community
right-to-know provisions will allow the
public to obtain information about the
presence of hazardous chemicals in
their communities and releases of these
chemicals into the environment.
Title III has four major sections:
emergency planning, emergency
notification, community right-to-know
reporting requirements, and toxic
chemical release reporting (emissions
inventory).
Emergency Planning
The emergency planning sections of
Title III are designed to help state and
local governments develop emergency
response and preparedness capabilities
through better coordination and
planning, especially within the local
community.
Title III requires the governor of each
state to designate a state emergency
response commission. If a state
commission is not designated, the
governor will operate as the commission
until that designation is made. This
state commission should represent state
organizations and agencies with
expertise in emergency response, such
as state environmental, emergency
management, and public health
agencies. Various public and private
sector groups and associations with
interest and expertise in Title III issues
can also be included in the state
commission.
The state commission must designate
local emergency planning districts
(which can be based on existing
municipalities) and appoint local
emergency planning committees within
a month after districts are designated.
The state commission supervises and
coordinates the activities of the local
emergency planning committees,
establishes procedures on how to
handle requests for information, and
reviews local emergency plans.
In a somewhat unprecedented
requirement, each local emergency
planning committee must include
elected state and local officials; police,
fire, civil defense, public health
professionals; environmental, hospi
and transportation officials; commuimy
groups; and the media. Facilities subject
to the emergency planning requirements
must also be represented on the local
committee. The local committee must
establish rules, give public notice of its
activities, and establish procedures for
handling public requests for
information.
A local committee's primary
responsibility will be to develop an
emergency response plan by the fall of
1988. In developing this plan, the local
committee will evaluate available
resources for preparing for and
responding to a potential chemical
accident.
The plan must:
• Identify facilities as well as
transportation routes for extremely
hazardous substances.
• Establish emergency response
procedures, both on-site and off-site.
• Formulate emergency notification
procedures and evacuation plans.
• Establish methods for determining
when releases occur and what area," 1
populations may be affected.
• Describe community and industry
emergency equipment and facilities, and
who is responsible for them.
• Describe and schedule a training
program to teach methods for
responding to chemical emergencies.
• Establish methods and schedules for
exercises to test emergency response
plans.
• Designate a community coordinator
and a facility coordinator to implement
the plan.
The emergency response plan must be
reviewed by the state commission and
annually by the local committee.
Regional Response Teams (RRTs) may
review plans and provide assistance to
the local committees upon request.
RRTs are composed of regional
personnel from 14 federal agencies as
well as state representatives with
emergency responsibilities.
Guidance is also available to help the
local committees prepare and review
plans. The principal guidance
document, "Hazardous Materials
Emergency Planning Guide," will bi
published shortly and made available"to
state and local emergency officials.
-------
Local committees and facilities should
focus their planning activities around a
list of 402 extremely hazardous
substances identified by EPA. The list
includes the threshold planning
quantities for each substance. Any
facility that produces, uses, or stores
more of a listed chemical than this
threshold planning quantity must meet
all emergency planning requirements.
Also, after public comment, the state
commission or the governor can
designate additional facilities as subject
to those requirements.
Facilities are required to notify the
state commissions that they are covered
by Title III emergency planning
requirements. If a facility begins to
produce, use, or store any of the
extremely hazardous substances in
threshold quantity amounts, it must
notify the state commission within 60
days.
Each state commission must notify
EPA of all covered facilities and
facilities designated by the state
commission or the governor. The state
cnmrqissjon [s a\so responsible for
si, Vising the activities of the local
committees.
Emergency Notification
Facilities where a listed hazardous
substance is produced, used, or stored
must immediately notify the local
emergency planning committee and the
state emergency response commission if
there is a release of these substances.
The substances include the 402
extremely hazardous substances on the
list prepared by the Chemical
Emergency Preparedness Program and
substances subject to the reportable
quantities requirements of the original
Superfund.
The initial notification can be by
telephone, radio, or in person.
Emergency notification requirements
involving transportation incidents can
be satisfied by dialing 911, or calling
the operator.
Notification of an emergency must
include:
• The name of the chemical.
• Whether it is known to be acutely
toxic.
• An estimate of the quantity released
into the environment.
• The time and duration of the release.
• Where the chemical was released (air,
water, land).
Fire/ighters walk past rubble of burned
out mills in Fail River. MA. Aboul 700
people ivere evacuated during the
January/ire due lo reports that toxic
chemicals were stored in one of the
blazing buildings. Often first on (he
scene in c/iem/'r aJ emergencies, lire
departments ivill join local comrnilfees
responsible for emergency planning.
• Known health risks and necessary
medical attention.
• Proper precautions, such as
evacuation.
• The name and telephone number of
the contact person at the facility where
the release occurred.
A follow-up written emergency notice
is required as soon as practicable after
the release. This notice should:
• Update initial information.
• Provide additional information on
response actions already taken, known
or anticipated health risks, and advice
on medical attention.
The requirement to notify went into
effect when the Title III legislation was
signed in October of 1986. Until state
commissions and local committees are
formed, releases should be reported to
appropriate state and local officials.
Community Right-to-Know
Reporting Requirements
In order to provide communities with
information about chemicals and the
potential hazards they pose, Congress
included two community right-to-know
reporting requirements in Title III.
First, facilities required to prepare
or have available Material Safety Data
Sheets (MSDS) under the regulations of
the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration must now submit copies
of the MSDS or a list of MSDS
chemicals to the local emergency
planning committee, the state
emergency response commission, and
the local fire department.
If a list is submitted, the facility must
submit the MSDS for any chemical on
the list upon the request of the local
planning committee. For this
requirement, EPA may establish
threshold quantities for hazardous
chemicals below which no facility must
report.
The second community right-to-know
reporting requirement under Title III
stipulates that facilities must submit an
emergency and hazardous chemical
-------
inventory form to the local emergency
planning committee, the state
emergency response commission, and
the local fire department. The hazardous
chemicals are the same as those for
which facilities are required to submit
MSDS or a list of MSDS chemicals
under the first reporting requirement.
Again, EPA may establish threshold
quantities for hazardous chemicals
below which no facility must be subject
to this requirement.
The form must present:
• An estimate (in ranges) of the
maximum amount of covered chemicals
present at the facility at any time during
the preceding calendar year.
• An estimate (in ranges) of the average
daily amount of covered chemicals
present.
• The general location of covered
hazardous chemicals.
In addition to the information listed
above, a local committee, state
commission, or local fire department
can also request a facility to provide the
following information for each covered
substance:
• An estimate (in ranges) of the
maximum amount of the chemical
present at any time during the
preceding calendar year.
• A brief description of the manner of
storage of the chemical.
• The specific location of the chemical
at the facility.
• An indication of whether the owner
will withhold location information from
the public.
Toxic Chemical Release
Reporting
Another section of Title III requires EPA
to develop an inventory of toxic
chemical releases from certain facilities.
Facilities subject to this reporting
requirement must complete a toxic
chemical release form for specified
chemicals, which must be submitted to
EPA as well as to state officials
designated by each governor.
This reporting requirement will
inform government officials and the
public about releases of toxic chemicals
in the environment. It will also assist in
research and the development of
regulations, guidelines, and standards.
The reporting requirement applies to
owners and operators of facilities that
have 10 or more full-time employees,
that are in Standard Industries
Classification Codes 20 through 39, and
that manufactured, processed, or
otherwise used a listed toxic chemical
in excess of specified threshold
quantities. The Standard Industrial
Classification Codes mentioned cover
basically all manufacturing industries.
The list of toxic chemicals subject to
reporting consists initially of more than
300 chemicals and categories listed for
similar reporting purposes by the States
of New Jersey and Maryland, but EPA
can modify the list.
EPA is required to publish a
"format" for the Toxic Chemical Release
form, which must include the following
information:
• Name, location, and type of business.
• A certification by a senior official that
the report is complete and accurate.
• Whether the chemical is
manufactured, processed, or otherwise
used, and its general categories of use.
• Estimate (in ranges) of the maximum
amounts of the toxic chemical present at
the facility at any time during the
preceding year.
• Waste treatment and disposal
methods for dealing with the chemical,
and the efficiency of the methods for
each waste stream.
• The quantity of the chemical entering
the environment annually.
EPA will use these data to maintain a
national toxic chemical inventory. The
public will be provided access to the
inventory by means of computer
tele-communications.
Other Title ffl Provisions
Title III also addresses business
concerns about trade secrets as these are
affected by the community
right-to-know and toxic chemical release
reporting requirements of the statute.
Facilities (or individuals) may, for
certain reasons, withhold the specific
chemical identity of an extremely
hazardous substance or toxic chemical.
Even if the chemical identity is
withheld, however, the generic class or
category of the chemical must be
provided.
Title III is strict about verifying that
real trade secrets do exist. The
withholder must verify each of the
following:
• The information has not been
disclosed to any person other than a
member of the local planning
committee, a government official, an
employee of such person, or someone
bound by a confidentiality agreement,
and measures have been taken to protect
its confidentiality,
• The information is not required e
disclosed to the public under any other
federal or state law,
• The information is likely to cause
substantial harm to the competitive
position of the person, and
• The chemical identity could not
reasonably be discovered by anyone in
the absence of disclosure.
However, even if information is
legally withheld from the public, Title
III states that it cannot be withheld from
health professionals or officials who
need it. In these cases, the person
receiving the information must be
willing to sign a confidentiality
agreement with the firm.
EPA must publish regulations
governing trade secret claims. The
regulations will cover how to submit
claims, petitions for disclosure, and a
review process for these petitions.
All federal emergency training
programs must now emphasize hazardous
chemicals. Under Title III, the Federal
Emergency Management Agency is
authorized to provide training grants tn
support state and local governmen
These training grants are designed tu-
improve emergency planning,
preparedness, mitigation, response, and
recovery capabilities.
Under Title III, EPA has begun a
review of emergency systems for
monitoring, detecting, and preventing
releases of extremely hazardous
substances at representative facilities
that produce, use, or store these
substances. Representative substances to
be used in the review will be selected
from the same list of extremely
hazardous substances used in the
emergency planning provision.
Working Together
Title III constitutes a comprehensive
mandate for emergency planning and
ensures that citizens will have the
information they need to understand
and deal with chemicals in their
communities. It is the responsibility of
all sectors of society, public and private,
to work together to prevent, prepare for,
and respond to the potential hazards
that chemicals pose to society. It is this
cooperative spirit that can effective
assist communities in meeting thei:
responsibilities to protect the safety ot
their citizens. Only through cooperation
can the spirit and intent of this
legislation be achieved. D
-------
Other Statutory Authorities:
The Leaking Underground
borage Tank Trust Fund
A gas station explodes in Council
Bluffs, Iowa; a shopping center is
shut down for more than a week in
Durham, NC; more than a thousand
people are evacuated in the pre-dawn
hours from their homes in Claymont,
DE; and throughout the country,
hundreds of drinking water wells are
contaminated.
These pollution episodes have not
received the national attention of Love
Canal, Times Beach, the Stringfellow
Acid Pits, and other Superfund sites
around the United States. They are not
the result of careless disposal of
hazardous chemicals. Their source is
much more commonplace and
widespread: it is gasoline from leaking
underground storage tanks. LUST, one
of the funniest acronyms in the
environmental business, is no joke.
fall when Congress amended and
relainorized the Superfund law, it also
changed part of the federal law dealing
with underground tanks. It amended
Subtitle I of the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act, or RCRA, to provide
a $500 million Leaking Underground
Storage Tank Trust Fund over the next
five years to clean up leaks from
underground petroleum storage tanks.
These funds will come from a 1/10 of a
cent federal tax on certain petroleum
products, primarily motor fuels.
Congress passed this law because the
Superfund statute excludes petroleum
releases from its jurisdiction. Thus, EPA
is essentially precluded from using
Superfund to clean up leaks of
petroleum products. With these new
amendments to RCRA, however,
Congress not only gives EPA and the
states the authority to respond to such
releases, but also provides funds to
clean up the environment.
What prompted Congress to take the
action it did to institute such a fund?
Concern was growing over the
increasing number of incidents where
gasoline vapors were detected in houses
ar 'here drinking water was
cc_ _minated by leaking petroleum
tanks. Late in 1984, Congress created a
program to regulate underground storage
CJoseup of corroded storage tank shows
sources of Jeaks. Superfund
amendments allocate money for
cleaning up damage caused by leaking
ground storage (anks.
tanks. The program requires improved
design standards for tanks, leak
detection devices, and cleanup
standards.
The estimated number of
underground storage tanks that will be
regulated by the federal government is
at least one million. Based on an EPA
study, the Agency estimates that 20
percent of them may be leaking; that's
200,000 leaking tanks. If only five
percent of them are leaking, which EPA
considers a conservative estimate, that's
still 50,000 leaking tanks.
Since half the population of the
United States depends on ground water
as a source of drinking water, Congress
chose to take positive steps to provide
EPA with both the authority and the
money to protect the public from
releases from underground tanks.
As noted above, this new Leaking
Underground Storage Tank, or LUST,
Trust Fund is to be used by EPA and
the states in responding to and cleaning
up releases from underground tanks
storing petroleum. This includes
products such as gasoline, diesel fuel,
and jet fuel. Releases of hazardous
chemicals will continue to be addressed
under Superfund, as they have been in
the past.
The new law gives EPA, and states
that enter into cooperative agreements
with EPA, the authority to issue orders
requiring owners and operators of
underground storage tanks to undertake
corrective action where a leak is
suspected. This corrective action could
include testing tanks to confirm the
presence of a leak, excavating the site to
determine the exact nature and extent of
contamination, and cleaning
contaminated soil and water. It may also
include providing an alternative water
supply to affected residences, or
temporary or permanent relocation of
residents.
The Congressional philosophy is that
this authority to issue corrective action
orders should be used as the primary
-------
tool to encourage tank owners and
operators to clean up releases from their
tanks. Recognizing, however, that many
leaking tanks will be discovered where
there is no owner or operator who can
afford to pay for the cleanup, or where
the owner or operator lacks the
willingness or ability to undertake such
a project, Congress provided that
monies from the Fund could be used by
EPA and the states to conduct cleanups
where immediate action is necessary.
The Fund is not a bailout for tank
owners. Where Fund monies are used,
owners and operators of underground
storage tanks, as well as any other
responsible parties, are still liable to
EPA or the state for the costs incurred.
They will be pursued in court to recover
cost. And if a government agency
undertakes a cleanup at a site, it's
probably going to cost a lot more than if
the owner had agreed to sponsor it.
Ideally, Congress believes that
payment of cleanup costs can be
satisfied by pollution liability insurance
maintained by tank owners and
operators. Reflecting this attitude,
Congress has directed EPA to publish
regulations requiring all tank owners
and operators, including those owning
chemical tanks, to maintain the
financial capability to clean up leaks.
For petroleum production, refining, and
marketing facilities, Congress has set
minimum coverage levels at $1 million
per occurrence. EPA is authorized to set
lower limits for facilities that don't
handle large quantities of petroleum.
States may enter into cooperative
agreements with EPA under this
program. Doing so will not only allow
states to exercise the enforcement
authority granted by Congress under the
statute, but most importantly, it will
allow the states access to the Trust
Fund to pay for site cleanups as well as
certain administrative expenses related
to cleanups.
EPA sees this provision of the new
law as being most critical. It is the states
and local governments, not EPA, that
are currently in the best position to
respond to releases from leaking
underground petroleum storage tanks.
Most states and local governments have
been responding to such releases for
many years.
The sheer number of underground
storage tanks that are leaking or will
leak in coming years demands that we
avoid the typical EPA approach where
the Agency develops a strong federal
program, runs it for a period of time,
and then turns-it over to the states. Past
experience demonstrates that such an
approach is not necessarily the most
effective way to get the job done.
Instead, EPA plans to delegate this
program to the states as soon as
possible, using cooperative agreements,
even before full EPA approval of a
state's regulatory program for
underground tanks under Subtitle I of
RCRA. States are the key to successful
LUST Trust Fund implementation.
Since October 1986, when Congress
amended Subtitle I, EPA has been
putting a program in place to conduct
emergency cleanups with Trust Fund
monies and to give states access to the
Fund. The Agency asked governors to
designate a state agency for
implementing and administering the
program. Most have done so. EPA also
provided guidelines to its 10 regional
offices on how to negotiate cooperative
agreements. EPA hopes to have the first
agreements in place by the spring of
1987.
The aim is to use the LUST Trust
Fund to clean up dangerous sites
quickly. EPA envisions states using the
Fund in many ways: to enforce
cleanups, establish priorities for sites,
determine appropriate technologies, and,
most importantly, to conduct cleanups
and pursue cost recovery from
responsible parties.
In true emergencies, of course, the
regional staff of EPA is also prepared to
respond. For the most part, however,
EPA expects its role to be as backup to
the states. EPA's Trust Fund staff will
be small, and will concentrate on setting
program direction, making sure
information on the best technology is
available to those who need it,
allocating funds efficiently, and
evaluating the program's effectiveness.-
A comprehensive program for dealing
with the problems of underground tanks
can only be accomplished through
rigorous action by the states, with
equally rigorous support from EPA. The
LUST Trust Fund is an important tool
in this country's effort to solve the
health and environmental problems
caused by leaking tanks, a
Taking Up
the Slack:
Mini-Superfiinds
in the States
The national Superfund program can
only deal with the tip of the
hazardous waste iceberg. By January
1987, 952 of the worst sites in the
United States had either been listed on
EPA's National Priorities List or
proposed for listing. These comprise
just over 10 percent of the 7900 sites
where, in a recent survey of 45 states,
there was known to have been a release
of oil or hazardous substances.
Clearly, there is a major role for the
states to play in the war on hazardous
waste. How well have state governments
responded to the challenge?
A recent survey conducted by the
Association of State and Territorial
Solid Waste Management Officials
(ASTSWMO) reveals substantial
progress at the state level of
government. Ninety percent of the 50
states responded to the survey. The
non-respondents—Alaska, Hawaii,
Nevada, Idaho, and Louisiana—have a
smaller number of National Priorities
List sites than the national average per
state.
Thirty-six out of the 45 states
responding to the ASTSWMO survey
(82 percent) have passed laws that
authorize the state to conduct
assessments and cleanups at hazardous
waste sites that threaten public health
or the environment. But other numbers
belie the notion that a strong state
presence is already a reality.
Eleven states reported that they had
no money available to fund contractors
to perform site assessments and
remedial actions. Nine of the other 34
states responding to the survey had
funding only in the $75,000 to $500,000
range, and six of those indicated that
funds for contractors were only
available for emergency removals. The
same was true of two other states with
funds in excess of $500,000.
These data indicate that nearly haF
the 45 states responding to ASTSWN*
survey need to expand a great deal
before they can be said to have
full-fledged hazardous waste cleanup
programs.
-------
Even those states that have more
funds available for cleanup still have a
long way to go before they catch up
with EPA's Superfund, which had $1.6
billion in authorized spending during
its first five years, and has $8.5 billion
projected for its second. In contrast, the
20 states that reported expenditures for
cleanup programs had average operating
budgets, subject to cost recovery from
responsible parties, of only $1,652,000 a
year.
At present, the average state
responding to the ASTSWMO survey
has 18 sites on EPVs National Priorities
List (NPL), 165 confirmed problem sites
that do not appear on the NPL, as well
as an additional 572 suspected sites.
F" * can help with cleanups at NPL
as do the states themselves, in
many cases. But only the states can
ensure that sites not severe enough to
merit NPL ranking receive the attention
they deserve.
A problem of massive scale is taking
shape, and its dimensions grow more
formidable all the time. The ASTSWMO
survey estimates that an average of eight
new confirmed or suspected sites are
reported every month. Roughly 10
percent of the total number of
confirmed sites currently prove serious
enough to qualify for the National
Priorities List.
Rapid expansions in state hiring will
be needed for the remainder of the
1980s to keep pace with the growing
dimensions of the hazardous waste
problem. Staffing levels are expected to
rise an average of almost 100 percent by
1990, but even an increase that hefty
will leave the ratio of staff to confirmed
sites virtually unchanged.
This could present problems because
the present ratio is already seriously
deficient in some states. For example,
six of the 45 survey respondents
ci -^ntly have no full-time equivalent
si to deal with hazardous waste
Cleanups or emergency actions. The
average state has the equivalent of 26
full-time employees.
. I
Neiv Jersey Governor Thomas Kean,
second from left, and State Economic
and Development Authority
Commissioner James Hughes, in hard
hat, Join other officials in breaking
ground for the Seaport Industrial Park
Complex in Elizabeth, i\IJ. The complex
ivi/1 be built on the old Singer property.
a 106-acre site where sewing machines
were manufactured for more than a
century. Under New Jersey's
Environmental Cleanup Responsibility
Act. contaminated property must be
cleaned up before sale. Singer spent
Si .2 mil/ion to remove PCBs from soil
and floor surfaces at this site.
Despite funding and manpower
constraints, levels of efficiency in state
mini-Superfunds are quite respectable.
One yardstick widely used to measure
performance is the length of time a site
cleanup requires. The states have
estimated that state-funded cleanups
require an average of 4.73 calendar
years from start to finish. This compares
with 3.67 years for cleanups paid for by
responsible parties, and 5.54 years for
EPA-managed cleanups under the
national Superfund program.
Why are state cleanups faster than
federal cleanups? EPA's Superfund
program must deal with the worst sites
in the United States: sites that present
massive and intractable problems even
to the well-funded manager, scientist,
and engineer. Bill Child, Director of the
Division of Land Pollution Control at
Illinois' environmental agency, also
credits some of the states' speed to
simpler paperwork requirements.
But even with simpler sites to deal
with, and less complicated bureaucratic
procedures, the states have found, as
EPA had already, that it is extremely
difficult to complete a cleanup at a
hazardous waste site. To date, only 5.5
-------
percent of remedial actions have been
completed at confirmed sites in the 45
states surveyed, and that figure includes
cleanups funded and managed by EPA.
The difficulty and the expense of
cleaning hazardous waste sites are
readily apparent to state government
officials and taxpayers. Fundamental
principles of fairness dictate that the
party responsible for creating the waste
in the first place should also bear the
burden of cleaning it up.
As a result, most state laws that have
set up mini-Superfunds follow the
basic principle behind EPA's
Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA). CERCLA insists that
wherever a solvent private party can be
proved responsible for a hazardous
waste problem, that party should both
fund and complete the site cleanup
required.
State governments are taking the same
route: 74 percent of the respondents to
the ASTSWMO survey have statutes
that can require responsible parties to
clean up the damage they have inflicted
on the environment.
A new enforcement tool is becoming a
useful weapon in a growing number of
states. Several states have recently
passed laws prohibiting the sale of real
estate contaminated with hazardous
waste. New Jersey's Environmental
Cleanup Responsibility Act, the
best-known of these laws, requires the
complete restoration of a contaminated
site prior to its transfer to another party.
Businesses eager to turn a profit on
valuable pieces of property now have
every incentive to invest in a cleanup;
the penalty for not doing so is to
experience a freeze-out on the
real-estate market. Legislative analysts
predict that legal restrictions of this
kind will become even more popular as
a state enforcement tool in the next few
years.
The emergence of mini-Superfunds in
the states is an extremely promising
development. EPA's Superfund program
can only deal with the very xvorst
hazardous waste sites. But sites
presenting an intermediate level of
hazard also demand attention, and
responsible private parties are not
always willing or able to assume the
burden. Thus, a large part of the
cleanup burden falls on the shoulders of
state governments, many of which
clearly have a great need for more
resources if they are to succeed. States
that have not yet begun gearing up to
fight the war against hazardous waste
need to emulate those that have, n
Challenges for the Future
EPA action to implement Superfund helps to protect the land for aJJ citizens.
The next five years present EPA and
the nation with a complex set of
challenges:
Speeded-Up Pace of Superfimd
Cleanups
The Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA)
gave EPA some very difficult deadlines.
The Agency has until 1989 to complete
275 remedial investigations and
feasibility studies. By the same year,
EPA must have 175 remedial actions in
the final cleanup stage. Two hundred
more must have reached that stage by
1991.
Even with the quintupling of
Superfund from $1.6 to $8.5 billion, the
managerial and technical challenge will
be intense. Fortunately, the Agency has
already completed a great deal of the
preliminary work that will put an
accelerated pace of cleanup completions
within reach.
More Permanent Cleanup
Remedies
"More permanent" remedies are not
necessarily slower or more expensive
remedies. But some major readjustments
in thinking will be necessary. It is no
longer possible to fall back on some ot
the "solutions" of the past, for example.
excessive reliance on landfills.
Intensified Research and
Development
There are bound to be frustrations and
delays until alternative technologies can
handle all the waste no longer
earmarked for land disposal. That is
why EPA regards research and
development geared to alternative
technologies as an important chaL. ^
in the years ahead.
-------
Improved Management
Without streamlined management, EPA
will be unable to meet its statutory
deadlines, or to make those deadlines
stick by implementing permanent
cleanup remedies. The vastly increased
scale of the new Superfund—five times
larger than in the first five years—will
impose managerial burdens of its own.
To ensure that the money goes for
cleanups, not for overhead, Superfund
plans to introduce a project
management approach to cleanups. This
will centralize managerial control for
each individual cleanup under the
authority of a single management
organization. Centralized control will
minimize transition time and expedite
v an Superfund projects, while at
tli 5ame time improving its quality.
Another managerial goal for
Superfund is improved coordination
with EPA programs authorized by the
the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act. Both Superfund and RCRA are
managed by EPA's Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency Response.
Strong Enforcement
Enforcement has always been a major
challenge of Superfund because of the
unique nature of the CERCLA statute. In
1980, Congress decreed that responsible
parties should, wherever possible, be
identified and held responsible for
cleanups at Superfund sites.
Currently, settlement agreements and
cost-recovery lawsuits have netted S657
million for Superfund. The next five
years promise to yield even better
results.
Greater Involvement by State
Governments
SARA also involves state governments
in Superfund decision-making to a
greater extent than ever before. The
states must now be involved in the
entire process from site identification to
cleanup, including negotiations, and
EPA must develop regulations to assure
this involvement.
Continued Emphasis on
Community Involvement
EPA established an aggressive
community relations program for
Superfund in 1983. Congress has now
mandated an even more active role for
the public in the Superfund
decision-making process.
Two other initiatives will also be
major challenges of EPA's Office of
Solid Waste and Emergency Response in
the years ahead:
Improved Emergency Planning
Title III legislation appended to SARA
will lead to better preparation at the
state and local levels of government for
emergencies related to hazardous waste.
The community right-to-know
provisions of this statute reinforce
Superfund's commitment to citizen
rights by allowing the public to obtain
information on the hazardous chemicals
in its communities.
The Leaking Underground
Storage Tank Trust Fund
The establishment of a Leaking
Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund
gives EPA's Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act program funds to address
the problem of petroleum pollution
resulting from defective storage tanks.
The LUST Trust Fund will provide $500
million over the next five years to clean
up eligible sites contaminated by leaks
from underground storage tanks.
The future of hazardous waste
management and cleanup is a challenge
that can and will be met. EPA's
Superfund program has built up a
sizable reservoir of knowledge in its
first six years. And a great deal of
preliminary work was completed during
those years that can now be brought to
bear as we finish cleanups. These
factors should help make it possible for
the Superfund program to successfully
meet the complex range of new
challenges that loom ahead. Q
ft DB. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE. 1988 - 516-002 - 1302/80180
-------
The Environment.
From
AtoZ
From acid rain to
zooplankton, whatever the
environmental issue, you
can count on the EPA
JOURNAL for current,
comprehensive coverage.
Published 10 times yearly
by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, the EPA
JOURNAL hones in on
emerging issues as well as
perennial problems that
beset the world we live in.
Biotechnology. Wastewater
treatment. The "greenhouse
effect." Hazardous waste
cleanups. Pesticides. The
protection of ground water.
The EPA JOURNAL
provides in-depth analysis
of all these topics and many
more.
The EPA JOURNAL is
available by subscription
from the U.S. Government
Printing Office. If you'd like
to become a regular reader,
fill out the form below (or a
photocopy, if you prefer).
Send the form and your
check or money order for
$11, payable to the
"Superintendent of
Documents," to:
Superintendent of
Documents
U.S. Government
Printing Office
Washington DC 20402-9371
Superintendent of Documents Subscriptions Order Form
Order Processing Code: *6268
DYES, !,
'd like to stay up to date on protecting the Nation's land, air and water systems with a subscription
to the EPA JOURNAL for $11 a year (EPAJ)
1. The total cost of my order is $
. All prices include regular domestic postage and handling and are subject to
3. Please Choose Method of Payment:
Q Check payable to the Superintendent of Documents
O GPO Deposit Account I I I I I I I I -Q
VISA, CHOICE or MasterCard Account
change. International customers please add 25%.
Please Type or Print
2
(Company or personal name)
(Additional address/attention line)
(Street address)
(city. State. ZIP Code)
(Daytime phone including area code) (Signature)
4. Mail To:Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402-9371
(Credit card expiration date)
Thank you for your order!
10/86
Cut on dotted line
-------
C. RI/FS Facts Sheets
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Solid Waste And
Emergency Response
(OS-220)
Directive 9355 3-01FS1
November 1989
Getting Ready
Scoping The RI/FS
This fact sheet is a synopsis of Chap-
ter Two of the Interim Final Guidancefor
Conducting Remedial Investigations and
Feasibility Studies Under CERCLA
(October 1988, OSWER Directive
No. 9355.3-01). In addition to summa-
rizing Chapter Two of the guidance, this
fact sheet provides information on how
to manage the scoping phase of the
remedial investigation/feasibility
study (RI/FS) process.
The RI/FS is a flexible process that
should be tailored to the specific circum-
stances of individual sites. The Reme-
dial Project Manager's (RPM) central
responsibility is to determine how best
to use this flexibility to conduct an effi-
cient and effective RI/FS that achieves
high-quality results in a timely and cost-
effective manner. Scoping is the initial
planning phase of the KI/FS and is
continued and refined as new informa-
tion about the site becomes available.
During scoping, the lead and support
agencies should first identify the type
and optimal sequence of site activities,
including whether the site may best be
remedied as separate operable units.
Technical
Advisory Committee
Operable units are discrete actions that
comprise incremental steps toward the
final remedy, and may be actions that
completely address a geographic portion
of a site or a specific site problem.
Operable units may also be interim or
early actions: however, they must be fol-
lowed by subsequent actions to defini-
tively address the scope of the problem.
Early actions must mitigate potential
threats, prevent further environmental
degradation, or rapidly and significantly
reduce risks. Consistant with the gen-
eral site management strategy, the spe-
cific project scope is then planned and
documented in project plans. A sche-
matic of the scoping process is pre-
sented in Figure 1.
In the development of the specific proj-
ect scope, the objectives of the RI/FS
must be balanced with time and re-
source constraints . As an example, to
focus efforts and to save time and ex-
pense, a site's sampling program, devel-
oped during scoping, should focus only
on collecting data required to character-
ize the risks posed by a site and evaluate
those remedial actions most likely to be
appropnate for a site.
Additionally, to better focus efforts.
program expectations concerning ap-
propriate site remedies are to be consid-
ered and utilized during project scoping.
These expectations will influence many
of the activities described throughout
this fact sheet. In particular, program
expectations will influence the estab-
lishment of remedial action objectives
and the corresponding identification of
potential remedial alternatives. Pro-
gram expectations focus on the protec-
tion of human health and the environ-
ment through a variety of methods, in-
cluding treatment, engineenng controls,
and/or institutional controls. EPA has
established the following goal and ex-
pectations to assist in the identifica-
tion of those remedial actions that have
a significant potential for being imple-
mented.
Figure 1. The Scoping Process
-------
Program Goal
The goal of the remedy selection proc-
ess is to select remedial actions that
are protective of human health and
the environment, that maintain pro-
tection over time, and that minimize
untreated waste.
Program Expectations
• Treatment of principal threats will
be used, wherever practicable;
principal threats may include
liquids and highly mobile or highly
toxic materials.
• Engineering controls may be used
for waste that poses a low long-
term threat or where treatment is
impracticable.
• Institutional controls will be used
to mitigate short-term impacts or
to supplement engineering con-
trols; they will not serve as a sole
remedy unless active response
measures are impracticable.
• Remedies will often combine treat-
mentof principal threats with en-
gineering and institutional con-
trols for treatment residuals and
untreated waste.
• Innovative technologies should be
considered if they offer the poten-
tial for comparable or superior
treatment performance, fewer/
lesser adverse impacts, or lower
costs for a similar level of per-
formance than demonstrated
technologies.
• Ground water will be returned to
its beneficial uses within a
timeframe that is reasonable,
where practicable.
Scoping Activities
Conduct Site Kickoff Meetings
To initiate the scoping process and to
begin site management planning, a kick-
off meeting (or series of meetings) is or-
ganized by the RPM. Personnel attend-
ing these meetings should include:
representatives from lead and support
agencies including other program staff
(as needed), contractor personnel who
will be performing each portion of the
RI/FS or the oversight, technical experts
(see Technical Support section).
Environmental Services Division repre-
sentatives, Natural Resource Trustee
representatives (when applicable), en-
forcement staff, and Individuals with
prior experience at the site or at similar
sites. During these meetings, the re-
sponsibilities for RI/FS activities will be
reviewed and/or assigned. In addition,
lines of communication should be es-
tablished among key personnel.
Note: Two or more scoping meet-
ings may be warranted to reduce
project start-up time and cost. The
first meetings) may include Fed-
eral and State technical personnel
to identify the type and optimal
sequence of site activities and to
better focus the contractor's scope
of work. Subsequent meetings may
be held after the work assignment
has been issued and the contractor
has had time to review available
site background data.
Evaluate Existing Data
As a first step to scoping, existing data
will be compiled and evaluated. A key
step in the evaluation of existing data is
the determination of its quality and
usability. Existing data does not have to
be of sufficient quality to make final
decisions but may be helpful in develop-
ing a conceptual understanding of site
dynamics. Evaluating existing data is
necessary to focus RI/FS efforts and to
avoid duplication of previous activities.
In addition, this activity helps to deter-
mine additional data needs. Data are
needed to:
• Characterize the site to the extent
necessary to support subsequent
decisions
• Define the risk posed by the site
• Identify viable remedial action al-
ternatives
• Identify applicable or relevant and
appropriate requirements (ARARs)
• Evaluate the need for treatability
studies
• Support enforcement activities
The types of existing data that should be
compiled and evaluated include:
• Site data gathered during the Na-
tional Priorities List (NPL) listing
process and the potentially respon-
sible party (PRP) search
• Historical and aerial photographs
• Records of disposal practices and
operating procedures
Generator manufacturing process in-
formation
Regional geology, hydrology, mete
orology, and ecology
Demographic and land use informa-
tion
Location of sensitive environmental
areas, supply wells, and surface
water use on or near the site
Note: Information sources near the
site will provide valuable site data
and should not be overlooked. Such
sources include local land records
and deed books; representatives
from the Soil Conservation Service.
the Agricultural Extension Service.
well drilling companies, and the
Sheriffs office: and meterological
monitoring stations for local
airports or towns. In addition, inter-
views with present/past site own-
ers and employees will often
provide necessary site information.
Conduct Site Visit
The information obtained from conduct-
ing a site visit will ease the scoping tas
save time, and help to avoid mistakes
and oversights. After gaining access to
the site, the RPM should walk the site
taking field notes and photographs. Spe-
cifically, a site visit should be conducted
to: (1) identify the site's physical charac-
teristics, noting changes from the his-
torical data base which may necessitate
an early action, and (2) assist in develop-
ing an understanding of waste sources.
areas of contamination, potential expo-
sure pathways, and potential receptors
at or near the site.
Develop Conceptual Site Model
The conceptual site model is used to: (1)
develop a general understanding of the
site to evaluate potential risks to human
health and the environment and (2) assist
in identifying and setting priorities for
the activities to be conducted at the site.
The conceptual site model may be either
a pictorial or graphic representation of
site dynamics as illustrated in Figure 2
of this fact sheet or Figure 2-2 of the
RI/FS Guidance, respectively. The con-
ceptual site model identifies:
• Potential sources of contamination
• Types of contaminants and affected
media
-------
• Release mechanisms and potential
contaminant pathways
• Actual and potential human and en-
vironmental receptors
Note: A limited field investigation
may be undertaken if insufficient
information exists to develop the
conceptual model. Normally, a
limited investigation focuses on
easily obtainable data where re-
sults can be received in a short
time. Example s may include ac-
tivities such as geophysical sur-
veys, well water level measure-
ments, or sampling and analysis of
existing wells.:
Identify Remedial Action
Objectives and Potential
Remedial Alternatives
Once a conceptual understanding of the
site Is obtained, potential remedial ac-
tion objectives should be identified for
each media to be addressed. These ob-
jectives consist of medium or operable-
unit specific goals for protecting human
health and the environment. An example
of such a goal may include preventing
migration of some carcinogen in the
ound water. Following the establish-
ment of such objectives, general response
actions (e.g., treatment) for each media
of interest are developed. Technology
types (e.g., chemical treatment) appli-
cable to each general response action
are then identified, followed by the iden-
tification and evaluation of process
options for each technology type. Table
4-1 of the RI/FS Guidance illustrates the
alternative development process and
provides examples that illustrate each of
these terms.
Performing this task helps to identify the
data needs for the FS and allows for an
early determination of the need for treata-
bility studies. If remedial actions involv-
ing treatment have been identified, then
the need for treatability studies should
be evaluated during scoping because of
the impact they can have on RI/FS costs
and schedule. Specifically, literature
surveys should be conducted during
scoping to gather information on candi-
date technologies. If the technologies
have not been sufficiently demonstrated
or cannot be adequately evaluated, based
on the available information, treatability
tests should be performed.
Initiate Identification of
Potential ARARs
Identification of potential ARARs during
the scoping phase will assist in: (1) iden-
tifying remedial goals and alternatives
and (2) establishing communication with
the support agency. Furthermore, early
identification of potential ARARs will allow
better planning of field activities. ARAR
identification is progressive, with require-
ments identified and refined as a better
understanding is gained of site condi-
tions, site contaminants, and remedial
action alternatives. The CERCLA Com-
pliance With Other Laws Manual (Part I -
August 1988 and Part II - August 1989,
OSWER Directive Nos. 9234.1 and
9234.1-02) contains detailed informa-
tion on identifying and complying with
ARARs.
Note: When developing the pre-
liminary list of remedial action al-
ternatives, consideration should be
given to the program expectations
and to the types of response ac-
tions selected for other sites with
similar problems or contaminants.
Note: During scoping, the empha-
sis should be on the identification
of contaminant- and location-spe-
cific requirements as well as deter-
mining the presence of Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) regulated hazardous waste.
In addition to Federal ARARs, more
stringent State ARARs must also be
Identified. :"::::;H:::-:;;;;.-. : ". '••"
Ingestion/
Inhalation/
Dermal Contact
Surface Water Body
Residential Wells
Ground Water Table
I Contaminated Media
Release Mechanism
Exposure Route
Figure 2. Example of a Conceptual Site Model
-------
Identify Initial Data Needs and
Data Quality Objectives
Thorough and focused identification of
data needs and data quality objectives
(DOQs) will help to avoid data gaps and
delays later in the RI. and should mini-
mize reviews/revisions of planning docu-
ments. Sufficient data must be obtained
to define:
• Site physical characteristics
• Physical and chemical characteris-
tics of sources of contamination
• Volume of contamination and ex-
tent of migration
o Potential receptors and associated
exposure pathways
• Expected performance requirements
of treatment alternatives
This information will be utilized to:
• Determine contaminant fate and
transport
• Determine the risks posed by a site
• Develop and evaluate remedial al-
ternatives
• Identify ARARs
• Identify the need for treatability
studies
• Support future enforcement or cost
recovery activities
Once data needs are identified, the strate-
gies for sampling and analysis are devel-
oped, and the DQOs are established.
DQOs specify the quality of data re-
quired during the different phases of the
RI/FS. The type and quality of data
needed are based on the Intended use of
the data, which may include health and
safety planning, site characterization,
remedial alternatives evaluation, or risk
assessment. Additional Information on
the establishment of DQOs can be found
in Data Quality Objectives for Remedial
Response Activities (March 1989,
OSWER Directive No. 9335.0-7B).
Note: Logistics planning should be
initiated during scoping once data
needs are identified. As an ex-
ample, procurement of sampling
equipment during scoping may be
necessary as well as making ar-
rangements with the appropriate
laboratory(ies) because of backlog.
Scoping Deliverables
The deliverables developed during the
scoping phase Include several project
plans. These plans are derived directly
from activities and data needs identified
during scoping.
Work Plan (WP)
The WP documents the decisions and
evaluations made during scoping and
describes the tasks required to conduct
the RI/FS. The WP Includes a descrip-
tion of the site management strategy.
including the remedial action goals, any
short- and long-term actions that may
be required to address site problems,
and the optimum sequence of site ac-
tions and Investigative activities. In
addition, the WP describes the site's
physical setting and includes a back-
ground summary detailing the history of
previous site activities. To document the
decisions made during scoping, the WP
should include an evaluation of existing
site data, a representation of the concep-
tual site model, and a description of
potential remedial alternatives. A com-
prehensive description of the work to be
performed, including the methodologies
to be utilized, as well as the rationale for
performing the required activities com-
prises the main body of the WP. This
section also assigns project responsibili-
ties and sets the project's schedule and
cost.
The format of the WP should follow the
14 standardized tasks that are described
in Appendix B of the RI/FS Guidance.
These tasks have been developed to
provide for consistent reporting and ef-
fective monitoring of all Fund-financed
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
1
Scoping
Task r- Project
Planning
Task 2*- Community
Relations
Site Characterization 1 Treatability Investigations
Task 3'- Field Investigation | Task?'
Task 4'- Sample Analysis/ 1 Tasks
Validation
1
Tasks - Data Evaluation
Task6 • Risk Assessment
Tasks - RI Reports .
if FEASIBILITY '
1 STUDY
Development and Screening
of Alternatives
Tasks- Remedial
Alternatives
Development/
Screening
' Those tasks where streamlining
techniques should be used
* Conducted throughout RI/FS
- Treatability Studies
- RI Reports
\ '
Task 13*- Enforcement
Support
Task 14 *- Miscellaneous
Support
Detailed
Analysis
Task 10- Detailed
Analysis of
Alternative1
Task 11- RI/FS
Reports
To: SOR, ROD,
RD, RA
~*" Task 12- Post
RI/FS
Support
Figure 3. Relationship of RI/FS Tasks to Phased RI/FS Approach
4
-------
RI/FS projects. These tasks are also
recommended for use on State- and PRP-
lead projects. Figure 3 depicts the rela-
tionships among these standardized
tasks and the role that they play during
the RI/FS. Those tasks highlighted with
an asterisk have been identified as areas
where streamlining techniques should
be utilized to improve the RI/FS process.
Such techniques are descnbed in OSWER
Directives 9355.3-06 (2/14/89), 9355.3-
05 (4/25/88), and 9355.0-20 (7/22/87).
Note: Work plans may need to be
amended when additional data are
required to adequately scope later
phases of the RI/FS or before con-
ducting treatability studies. If any
significant changes to either the
budget or scope of the WP are re-
quired for Federally funded sites, a
Work Plan Revision Request is sub-
mitted for approval. When changes
to the WP do not affect the budget
or schedule. Technical Directive
Memoranda have been found to be
useful for decreasing administra-
tive time.
Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP)
The SAP is prepared so that sample
collection activities are conducted in
accordance with technically acceptable
protocols and that the data collected in
the field meet the DQOs established
during scoping. The plan also serves as
a basis for estimating field costs for
inclusion in the WP. The SAP consists of
a field sampling plan (FSP) and a quality
assurance project plan (QAPP). The FSP
will define in detail the data-gathering
methods that will be used on the project.
The FSP should be written so that a field
sampling team, unfamiliar with the site,
would be able to gather the required
information. The QAPP will describe the
project objectives and quality assurance/
quality control (QA/QC) protocols that
will be used to achieve the desired OQOs.
A suggested format for the SAP is in-
cluded in Table 2-4 of the RI/FS Guid-
ance. Appropriate guidance on field
methods, sampling procedures, and
sample custody requirements is found
in A Compendium of Superfund Field.
Operations Methods (August 1987,
OSWER Directive No. 9355.0-14).
Note: Standard sampling and ana-
lytical procedures may be incorpo-
rated by reference into the project
plans to avoid repeating technical
review of a procedure that has al-
ready been approved for use in a
Region. As an example, there is no
need to explain how to take a split-
spoon sample: a reference to the
appropriate American Society of
Testing and Materials (ASTM) docu-
ment will suffice.
Health and Safety Plan (HSP)
The HSP Identifies potentially hazard-
ous operations and exposures and pre-
scribes appropriate protective measures
for onsite workers, the surrounding
community, and the environment. The
HSP should include a detailed site de-
scription accompanied by site maps and
the results of previous sampling activi-
ties. The HSP must conform to the firm's
or agency's health and safety program,
which must comply with Occupational
Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
regulations and protocols. Each HSP
should include, at a minimum, the
11 elements described in Appendix Bof
the RI/FS Guidance.
Community Relations Plan (CRP)
The CRP documents the history of com-
munity relations and the issues of com-
munity concern at a site. It describes the
objectives of the community relations
activities and how these objectives will
be met and includes a discussion of
planned community interviews, fact
sheets, and public meetings. Discus-
sions with the community should be
initiated during scoping as relevant In-
formation may be gathered at that time.
Report preparation methods, the ele-
ments contained in a CRP. and a recom-
mended format are included in Commu-
nity Relations inSuperJund: A Handbook
(June 1988. OSWER Directive No.
9230.0-3B).
RPM Responsibilities
The RPM is responsible for managing
each phase of the RI/FS. These respon-
sibilities include ensuring that adequate
technical support is being provided as
well as schedule maintenance and fi-
nancial control of the project.
Technical Support
Techniques the RPM may use during
scoping to enhance technical supervi-
sion of this phase include:
• Identify people with the appropriate
background and experience to serve
on a Technical Advisory Committee
(TAG). The TAG is a group of person-
nel from EPA and other Federal
agencies. States, and consulting
firms selected to serve as technical
advisors for a project based on their
areas of expertise. Members of this
committee should include person-
nel from ORD's Superfund Techni-
cal Assistance Response Team
(START) as well as personnel from
EPA or other treatability testing
laboratories.
The START is a group of engineering
technology experts from ORD whose
primary focus is to provide technical
support on remedy evaluation, se-
lection, and implementation. Such
support will be provided during
scoping In the form of identification
of potential remedial alternatives and
the evaluation of data needs in
support of Identified technologies.
For more information on START,
contact Ben Blaney of ORD's Risk
Reduction Engineering Laboratory
in Cincinnati. FTS-684-7406 or
(513) 569-7406.
• Incorporate TAG participation into
the project planning phase to iden-
tify technical and/or policy issues
early in the process.
• Communicate on a regular basis
with all involved parties (key deci-
sionmakers from the lead and sup-
port agencies: consultants: Federal
Trustees, as appropriate; and other
TAG members) to reach an early
consensus on the project approach.
Inform key decisionmakers of all
circumstances that relate to mak-
ing the final decisions regarding the
site management strategy.
• Communicate any special concerns
associated with the site to all appro-
priate personnel, including the
members of the TAG.
• Communicate with contractor per-
sonnel at each juncture of the scop-
ing process. Contractors are not
responsible for making major deci-
sions.
-------
• Communication of all matters may
be In the form of meetings, review of
techn ical memos or progress reports.
or telephone conversations. All forms
of communication should be docu-
mented and placed in the site file.
Schedule and Cost Control
The schedule and costs for conducting
an RI/FS are related to site complexity.
Site complexity is determined by the
concentration and type of waste present
atasite, the volume and type of contami-
nated media, and the potential path-
ways for exposure. The estimated cost
and schedule for completion of an RI/FS
may then be compared with historical
data for completed RI/FS projects for
similar sites. The rationale for the work
to be performed must be understood by
the RPM and Justified in the project's
budget. Tips to assist in schedule and
cost control include:
• Historically, for a site of average
complexity, an RI/FS takes 21 to
25 months to complete. The goal of
the Remedial Program is to reduce
this time to 18 months.
• Historically, approximately 8O per-
cent of RI/FS project expenditures
are allocated toward three tasks:
project planning (13 percent), the
remedial investigation (53 percent),
and the feasibility study (17 per-
cent). The cost for conducting an
RI/FS for an operable unit of aver-
age complexity is targeted at
$750.000. with a total cost for an
average site at $1.1 million (costs of
treatability studies are excluded).
• Since the RI field investigation is
typically responsible for over
50 percent of the RI/FS cost, this
task should be scoped with care to
avoid duplication and unnecessary
drilling and testing.
• The RPM should consider the re-
quired worker protection level for
onsite activities when evaluating
schedules and costs. Operatingwith
Class B protection during hot
weather will significantly delay the
schedule and increase the costs of
the field investigation.
• A combination of laboratory serv-
ices (e.g.. mobile and CLP laborato-
ries) to achieve the established
DQOs may be a more effective ex-
penditure of time and money. Even
though assignment of samples to
the CLP for analysis does not ap-
pear on the RI/FS project budget, it
is an expensive and often unneces-
sary expenditure that is a signifi-
cant budget item within Superfund.
• The RPM should examine and util-
ize existing examples of scoping de-
liverables to accomplish the work
in a more timely manner.
Enforcement
Considerations
Scoping a PRP-financed RI/FS is simi-
lar to scoping a Fund-financed project
with a few exceptions. EPA typically Ini-
tiates project planning prior to Issuing
special notice to PRPs. During this
planning phase. EPA will determine the
objectives of the RI/FS and the general
management approach for the site. EPA
may also determine the specific project
scope or this process may proceed during
negotiations between EPAand the PRPs.
If the project scope or other aspects of
the RI/FS cannot be agreed upon, EPA
stops negotiations and funds the
RI/FS. If negotiations result in an ad-
ministrative order, the PRPs will per-
form the required tasks, including those
described in this fact sheet, and pro-
duce the work plan, the SAP, and the
HSP. The development of the CRP is the
responsibility of EPA. EPA reviews all
planning documents and either ap-
proves the proposed activities or notes
deficiencies and returns them to the
PRPs for revisions. It should be noted
that EPA does not "approve" the HSP.
Rather, the plan is reviewed to ensure
protection of human health and the en-
vironment. Additional information de-
scribing PRP participation in the RI/FS
can be found in Appendix A of the Rlf
FSGuidanceand in OWPE's Model State-
ment of Work for PRP-Conducted Reme-
dial Investigations and Feasibility
Studies (June 2. 1989).
Points to Remember
Increase use of existing data
Utilize local resources to obtain
site information
Conduct a site visit
Conduct limited investigations,
where appropriate
A contractor's work assignment
(WA) may authorize limited in-
vestigations negating the need
for preparation of an interim WP
Identify necessary or appropri-
ate early actions to significantly
and/or rapidly reduce site risks
Limit early determination of re-
medial technologies to those that
have a significant potential for
being implemented.
Identify the need for treatability
studies and associated data
needs during scoping
Identify potential contamlnant-
and location-specific ARARs as
well as the presence of RCRA-
regulated waste
Integrate DQOs into the plan-
ning process
Use the 14 RI/FS standardized
tasks
Consolidate planning docu-
ments /incorporate standard pro-
cedures by reference
Incorporate START team mem-
bers into the TAC and ensure
TAC participation throughout the
scoping phase
Communicate with key person-
nel throughout the scoping proc-
ess
Establish project management
controls, such as meetings, dur-
ing scoping
Closely monitor PRP activities
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Solid Waste And
Emergency Response
(OS-220)
Directive 9355 3-01FS2
November 1989
The Remedial Investigation
Site Characterization and
Treatabil'rty Studies
This fact sheet Is the second in a series
of four that describes the remedial inves-
tigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) pro-
cess. Included within this fact sheet is a
summary of Chapters 3 and 5 of the
Interim Final Guidance Jar Conducting
Remedial Investigations and Feasibility
Studies Under CERCLA (October 1988.
OSWER Directive No. 9355.3-01). These
chapters discuss site characterization
and treatability studies, respectively.
Also included is Information on how to
manage these aspects of the remedial
investigation (RI).
The RI builds on activities Initiated during
scoping and includes implementation of
the work plan (WP). the sampling and
analysis plan (SAP), and the health and
safety plan (HSP). Field data are col-
lected and analyzed to determine the
problems posed by a site and to support
the identification of potential remedial
actions. For sampling efforts to be better
focused. It may be desirable to conduct
Iterative, and increasingly focused, field
investigation rounds. Thus, the RI ob-
jectives may be better balanced with
time and resource constraints. A sche-
matic of the major components that
comprise the RI is presented in Figure 1.
Treatability studies provide data on
remedial technologies and their effec-
tiveness on the specific waste found at a
site. Ideally, the need for these investiga-
Conduct FWd InveaUgatton
• SltePhyatcalCriaracterletlee
• Source* ol Contamination
• Nature and Eitent of Conlunlnedon
Perform Diki Anaryala
> Sample Anaryala
. Dale Evalualon
> Contaminant Fate and lYanaport
Conduct TreataMlrf Srudlee
• Literature Survey
• Conduct Skidtoe
> Evaluate Need For Further Studtea
1 The naed (or additional data
may be determined atany One
and/or a number olBme*
throughout the proceae
tions is identified during scoping, while
the testing program is developed and
implemented during the RI.
Remedial Investigation
Activities
Conduct Field Investigations
Field investigations define a site's
physical characteristics as well as its
sources, nature, and extent of
contamination. In addition to
characterizing a site, these activities may
also be conducted to gather data on
required design/operation parameters
for the technologies being considered for
remedial action. Because the RI and FS
are interactive processes that are
conducted concurrently, field
investigation activities will be ongoing
during the development and screening
of remedial action alternatives. Sampling
methods for obtaining site data are
outlined in the CompendiumofSuperJund
Field Operations Methods (September
1987. OSWER Directive No. 9355.0-14):
relevant chapters from this compendium
are noted on Table 3-1 of the RI/FS
Guidance.
Note: Support activities are re-
quired before conducting field in-
vestigations and may take several
months to be completed. Activi-
ties may include:
• Obtaining access to areas of in-
vestigation
• Procuring subcontractors, equip-
ment, and supplies
• Selecting and coordinating with
an analytical laboratory
• Procuring onsite facilities for RI
activities
• Providing for storage/disposal of
contaminated materials gener-
ated during the RI
Figure 1. Major Components of the Remedial Investigation
-------
Define Site Physical
Characteristics
Data on the site's physical characteris-
tics and the surrounding areas are col-
lected to: (1) define potential transport
pathways and receptor populations and
(2) provide sufficient engineering data to
develop and evaluate remedial action
alternatives. Information used to define
a site's physical characteristics Includes:
• Site surface features
• Site geology
• Soil and vadose-zone characteristics
• Site hydrogeology
• Surface water hydrology
• Meteorological data
• Human population, land, and water
use data
• Ecological information
These data may be obtained from a
variety of sources including, but not
limited to: historical photographs, topo-
graphic surveys, site operational rec-
ords, sampling/monitoring results.
demographic information. USGS and
zoning maps, and interviews with pres-
ent/past site owners and employees.
Characterize Sources
of Contamination
Source characterization includes defin-
ing: (1) facility characteristics that Iden-
tify source locations: (2) the quantity of
wastes that are either contained In. or
have been released In, the environment;
and (3) the physical and chemical char-
acteristics of wastes present in the
sources. As a part of source characteri-
zation, the location, type, and Integrity
of waste containment structures (e.g..
drums) are evaluated to determine the
potential for substance release and its
magnitude. The data required for source
characterization are typically obtained
through site inspections, mapping,
remote sensing, and sampling and analy-
sis. Quantities of wastes are estimated
either from verifiable Inventories of con-
tainerized waste, from sampling and
analysis, or from physical dimensions of
the source.
Characterize Nature and Extent
of Contamination
The final objective of the field investi-
gation performed during the RI is to
investigate the extent of contaminant
migration, Including the volume of con-
tamination and any changes in its phys-
ical and chemical characteristics. This
process involves using the information
on physical site data and source location
fora preliminary estimate of the locations
of contaminants that may have migrated
Into the environment. An Iterative
monitoring program is then implemented
so that, using increasingly accurate
analytical techniques, the locations and
concentrations of contaminants that
have migrated can be defined. The final
step Is to ensure that the extent of
contamination Is confirmed with
adequate data of sufficient quality to
support riskassessmentand the analysis
of remedial alternatives.
The sampling and analysis approach
used to determine the extent of contami-
nation Is discussed In Section 4.5.1 of
U.S. EPA's Data Quality Objectives for
Remedial Response Activities (March
1987. OSWERDlrective No. 9335.0-7B).
Note: Because of the inherent un-
certainties associated with Super-
fund sites, it is impossible to de-
finitively characterize the nature
and extent of contamination at a
site. Adequate site characteriza-
tion requires data that meet DQOs.
define the risks posed by a site.
demonstrate clearly the need for
remedial action, and support the
rationale for selecting a remedial
action alternative.
Perform Data Analysis
Laboratory Analyses
The type of laboratory chosen to analyze
the site characterization samples may
include a mobile laboratory, a labora-
tory with whom the EPA has contracted
under the contract laboratory program.
(CLP), or a non-CLP laboratory. The type
of laboratory selected will depend on the
analytical services required, the number
of samples to be analyzed, and the de-
sired turnaround time. In many cases, it
may be appropriate for more than one
type of laboratory to be used. For ex-
ample, mobile or non-CLP laboratories
may be used for the quick analysis of
screening level samples, while selected
duplicate and/or split samples may be
sent to CLP laboratories to confirm and
validate the initial estimation of the
nature and extent of contamination.
Note: A combination of laboratory
services, adequate to achieve the
established DQOs. results in more
effective use of time and money.
characteristics, sources of contamina-
tion, the nature and extent of contami-
nation, and the risk associated with the
contamination. Defining the risks to
human health and the environment is a
function of the baseline risk assessment.
The baseline risk assessment is ad-
dressed in a separate fact sheet entitled.
Risk Assessment Guidance far Super-
JwvL Human Health Evaluation Manual.
This fact sheet is being prepared by the
Hazardous Site Evaluation Division in
the Office of Emergency and Remedial
Response.
Data Management
The quality and validity of Information
generated during the RI must be effec-
tively tracked by a data management
system to allow it to be used to support
remedy selection and any legal or cost
recovery actions. The RI data manage-
ment system should include:
• Field Logs-to document field Investi-
gation activities and observations, field
measurements, and any unusual
circumstances or occurrences.
• Laboratory and QA/QC Reports-to
provide chaln-of-custody and sample
shipment records, analytical results,
adherence to prescribed protocols.
nonconformity events, corrective
measures, and data deficiencies.
All records should be maintained
throughout the RI/FS to ensure that
only final and approved analytical data
are used in the site analyses. Precau-
tions should be taken to prevent the
introduction of errors or the loss or
misinterpretation of data. A data secu-
rity system should be created to safe-
guard and prevent free access to project
records.
Note: In some cases, the use of non-
validated data is warranted to
prepare internalreviewdocuments.
to begin data analysis, and to
continue refining remedial action
alternatives. Preliminary data, how-
ever, can lead to improper conclu-
sions and are, therefore, consid-
ered unofficial. These data must be
updated upon receipt of QA/QC
comments.
Data. Evaluation
The results of the RI are typically pre-
sented as an analysis of site physical
Define Contaminant Fate
and Transport
Results of the site physical characteriza-
tion, source characterization, and extent
of contamination analyses are combined
to determine and project contaminant
-------
Tate and transport. This involves deter-
mining the actual and potential magni-
tude of releases from the sources and
the mobility and persistence of source
contaminants.
If information on contaminant release is
available, the observed extent of con-
tamination maybe used In assessing the
transport pathway's rate of migration
and the fate of contaminants over the
time span between release and monitor-
ing. Contaminant fate and transport may
also be estimated on the basis of site
physical and source characteristics.
Either type of analysis may be based on
semi-analytical, analytical, or numeri-
cal models. While field data generally
best define the extent of contamination,
models can interpolate among, and ex-
trapolate from, isolated field samples to
areas and times not sampled.
Note: Modeling techniques to de-
termine contaminant fate and
transport may not be necessary if
site conditions are well understood
and if the potential effectiveness of
different remedial actions can be
easily evaluated.
Define Contaminant- and
Location-Specific ARARs
Identification of potential applicable or
relevant and appropriate requirements
(ARARs) is initiated during scoping and
continues throughout site characteriza-
tion activities. During the RI, as a better
understanding is gained of site condi-
tions and contaminants, identification
of contaminant- and location-specific
ARARs continues to: (1) better plan fu-
ture field activities, including identifying
the scale of any required treatability
studies, and (2) Identify remedial action
alternatives. The CERCLA Compliance
with Other Laws Manual (Part I - August
1988 and Part II - August 1989. OSWER
Directive Nos. 9234.1 and 9234.1-02)
contains detailed information on Identi-
fying and complying with ARARs.
Evaluate Additional Data Needs
As data are collected, and a better un-
derstanding of the site and the risks that
It poses Is obtained, the preliminary
remedial action alternatives, initially
identified during scoping, should be fur-
ther refined. The available data should
then be evaluated to determine if: (1) the
DQOs have been met. (2) the risks posed
by the site have been adequately de-
fined. (3) the need (or lack of need) for
remedial action Is documented, and (4)
the data necessary for the development
and evaluation of remedial action alter-
natives have been obtained. Site char-
acterization is complete when these cri-
teria have been met.
Conduct Treatability Studies
The need for treatability testing should
be identified during project scoping to
avoid delays in the RI/FS schedule.
During scoping, a literature survey
should be conducted to gather informa-
tion on a technology's applicability,
performance, implementability. relative
costs, and operation and maintenance
requirements. If practical candidate
technologies have not been sufficiently
demonstrated or cannot be adequately
evaluated on the basis of available
information (e.g., characterization of a
waste alone is Insufficient to predict
treatment performance or the size and
cost of treatment units) treatability
testing should be performed. The
treatability testing program will be
designed and implemented during the
RI, while other field activities are under
way. Design and implementation of a
testing program will Include:
• Preparation of a WP, SAP. and HSP
• Performance of field sampling, if re-
quired
• Implementation of a testing program
• Evaluation of test results and docu-
mentation in a report
If the project plans developed for the RI/
FS do not adequately define the activi-
ties to be performed during the treatabil-
ity studies, a WP, SAP, and HSP must be
developed before beginning the testing
program. The required contents of these
plans are listed in Appendix B of the RI/
FS Guidance.
The decision to use a bench- versus a
pilot-scale test is affected by a number of
factors, including the level of develop-
ment of the technology, the composition
of the waste, and the nature and repre-
sentativeness of the desired data. For a
technology that is well developed and
tested, bench studies may be sufficient
to evaluate performance on new waste
types. Pilot tests may be necessary if in-
formation needed to operate the tech-
nology at full scale is limited. If there Is
a need to Investigate secondary effects of
the process, or if the waste being tested
is complex or unique.
Following the treatability testing pro-
gram, an evaluation report will be pre-
pared that analyzes and interprets the
test results considering the technology's
effectiveness. Implementability. environ-
mental impacts, and cost. Full-scale
application of the technology will be
evaluated and should Include the identi-
fication of key parameters and unknowns
that can affect full-scale operations.
Additional information on treatability
studies can be found in a document
entitled, Guide to Conducting Treatabil-
ity Studies under CERCLA. This guide Is
currently being developed by the Office
of Research and Development in their
Risk Reduction and Engineering Labo-
ratory in Cincinnati. Ohio.
Note: The need for treatability stud-
ies will result from initiating the
alternative development process
during scoping. A Technical Advi-
sory Committee (TAC) should be
used to achieve early consensus on
potential remedial alternatives.
Once the need for treatability test-
ing has been identified, TAC
support should continue with
oversight of the development and
implementation of the testing
program as well as evaluation and
interpretation of test results. (See
Scoping Fact Sheet, OSWER
Directive No. 9355.3-O1FS1. for
additional information on the TAC.)
Remedial Investigation
Deliverables
Preliminary Site Characterization
Summary
The preliminary site characterization
summary is a concise summary of site
data. This summary Is developed after
initial field efforts and: (1) provides a
vehicle for the early sharing of ARARs
with the support agency. (2) allows for
early refinement of remedial alternatives.
and (3) can be transmitted to the Agency
for Toxic Substances and Disease Regis-
try so that they may begin their required
health assessment.
The format of the preliminary site char-
acterization summary will be determined
by the Region. The summary may be
nothing more than a list of contaminants
of concern and the affected media, or it
-------
may be more extensive and review the
investigative activities that have taken
place.
Draft RI Report
The RPM reviews and approves the draft
RI report after completion of RI activi-
ties. This report summarizes the results
of the field activities to characterize the
nature and extent of contamination, the
fate and transport of contaminants, and
the results of the baseline risk assess-
ment. Table 3-13 In the RI/FS Guidance
provides a suggested RI report format.
RPM Responsibilities
The RPM Is responsible for managing the
project to meet the RI/FS objectives
within the time and cost constraints.
These responsibilities include ensuring
that adequate technical support is pro-
vided, as well as schedule maintenance
and financial control of the project.
Technical Support
Techniques to assist in ensuring that
adequate technical support is provided
to the project during the RI Include:
• Incorporate TAG participation
throughout the RI to identify and
resolve technical Issues. When treat-
ment Is being considered for complex
or difficult to treat waste. It Is appro-
priate for ORD's START team to be
Included on the TAG. See the Scoping
Fact Sheet (OSWER Directive No.
9355.301FS1) for additional infor-
mation on the START team and other
technical experts.
• Communicate on a regular basis with
all involved parties (support agen-
cies, consultants, TAG members) to
reach a consensus on Issues of con-
cern and/or additional site work.
• Carefully consider the choice of ana-
lytical services to minimize the time
required to process samples while
maintaining the needed data quality
level. Consider the contractor's abil-
ity to perform or subcontract analyti-
cal services.
• Ensure that contractors performing
treatability studies have adequate
experience and the necessary per-
mits.
Schedule and Cost Control
The management techniques listed under
technical support also assist In control-
ling schedule and cost. Other schedule
and cost control techniques Include:
• When possible, provide conditional
approval to portions of the work plan
to begin field activities early.
• Be aware that Basic Ordering Agree-
ments can be used by consultants to
expedite the procurement of subcon-
tractors.
• Consider weather conditions when
scheduling field activities; extreme
weather conditions may delay the
schedule and/or Increase costs.
• Ensure that field contractors are
trained in CLP procedures, Including
sample collection, shipment, and
chain-of-custody requirements, to
minimize the need to resample.
• Consider directing contractors to
validate field data.
• Hold review meetings with all involved
parties to expedite review of deliver-
ables.
• Review monthly financial statements
from consultants and make sure that
all costs are Justifiable.
• Understand the components of labor
hour costs and verify that activities
are conducted by appropriate per-
sonnel at the most effective level.
• Learn to anticipate cost and schedule
problems based on the contactor's
previous month's performance and
take actions to minimize cost over-
runs and schedule delays.
Enforcement
Considerations
Potentially responsible parties (PRPs)
may conduct all RI activities, including
any required treatability studies. It
should be noted, however, that EPA
reserves the right to conduct any aspect
of the RI. As an example, EPA may
conduct the baseline risk assessment
since it serves as a primary means for
supporting enforcement decisions. Both
the administrative order (AO) and ap-
proved WP represent the negotiated
agreement between EPA and the PRPs
on how the RI Is to be conducted. Modi-
fications to the scope of work must be
approved by EPA before Implementation.
As required by SARA, EPA will oversee all
PRP activities with the assistance of a
qualified third party. The objectives of
such oversight include verifying that:
(l)the RI/FS complies with CERCLA. thi
NCP. and relevant Agency guidance; (2)
the work complies with the AO, State-
ment of Work. WP. and SAP; (3) all work
is performed
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Solid Waste And
Emergency Response
(OS-220)
Directive 9355 3-01FS3
November 1989
oEPA
The Feasibility Study
Development And Screening
Of Remedial Action Alternatives
This fact sheet is the third in a series of
four that summarizes the remedial in-
vestigation/feasibility study (RI/FS)
process. The previous two fact sheets in
this series discuss scoping the RI/FS
(OSWER Directive No. 9355.3-01FS1)
and site characterization and treatabil-
ity studies (OSWERDirective No. 9355.3-
01FS2). This fact sheet provides a sum-
mary of Chapter 4 of the Guidance Jar
Conducting Remedial Investigations and
Feasibility Studies Under CERCLA (Oc-
tober 1988. OSWER Directive 9355.3-
01). which discusses the development
and screening of alternatives for reme-
dial action. In addition, this fact sheet
provides information Intended to assist
the Remedial Project Manager (RPM) in
managing this portion of the feasibility
study (FS) efficiently and effectively.
The FS process consists of the develop-
ment and screening of remedial action
alternatives and a detailed analysis of a
C.
Seoptag
Qcharaelorliallan*)
EiUMMi Remedial Action Objective*
Develop General
Re*pon*e Action*
I
Identity Potentkd Treatment
end DtepOMl Technologic*
• Determine New
DataNaeda
- Develop Sampling
Strategic* and/or
Traatabillty Study
Progrwn
• Repeat Step* kiRI
Site Characterization
and/or Conduct
TreatablUtyStudtoa
'Site characterization activities
are typically continued throughout
the Alternative Development and
Screening process
'The need for additional data may
be determined at any time and/or a
number of times throughout the
process
ScraonbiQ of
Alternative*.
H Required
limited number of the most promising
options to establish the basis for a rem-
edy selection decision.
A range of viable alternatives should be
developed that meet the remedial re-
sponse objectives developed during scop-
Ing and refined as the study progresses.
This range should reflect the program
expectations to address the principal
threats posed by the site (i.e., liquids and
highly toxic and/or highly mobile waste)
through treatment, and consider engi-
neering controls (e.g.. containment) to
address low-level contaminated materi-
als and wastes for which treatment is
impracticable. Institutional controls
should be considered primarily as sup-
plements to engineering controls.
In addition to the program expectations,
RPMs should consider the types of re-
sponse actions selected for other sites
with similar problems or contaminants
to identify only those remedial alterna-
tives that carry high potential of being
an effective solution for site problems.
As appropriate, the range of source
control alternatives should include op-
tions employing treatment as a principal
element, one or more containment alter-
natives, and the no-action alternative.
The major components that comprise
the development and screening process
are presented In Figure 1.
Note: The no-action alternative is
used as a baseline to compare other
alternatives. Measures, such as
actions taken to reduce the poten-
tial for exposure (e.g., site fencing)
should not be included as compo-
nents of no-action alternatives.
Such mitiiitaAi actions should be
studied as a separate, limited-ac-
tion alternative. Environmental
monitoring may be included as part
of a no-action alternative.
Figure 1. Alternative Development and Screening Process
-------
Development and
Screening Activities
Establish Remedial Action
Objectives
Hie preliminary remedial action objec-
tives Identified during scoping are re-
fined as necessary during this phase of
the RI/FS to develop medium-specific
goals for protecting human health and
the environment. Remedial action ob-
jectives specify:
• The contaminant(s) and media of
concern
• The exposure route(s) and receptor(s)
• The remediation goal(s) for each
exposure route
An example of a remedial action objec-
tive is reducing concentrations of TCE
In potable ground water to 5 ppb.
The contaminants, media of concern.
and exposure routes are the most Im-
portant preliminary sources of Informa-
tion necessary for the development of al-
ternatives. That Is. the identification of
appropriate remedial technologies can
be Initiated without identifying the final
remediation goal or the exact cleanup
requirement. These requirements will
need to be Identified prior to the detailed
analysis of alternatives.
During the development of alternatives,
preliminary remediation goals are es-
tablished based on readily available In-
formation such as applicable or relevant
and appropriate requirements (ARARs).
Whereas, final remediation goals take
into consideration the results of site
characterization and the baseline risk
assessment. The baseline risk assess-
ment defines the risks posed by a site
and establishes the need (or lack thereof)
for remedial action.
Note: Identification of location- and
chemical-specific ARARs, begun
during scoping, should be com-
pleted during alternatives devel-
opment. Examples of such require-
ments include:
• Maximum contaminant levels
(MCLs)
• Water quality criteria
• State-action levels for drinking
water
•State air emission standards
Develop General Response
Actions
General response actions are selected to
satisfy the remedial action objectives for
each medium of concern. These actions,
initially defined during scoping, are re-
fined during this phase and relate to
basic methods of protection such as
treatment or containment. General re-
sponse actions may be combined to
form alternatives such as treatment of
highly toxic material with containment
of the treatment residuals.
The volume or area to which general
response actions mlghtbe applied should
be identified at this time and based on:
the exposure routes, the known nature
and extent of contamination, and pre-
liminary remediation goals and a pre-
liminary list of action-specific ARARs.
Action-specific ARARs set restrictions
on particular remedial activities as re-
lated to the management of hazardous
wastes.
Identify and Screen Appropriate
Technologies
Throughout the RI/FS Guidance and
this fact sheet, the term "technology"
refers to general categories of technolo-
gies, such as chemical treatment or
capping. The term "technology process
option" refers to specific alternative proc-
esses within each technology family.
such as Ion exchange or use of a soil-
clay cap.
Note: Typical sources of informa-
tion that can be wed to identify
technology needs and to determine
capabilities of technology process
options include:
• ORD technology experts
• SITE program staff
• Technology Screening Guide Jor
Treatment of CERCLA Sludges
and Soils (EPA/54O/2-88/OO4.
September 1988)
• Appendix D of the RI/FS Guid-
ance
• Contractor process engineers
• Equipment vendors
mentablllty. That is, existing informa-
tion on technologies and site characteri-
zation data are used to screen out proc-
ess options that cannot be effectively
Implemented at the site. Figure 4-4 c
the RI/FS Guidance illustrates the nec-
essary documentation for this evaluation
of process implementabillty and can be
Included in the FS report.
To the extent possible, design parame-
ters for the technologies being consid-
ered should be identified to focus sam-
pling efforts during the site characteriza-
tion phase. Field investigation activities
will be ongoing during the development
and screening of alternatives due to the
interactive nature of the RI and FS, which
are conducted concurrently.
Select Representative Process
Options
To simplify the development and evalu-
ation of alternatives, one representative
process option should be selected, if
possible, for each technology type re-
maining after the technical Implementa-
billty screening procedure. Effectiveness,
Implementabillty, and cost are the crite-
ria used to evaluate and select represen-
tative process options (see page 3 for a
description of these criteria). The source
of information used to Identify the best
representative process option are the
same as those used to identify technol-
ogy types. During remedial design, other
process options may be selected If they
are found to be more advantageous.
Note: Given the performance un-
certainty often associated with
innovative technologies, it may not
be possible to evaluate innovative
process options on the same basis
as conventional processes. If avail-
able information indicates that
innovative technologies will pro-
vide comparable or superior treat-
ment performance, fewer or lesser
adverse impacts, or lower cost for a
similar level of performance, they
should be retained for further evalu-
ation.
A list of potentially applicable technolo-
gies and technology process options.
corresponding to the identified general
response actions, is compiled and then
reduced by evaluating the process op-
tions with respect to technical Imple-
Reevaluate Data Needs
The need for additional data may becom
apparent after representative procea
options have been selected. Process
engineers, equipment vendors, and PRP
in-house engineers and chemists can
help in determining which data are re-
-------
quired to assess potential process limi-
tations and which data are required to
establish design criteria.
Treatabillty studies are typically needed
whenever treatment has been identified
as a viable alternative. These studies
provide data on technologies and their
effectiveness on a specific waste found at
a site. Treatabillty studies may not be
necessary in those instances where in-
formation already exists about a treat-
ment process and its performance on the
same type of waste found at the site.
Assemble Technologies Into
Alternatives
To assemble alternatives, general re-
sponse actions should be combined,
using different process options appli-
cable to different volumes of media or
areas of the site, to meet all remedial
action objectives. For example, an alter-
native might call for incinerating the
most highly contaminated soil from a
portion of the site, while capping other
less contaminated areas. When combin-
ing alternatives, it is necessary to con-
sider interactions between media, such
as the Interaction between ground water
and soils through dissolution, precipita-
lon. and adsorption processes. Consid-
eration should also be given to how
general response actions can be inte-
grated in the most efficient ways. For
example, residual streams that could be
addressed by two different response
actions may be best handled together.
such as sludge from a metals precipita-
tion process and ash from onsite Incin-
eration. A description of each alternative
should be Included In the FS report.
including the logic behind the assembly
of the specific remedial action alterna-
tives.
Screen Alternatives. If Required
The alternative development process
should focus only on the most viable
options for site remediation. In the event
that a large number of viable alternatives
remains at the conclusion of the assem-
bly of alternatives, an additional screen-
ing process should be used to limit the
number of alternatives that must un-
dergo the detailed analysis.
Source control alternatives retained
through the screening process should
include those options that have a signifi-
cant potential for being Implemented at
the site. The range of options that may
be retained could include:
• Treatment options that minimize
long-term management require-
ments and address principal threats
Containment options, used either In
conjunction with treatment or alone.
that reduce exposure to waste
A no-action alternative (which should
be maintained throughout the analy-
sis)
Note: Generally no more than five
source control alternatives should
be carried through to detailed
analysis. Fewer alternatives may
be appropriate
-------
tents of the FS report (OSWER Directive
No. 9355.3-01 FS4.)
RPM Responsibilities
The RPM is responsible for managing
this phase of the FS and specifically to
ensure that adequate technical support
is provided and that control of the pro-
ject's schedule and cost is maintained.
Technical Supervision
Activities needed to ensure that ade-
quate technical supervision Is provided
during the development and screening
of alternatives Include:
• Communication with the support
agency, the contractor, and other
technical experts (i.e.. members of
the Technical Advisory Committee
[TAG)) to obtain early agreement on
the technologies/alternatives to be
considered and on ARARs.
It may be appropriate for ORD's
START team to be included on the
TAC when treatment will be consid-
ered for complex or difficult to treat
waste. See the Scoping Fact Sheet
(OSWER Directive No. 9355.3-
01FS1) for additional Information
on the START team and other tech-
nical experts.
• Emphasize, and provide direction to
the contractor or potentially respon-
sible parties (PRPs) (if it is a PRP-
lead RI/FS). on the need to focus the
effort to identify and screen tech-
nologies so that only a reasonable
range of viable alternatives Is devel-
oped.
Schedule and Cost Control
Recommendations that should aid In
schedule and cost control of this phase
of the RI/FS Include the following:
• Hold frequent meetings or confer-
ence calls to monitor progress. These
meetings can be Informal, with dis-
cussion focusing on work plan ac-
tivities that need to be accomplished
in the immediate future and the
status of in-progress tasks that
should be completed. Avoid creating
delays associated with the prepara-
tion of lengthy deliverables to moni-
tor progress.
Review contractor monthly financial
statements and make sure all costs
are reasonable and justifiable. If
appropriate, monthly financial state-
ments should be supplemented by
talking with the contractor's project
manager about the schedule and
budget.
Control the schedule for inter- and
intra-agency reviews, and schedule
review meetings in advance to em-
phasize the deadlines for completion
of reviews.
Understand the significance of the
labor hour cost to determine if the
most efficient staffing levels are being
used.
Anticipate cost and schedule prob-
lems based on the contractor's previ-
ous month's performance and take
actions to minimize cost overruns
and schedule delays.
Enforcement
Considerations
The development and screening of reme-
dial alternatives Is conducted much the
same whether it is being financed by the
Fund or by PRPs. If this phase of the RI/
FS is being conducted by the PRPs. they
will review, and if necessary, propose re-
finement of the remedial action objec-
tives proposed by EPA during the project
planning phase. Revision of the objec-
tives is subject to EPA approval. After re-
finement of the remedial action objec-
tives, the PRPs will typically conduct,
under the oversight of EPA, all aspects of
this phase of the FS. It is suggested that
EPA reviews be scheduled after screen-
Ing technologies and process options,
assembling alternatives, screening alter-
natives, and identifying action-specific
ARARs. Additional information describ-
ing PRP participation in the RI/FS and
EPA's oversight role can be found In
Appendix A of the RI/FS Guidance and In
OWPE's ModelStatementoJWofkforPRP-
Conducted Remedial Investigations and
Feasibility Studies (June 2. 1989).
Points to Remember
• Apply the framework provided
by the RI/FS Guidance appro-
priately, and avoid trying to
satisfy each step unnecessar-
ily.
• Begin the development of alter-
natives as soon as preliminary
information on site characteris-
tics is available.
• Draw on the experience of con-
tractor process engineers, ven-
dors. ORD. and other RPMs to
help identify appropriate tech-
nologies and process options.
• Focus alternative development
only on the most viable options
for site remediation. Generally.
no more then five sitewide
source control options should
be analyzed In detail.
• Conduct alternatives screening
when more alternatives have
been developed than can rea-
sonably be evaluated.
• To the extent possible, identify
design parameters for the tech-
nologies being considered so
that relevant data can be col-
lected during site characteriza-
tion.
• Develop alternatives Involving
innovative technologies and
retain for detailed analysis If
they have the potential for
comparable or superior treat-
ment performance, fewer or
lesser adverse Impacts, or lower
costs for a similar level of per-
formance than a conventional
technology.
• Communicate with key person-
nel. Including the TAC, through-
out this portion of the FS.
• Establish project management
controls such as status meet-
ings.
• Closely monitor PRP activities.
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agencv
Solia Waste ana
Emeraencv Resoonse
(OS-220)
Directive 9283 1-2FS
Aonl 1989
A Guide
On Remedial Actions For
Contaminated Ground Water
GOAL
The goal of Superfund ground-water remediation is to protect human health and the environment by restoring ground water to its benefi-
cial uses within a time frame that is reasonable, given the particular site circumstances. This fact sheet summarizes the key issues in the
development, evaluation, and selection of ground-waterremedial actions at Superfund sites. For more detailed information, consult Regional
Ground-Water Forum members or the Interim Final "Guidance on Remedial Actions for Contaminated Ground Water at Superfund Sites."
(Ground-Water Guidance) December 1988. OSWER Directive No. 9283.1-2.
REQUIREMENTS OF CERCLA
The approach outlined in this fact sheet is
designed to ensure that ground-water reme-
dial actions will meet the following require-
ments of CERCLA:
• Protect human health and the environ-
ment (121(b))
• Comply with applicable or relevant and
appropriate requirements (ARARs) of Fed-
eral andState laws (121(d)(2)(A)) or war-
rant a waiver under CERCLA Section
• Be cost-effective (121(a))
• Utilize permanent solutions and alterna-
tive treatment technologies or resource re-
covery technologies to the maximum extent
practicable (1 21 (b))
• Satisfy the preference for remedies that em-
ploy treatment that permanently and signifi-
cantly reduces the mobility, touciry, or vol-
ume of hazardous substances as a principal ele-
ment or provide an explanation in the ROD for
why the preference was not satisfied (121(b)).
In addition, the following provisions of CER-
CLA may or may not be pertinent to ground-
water remediation, depending on site-specific
circumstances:
• Alternate concentration limits (ACLs) from
otherwise applicable or relevant and appropri-
ate requirements can only be used for deter-
mining offsite cleanup levels under special
circumstances (121(d)(2)(B)(ii)).
• Remedial actions that restore ground
water are to be federally funded until cleanup
levelsareachievedoruptolO years,which-
ever comes first. However, if the purpose
of the ground-water remedial action is to
provide an alternate water supply, for ex-
ample, but not to restore ground water, then
the Federal government will pay capital
and startup costs only (104(c)(6)).
• A review must be conducted at least
every 5 years if wastes are left onsite
(121(c)) above health- or-environment-
based levels to verify that the remedy con-
tinues to provide adequate protection of
human health and the environment
SCOPING
GROUND-WATER
REMEDIAL ACTIVITIES
Before collecting any data, it is useful to
conduct two planning activities:
• Site management planning (See right),
which involves identifying the types of
analyses and actions that are appropriate to
address site problems and their optimal se-
quence.
• Project planning (See next page), which
includes such activities as scoping data
collection efforts, initiating identification
of ARARs. and work plan preparation.
SITE MANAGEMENT PLANNING
Site management planning identifies the re-
sponse approaches that will be taken to ad-
dress the site problems. Two response ap-
proaches can be taken to remediate ground
water at Superfund sites:
• Removal actions
• Remedial actions, which can be final, or
interim actions
Removal actions are authorized for any re-
lease that presents a threat to public health.
welfare, or the environment. CERCLA limits
Superfund-financed removal actions to
S2 million and 12 months unless the catena
for granting an exemption to the statutory
limits are satisfied. Remedial actions are
sometimes addressed as operable units.
An operable unit is a portion of an overall
response action that, by itself, eliminates or
mitigates a release, a threat of a release, or
an exposure pathway; it may reflect the
final remediation of a defined portion of a
site. At many sites, it is appropriate to im-
plement an operable unit as an interim ac-
tion. Interim actions may be implemented
to prevent exposure to contaminants or pre-
vent further degradation of ground water
(by remediating hot spots, for example)
while the overall remedial investigation
(Rl) and feasibility study (FS) are being
conducted. Interim actions involving pump-
ing can also provide critical information for
evaluating the final remedy.
-------
Characterization
of the Hydrogeology
Describe the geology using geophysical meth-
ods and sediment samples collected during
dniling of soil borings and monitoring wells.
Present the information using geologic cross
sections and fence diagrams.
Assess the ground-water movement by using
water level measurements from wells screened
at various depths. Present a contour map of
each aquifer to determine recharge and dis-
charge and identify the direction of ground-
water flow.
Evaluate data over time to detect seasonal or
tidal fluctuations.
Aquifer tests may be used to determine the hy-
draulic properties of the aquifers and aquita-
rds, and to evaluate the performance and effec-
tiveness of the extraction system. Aquifer tests
can be used in conjunction with modeling.
Characterization of
Contamination
Consider selecting one or more chemicals for
monitoring to reduce analytical costs and sim-
plify modeling. These chemicals may be se-
lected on the basis of toxiciry, exposure, mobil-
ity, persistence, treatability, or volume of con-
taminants. If appropriate, however, nontoxic
constituents or chemical classes, such as total
volatile organic compounds, could also be
monitored.
Determine the horizontal and vertical extent of
the contaminant plume through monitoring at
various locations and depths. Understand the
relationship of the source to the ground water.
Contaminant levels should be monitored over
time to identify migration and degradation pat-
terns. Note the density of contaminants to aid in
assessing their behavior in the ground water.
Assess contaminant/soil interactions to aid in as-
sessing the effectiveness of a ground-water ex-
traction system. Laboratory analysis of contami-
nant partitioning behavior in the saturated soil
may be critical to the development of the remedy
and the determination of whether ground-water
extraction is practicable.
PROJECT PLANNING
Recommended Data
Collection Activities
Evaluation of
Plume Movement
and Response
Consider modeling the ground
water as a tool to guide the place-
ment of monitoring wells, predict
concentrations of contaminants at
exposure points, estimate the ef-
t'ect of source control actions, and
evaluate the expected performance
of the ground-water remedial ac-
tion
Consideration of
Technical Uncertainty
Identify sources of uncertainty, e.g., pre-
dicting the nature, extent, and movement
of contamination; determining contami-
nant movement through the vadose zone;
estimating the rate and direction of the
ground-water flow: and estimating the cost
of remedial alternatives. Assess the mag-
nitude of uncertainty from each of these
sources, and weigh the costs and benefits
of reducing uncertainty by collecting ad-
ditional information.
Assessment of Design
Parameters for
Potential Treatment
Technologies
Identify several likely remedial
technologies during scoping to
focus data collection activities.
Consider data needs for screening
out inappropriate technologies and
for designing workable systems to
provide a sound basis for selecting
a remedy and reducing implemen-
tation time. Consider the costs and
benefits of conducting a ireatat
try study.
-------
(Detailed Analysis— Continued from pre-
vious page)
- Number of extraction wells
- Treatment process
- Control of cross-media impacts
- Expected pumping and flow rates
- Management of residuals
- Gradient control system
- Type of institutional controls and the
implementing authority
Since performance of remedies for restoring
contaminated ground water can often be evalu-
ated only after the remedy has been imple-
mented and monitored for a period of time.
remedial action objectives should be presented
as ranges to accommodate reasonable degrees
of change during design and implementation.
An option is to include two possible scenarios
in the remedy, e.g.. ground-water extraction
until cleanup levels are attained, or ground-
water extraction until an equilibrium is
reached and contaminant mass is no longer
being removed at significant rates, at vv hich
time portions of the plume that remain above
cleanup levels should be monitored and insti-
tutional controls established to prevent ac-
cess to contaminated ground water.
EVALUATING PERFORMANCE AND MODIFYING
REMEDIAL ACTIONS
Performance evaluations of the full-scale
remedial action are conducted periodically
to compare actual performance to expected
performance. Conducting performance
evaluations and modifying remedial actions
is pan of a flexible approach to attaining
remedial action objectives.
Figure 2 represents a decrease in contami-
nant concentration over time for three
ground-water remedial actions of varying
effectiveness. Line A represents a reme-
dial action that is meeting design expecta-
tions, and the desired cleanup levels are
predicted to be reached within the antici-
pated time. Line B represents a remedial
action that is predicted to achieve the cleanup
levels, but the action will have to be oper-
ated longer than anticipated. LmeC repre-
sents a remedial action that will not achieve
the desired cleanup levels for a long time, if
ever, without modifying the remedial ac-
tion.
After evaluating whether cleanup levels
have or will be achieved in the desired
time frame, the following options should
be considered:
• Discontinue operation
• Upgrade or replace the remedial ac-
tion to achieve the onginal remedial
action objectives or modified remedial
action objectives
• Modify the remedial action objec-
tives and continue remediation, if appro-
priate.
Performance monitoring should ensure
that residual contamination has been
removed. This will generally require
monitoring ground-water concentrations
after active measures have been com-
pleted to allow contaminant concentra-
tions in the soil and ground water to re-
equilibrate.
FIGURE 2
Predicting Remedial Action Performance
Actual I Predicieo
Performance Performance
Contaminant
Concentration
MULTIPLE SOURCES STRATEGY
At sites where there are multiple sources of
ground-water contamination, some of which
are Superfund sites, it may be appropriate to
implement a multiple-source strategy. The
Superfund program should work coopera-
tively with other responsible entities to
achieve comprehensive remedies, and may
accept primary responsibility for coordinat-
ing all involved parties during the source
identification phase of work.
The Superfund program should coordinate
an initial scoping plan for source identifica-
tion that would include limited sampling.
Locations of possible sources may be deter-
mined through two surveys: (1) a survey of
contributors to and users of the affected
ground water (termed a "contributor/user
assessment") that will help identify the other
parties that must be involved in the formula-
tion of an effective remedy; and (2) a survey
of potential sources such as solvent storage
facilities located at or upgradient of the area of
contamination.
Superfund will implement appropnate reme-
dial actions related to National Priorities List
sites once an RI/FS is initiated. At this point,
the Regional Administrator, in consultation
with the Assistant Administrator of OS WER.
should evaluate the appropriateness of the
Superfund program retaining primary respon-
sibility for coordinating the ground-water re-
sponse action for all sources. This decision
may be determined by factors such as the
contribution of Superfund sources relative to
other sources, as well as the availability and
willingness of other involved panics to initiate
action.
Response actions generally fall into three cate-
gories: provision of alternate water supply,
source control measures, and ground-water
remedies. Superfund resources may be used to
provide an alternate water supply if an NPL
site is a significant contributor to the plume
and if the need to alleviate the public health
threat does not allow for identification and
involvement of other parties at that time.
Actions to prevent or minimize spread of
contaminants from the source are often
implemented at multiple source ground-
water sites before completing plume char-
acterization, which can be lengthy and com-
plicated at these sites.
The amount of Superfund resources used to
address ground-water contamination will
derive primarily from the extent to which
the overall contamination can be attnbuted
to the Superfund site. It will also depend on
the willingness and capability of the other
involved parties to take actions to address
the contamination for which they are re-
sponsible.
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
GENERAL RESPONSE ACTIONS
After developing remedial action objectives.
general response actions are identified. Gen-
eral response actions for contaminated
ground water include active restoration,
plume containment through hydraulic con-
trol, and limited or no active response.
combined, if appropriate, with institutional
controls to protect human health. These are
discussed below.
Active restoration is useful when there are
mobile contaminants, moderate to high hy-
draulic conductivities in the contaminated
aquifer, and effective treatment technolo-
gies available for the contaminants in the
ground water. Innovative technologies for
active restoration may include biorestora-
tion, soil flushing, in situ stream stnppmg,
soil vapor extraction, in situ vitrification, and
others.
Plume containment seeks to minimize the
spread of a plume through hydraulic gradient
control, which can be either active or passive.
Containment is appropriate where active
restoraton is not practicable or where the bene-
ficial uses of the ground water do not warrant
it. In addition, plume containment may be
combined with active restoration or natural
attenuation to achieve cleanup levels.
Limited or no active response includes two re-
medial scenarios: (1) a natural attenuation al-
ternative that eventually achieves cleanup levels
throughout the area of attainment and includes
monitoring and institutional controls: and
(2) wellhead treatment or provision of an al-
ternate water supply with institutional con-
trols, when complete restoration to cleanup
levels is not practicable.
Factors that may cause active restoration to
be impracticable or not cost-effective in-
clude:
• Widespread plumes such as at mdustnal
areas, mining sites, and pesticide sites
• Hydrogeological constraints such as with
fractured bedrock, or where the transmissiv-
ity is less than 50 square feet per day
• Contaminant-related factors such as the
presence of dense nonaqueous phase liquids
• Physical/chemical factors such as parti-
tioning to soil or organic matter.
FORMULATING REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES
A range of remedial technologies can be
combined undera particular general response
action. Process options for extraction in-
clude: extraction wells, extraction/injection
systems, and interceptor drains and trenches.
Treatment options include biological, chemi-
cal, physical, thermal, or in situ methods.
Treated ground water c.an be discharged to
surface water or a publicly-owned treatment
works, reinjected to the aquifer, or used as a
drinking water supply. Finally, there are
various options for containment, monitoring
effectiveness, and institutional controls. Al-
ternatives are developed by combining these
various process options into a comprehen-
sive response approach.
DETAILED ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
AND SELECTION OF REMEDY
CRITERIA AND BALANCING
The analysis of remedial actions for ground
water is made on the basis of the following
evaluation criteria. Considerations that are
unique to ground water are noted.
Threshold criteria
• Overall protection of human health and
the environment• Will the remedy achieve
and maintain clean-up levels? Are all expo-
sure pathways controlled; e.g., discharge
points, points of use?
• Compliance with ARARs. Will the rem-
edy attain MCLs or state standards in poten-
tially dnnkable ground water or justify a
technical impracticability waiver? Are
ARARs met for the treated ground water
and any treatment residials that are gener-
ated?
Balancing criteria
• Long term effectiveness and permanence.
Remedies that achieve the cleanup levels
will be comparable with respect to this cri-
teria. For remedies that will not restore
ground water, how reliable are the engineer-
ing or institutional controls used to prevent
exposure?
• Reduction of mobility, toxicity, and volume •
What reductions are achieved through treat-
ment in any phase of the remediation process?
This includes initial treatment of ground water
and subsequent treatment of resulting residu-
als. Special note should be given to remedies
that transfer contaminants from ground water
to air without treatment of the air releases,
especially if nsk through the air pathway ex-
ceeds io-«.
• Short-term effectiveness: What is the resto-
ration time frame? What cross-media impacts
occur as a result of ground-water treatment or
construction of a containment facility? How
much farther will the plume spread before the
remedy is completed?
• Implementability What permitting require-
ments must be met for discharge of treated
ground water9 Are there access problems with
installation of the remedy~e.g., extraction wells
and slurry walls~m terms of resources re-
quired? Are there capacity limitations on
POTWs receiving discharge waters? What
uncertainties exist with the treatment process
considered?
• Cost
Modifying critera:
• State Acceptance
• Community Acceptance
If the alternatives will achieve the same long
term goals, the primary balancing criteria
will be Implementability, cost and short term
effectiveness.
DOCUMENTATION
In addition to the standard documentation, a
ROD for a ground-water action should in-
clude the following components:
• Remedial action objectives defined in the
FS for each alternative: i.e.. the cleanup lev-
els, the area of attainment, and the restoration
time frame.
• A description of the technical aspects of
the selected remedy that will form the basis of
design for the system, such as the following:
-------
& EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Emergency
and Remedial
Response
Expediting Remedial
Construction
Publication
9355 5-02/FS
October 1989
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
Hazardous Site Control Division OS - 220
Quick Reference Fact Sheet
INTRODUCTION
Remedial action (RA) is the heart of the Super-
fund program because it is the implementation
of solutions to the environmental problems at
uncontrolled hazardous waste sites. Taking
into consideration the nature and types of
obstacles that generate delays in the remedial
action process, this fact sheet describes various
methodologies and alternatives to expedite the
remedial construction process. While this in-
formation is applicable to all Superfund proj-
ects, it is geared toward expediting remedial
construction on small (less than $5 million)
well defined projects utilizing proven technolo-
gies.
The most obvious method to accelerate reme-
dial construction is to initiate construction
sooner, i.e., speed up the planning and design
process. Then contracting and construction
options can be explored to best enhance site
remediation. The following techniques for
expediting remedial construction are discussed
in this document:
o Developing a "Remedial Management Strategy"
o Phasing remedial design and construction
o Fast-tracking the remedial design and remedial
acuon (RD/RA) process
o Contracting and procurement strategies
REMEDIAL MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
The remedial management strategy (RMS) is a
systematic approach used to identify and estab-
lish the preferred contracting strategies to be
used in the implementation of a remedial
action. The objective is to look at each of the
operable units that are part of the remedy
described in the Record of Decision (ROD) and
lay out a strategy for design and construction
that meets all of the constraints imposed on the
project. All limitations including weather,
schedule deadlines, air quality criteria, and
worker protection, must be identified. Once
the construction sequence and constraints have
been determined, the next step is to define the
contract packages that best fit the project and
determine the procurement method that should
be used, i.e., sealed bidding or negotiated. The
design team can then identify the type of
contract that needs to be procured first and
proceed in the most efficient manner to get the
designs and remedial action underway.
The level of effort and the complexity of the
RMS will vary significantly from project to
project. In some cases there will be only one
operable unit and only one contract package
will be required. Even in such simple cases, it
is important to think through the RD/RA
process in as much detail as possible to identify
Printed on Recycled P*l»r
-------
constraints that may affect the contractor's
ability to perform the work to the schedule thai
has been established.
The following is a list of items that need to be
addressed in the RMS:
o Specific ROD goals and objectives
o Phasing and operable units
o Procurement method and contracting strategy
o Determination of project constraints
o Identification of potential project risks
o Scheduling considerations
o Health and safety considerations
o Review requirements
o Contractor, labor, and equipment availability
concerns
The RMS establishes the overall course of
action for the project. It is at this point that
decisions are made about phasing portions of
the project, fast-tracking design and construc-
tion, employing limited designs for specific
elements, or utilizing alternative procurement
methods. During development of the RMS, it
is crucial that the contracting and procurement
strategy be compatible with the amount of
uncertainty and level of design specified. If the
decision is made to utilize a minimal design,
the contract type and procurement method
should reflect this degree of uncertainty, i.e., a
negotiated procurement resulting in a cost-re-
imbursable contract. More information con-
cerning the RMS is available in EPA Directive
9355.5-10/FS.
PHASING REMEDIAL DESIGN AND
CONSTRUCTION
An analysis of RD/RA project elements results
in the determination that some can be effec-
tively phased or time sequenced to accelerate
them through the design and remediation proc-
ess. Phasing achieves an overall fast-track
schedule and mitigates the continuing impact
of the site to the environment and public safet\.
Large complex projects (or operable units) are
broken down into smaller, more manageable
remedial elements. All elements are worked in
unison, but each individual element has its own
schedule and moves at its own optimum rate
through the remediation process.
Projects should be evaluated to determine what
sets of remedial activities can be grouped or
packaged together to accomplish phasing.
Utilize the following criteria for grouping RD/
RA activities into discrete work elements:
o Existing Information: Existing information may
be adequate to allow completion of certain design
aspects (road development, utility installation),
but may be lacking to allow completion of other
design aspects.
o Type of Waste: Segregation of a project into
work elements based on nonhazardous (security
fencing, access roads, utilities, erosion control)
versus hazardous waste is a simple way to
accelerate the construction start.
o Type of Media: It may be desirable to phase
work based on the segregation of one medium
from another. Often the source medium is a soil
or sludge which has contaminated another me-
dium (groundwater). The RD/RA for the source
pollution could be addressed separately from the
RD/RA for the contaminated groundwater plume.
Remediation of groundwater may be approached
by initially installing a limited barrier well/treat-
ment system and then expanding the treatment
scheme as more information is obtained. This
allows for quick action based upon limited design
information with larger scale actions following.
o Technology Requirements: The implementation
of a simple remedy can be achieved more quickly
than those requiring detailed design, fabrication,
and specialized operation. By separating the work
into independent work elements based on the type
of technology, the initial remedial action start is
enhanced.
Phasing is advantageous because the initial
remedial action start is always accelerated.
Smaller discrete work elements are more man-
ageable and provide for better cost control.
Expediting Remedial Construction
Page 2
-------
Phasing enhances technical quality because
knowledge obtained from prior work elements
can be integrated into future work elements. It
also allows for addressing regulatory and legal
issues (State Superfund Contracts, permits)
separately, within their own framework. Phas-
ing does, however, result in some redundancy
and duplication of effort in administrative areas
such as design reviews and managing multiple
contracts.
FAST-TRACKING RD/RA
Fast-tracking might be considered as a subset
of phasing. Whereas phasing breaks large
complex projects into smaller more manage-
able units, fast-tracking is a method to acceler-
ate the implementation of those individual
elements. There are several techniques in
which RD/RA can be fast-tracked:
o Expedite RD. Steps in the RD process are elimi-
nated or shortened. However, short-cutting the
process involves the assumption of some risk.
Deciding only to use data collected during the RI/
FS for design is one method of expediting. How-
ever, the design risks being delayed if the RI/FS
data turns out to be marginal or incomplete.
Other methods of expediting RD include:
- Reduce the detail required in the design pack-
age. For many small projects (i.e. soil excavation,
dismantling of structures, simple pump and treat
systems), the design need only include a site
layout drawing and a basic description of the
work to be performed.
- Use of standard specifications, in whole or
with appropriate modifications, enables comple-
tion of remedial designs in significantly less time.
- For simple projects, utilize the Health and
Safely Plan, Quality Assurance Project Plan, and
Community Relations Plan from the RI/FS for the
RD and possibly, with minor changes, for the RA.
o Optimize RD. Optimization is the rearrangement
of the sequence in which RD elements are per-
formed to enhance the overall schedule. It is done
without the assumption of increased risk if no
steps are eliminated or shortened. Some examples
follow:
- The site preparation portion of a design can
be completed and construction initiated while the
rest of the design is still on-going.
- Schedule all design reviews in parallel with
continuing design work so they arc not on (he
critical path. Do all reviews simultaneously to
expedite the resolution of recommendations.
- Develop the agreements for RI/FS sue access
to allow for access during RD/RA activities.
- Prepare work assignments for remedial action
before completing the remedial design.
o Fast-Track Construction. Some projects can be
divided into separate stages for construction. This
is generally accomplished by letting each stage of
work out for construction as soon as the design
effort on that particular stage of work has been
completed (e.g. site prep, procurement of long-
lead equipment, foundations). This approach has
the advantage that the project will be started and
completed sooner than would be possible if it
were necessary to wail ui til all design work had
been completed. However, when multiple con-
tracting efforts are underway simultaneously,
more coordination and administrative oversight is
required. Another aspect of fast-track construction
is ordering items that require long-lead umcs in
advance of the time they will be needed on the
job.
CONTRACTING ALTERNATIVES
The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)
provides for a wide selection of contract types
available to EPA and contractors in order to
provide needed flexibility in acquiring the large
variety and volume of supplies and services
required by agencies. Contract types vary
according to the degree of responsibility as-
sumed by the contractor for the costs of per-
formance, and the amount and nature of the
profit incentive offered to the contractor for
achieving or exceeding specified standards or
goals. The type of contract selected is heavily
influenced by the amount of uncertainty in
work to be performed and should be selected to
coincide with the amount of detail incorporated
into the design.
The most frequently used type of contract is a
fixed-price contract (lump sum or unit price)
Expediting Remedial Construction
Page 3
-------
which is commonly used for the procurement
of construction services. It is used when the
site is well defined and reasonably definitive
design or performance specifications are
available.
Cost-reimbursement types of contracts provide
for payment of allowable incurred costs. These
contracts are most suitable for use when uncer-
tainties involved in contract performance do
not permit costs to be estimated with sufficient
accuracy to use any type of fixed-price con-
tract.
A time-and-materials contract is similar to a
cost-reimbursement contract. It provides for
acquiring materials at cost and services on the
basis of direct labor hours at a specified rate. It
is used when it is not possible to estimate
accurately the extent or duration of the work
with any reasonable degree of confidence.
PROCUREMENT STRATEGIES
There are three general categories of procure-
ment: sealed bidding, negotiated procurement,
and small purchase.
Sealed bidding is a method of contracting that
employs competitive bids, public opening of
bids, and awards. This is the most common
method of procuring construction services for
the Federal Government. Sealed bidding re-
quires that a detailed set of plans and specifica-
tions be prepared and always results in the
award of a fixed-price contract. This process
requires a minimum of 90 days after comple-
tion of the design (detailed plans and specifica-
tions).
Contracting by negotiation is more flexible
than sealed bidding. The procedure includes
the receipt of proposals from offerers, permits
bargaining, and usually affords offerers an op-
portunity to revise their offers before award of
a contract. Bargaining may apply to price,
schedule, technical requirements, type of
contract, or other terms of the contract. Nego-
tiated procurements may be used for either a
fixed-price or cost-reimbursement (including
time-and-materials) contract. The time re-
quired for negotiating a contract is dependent
upon the extent of bargaining required for the
parties to reach agreement. Typically the time
frame is 90 to 120 days.
For the acquisition of services, supplies, or
construction with a value less than $25,000, the
FAR prescribes a separate set of small pur-
CONTRACT SELECTION MATRIX
FORM OF CONTRACT
Fixed-Price:
Firm-Fixed-Price (Lump Sum)
Unit Price
Cost-Reimbursement:
Cost-Plus-Fee
Time-and-Materials
UNCERT/
LOW
UNTY OF SITE DE
MEDIUM
FINITION
HIGH
The most appropriate form of contract for a remedial action depends upon the amount of
uncertainty in defining the site
Expediting Remedial Construction
Page 4
-------
chase procedures that are greatly simplified
over other procurement methods. This method
of procurement may be applicable to small
discrete elements of a project that require
immediate attention.
PREPLACED AND PRE-OUALIFIED
CONTRACTS
Another method to expedite initiation of reme-
dial construction is to utilize preplaced con-
tracts or pre-qualified contractors. There are
several options currently available for use.
These methods require approximately 30-60
days to initiate construction activities by
eliminating the solicitation and audit require-
ments of site specific contracts, thus, reducing
the time from design completion to construc-
tion initiation. Additionally, lengthy delays
due to bid protests or bonding difficulties are
eliminated.
The US Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE)
has developed methods to expedite the initia-
tion of remedial action at Superfund sites by
implementing two innovative contracting
strategies: Preplaced Remedial Action (PRA)
and Rapid Response (RR) contracts. Both
PRA and RR contracts are cost-reimbursement
type contracts and may be used for projects
when delaying the remedial action for normal
procurement actions results in possible detri-
mental effects on human health or the environ-
ment.
When requesting the USAGE to use PRA or
RR contracts, a brief explanation (a short
paragraph) describing the need for the expe-
dited contract action is required. The explana-
tion should indicate the work is time critical
and needs to commence within the next six
months (this includes design time). In this
case, the entire RD/RA process should be
accelerated.
Preplaced Remedial Action Contracts: PRA
contracts are structured to implement full scale
remedial actions. These contracts can be
utilized with fixed-price delivery orders when
detailed plans and specifications are available
or with cost-reimbursement delivery orders if
the site is less well defined.
Rapid Response Program Contracts: RR
contracts are for demolition actions, closures,
point source contamination control, and site
stabilization. They are limited to $2 million
per delivery order and may be used for projects
where it is necessary to abate, stabilize, miti-
gate, or eliminate hazardous or contaminated
materials or structures. RR contracts normally
do not require detailed plans and specifications;
however, these contracts may be used to imple-
ment small, short term actions for which de-
tailed plans and specifications are available.
Prequalified Offerers Procurement Strat-
egy: The Prequalified Offerers Procurement
Strategy (PQOPS), when completely in-place,
will provide a list of prequalified contractors
which have the capability of performing a
specified technology (i.e. incineration, fixa-
tion). All contractors on the list will have been
technically evaluated and deemed qualified to
perform the specific technology. However,
they are limited to providing the equipment for
a specific technology and may not include all
necessary site support (i.e., site access, excava-
tion, materials handling, site closure) to fully
implement the remedy. Currently, a bidders
list is in place for incineration only.
To utilize PQOPS, a Request for Proposals
(RFP) must be issued to all contractors on the
list. The contractors, in turn, submit proposals
which aVe evaluated and negotiated as any
normal procurement. Detailed plans are not
required, however enough site information and
work description must be available for the
proposers to formulate an offer. The PQOPS
process requires two to three months from
issuance of the RFP to award of the contract.
Expediting Remedial Construction
PageS
-------
FAST-TRACKED VERSUS TRADITIONAL RD/RA
FAST-TRACKED
PHASE RD/RA
FAST-TRACK RD/RA
PARALLEL REVIEWS
I 1 REMEDIAL MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
SITE PREP DESIGN (ACCESS. UTILITIES. FENCING)
DESIGN REVIEW
SET RAPID RESPONSE CONTRACT IN PLACE
SITE PREP CONTRUCTION
SOURCE CONTROL DESIGN
DESIGN REVIEW
SOURCE CONTROL PROCUREMENT
SOURCE CONTROL CONSTRUCTION
TRADITIONAL
lW\\W\\\\VsVI REMEDIAL DESIGN
VZZffl DESIGN REVIEW
PROCUREMENT
REMEDIAL
ACTION
This figure illustrates relative time savings that may be achieved by last-tracking a project. In this example,
site preparatory work is started with a limited design while the design tor the source control action continues.
Assuming all design reviews are conducted in parallel, the fast-track procedures not only shorten the time
necessary to initiate construction, but also accelerate completion of the project.
Expediting Remedial Construction
Page 6
-------
D. ARARs Fact Sheets
-------
United States Office of Publication 9234.3-001
Environmental Protection Solid Waste and
Agency Emergency Response December 1989
&EPA ARARs Short Guidance
Quarterly Report
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response Intermittent Bulletin
Office of Program Management OS-240
i-246 Volume 1 Number 1
The ARARs Short Guidance Quarterly Report provides an annotated description of all published short
guidance on ARARs. Short guidance documents on ARARs include Fact Sheets, Q's & A's, Memoranda
resolving ARARs issues, and the Guide to the CERCLA Compliance with Other Laws Manual. Each Quarterly
Report is comprehensive to date, and each item below is final unless otherwise noted. The ARARs short
guidance documents are designed to supplement, not supplant, the CERCLA Compliance with Other Laws
Manual. This report will expressly note any ARARs short guidance that supercedes information provided in the
CERCLA Compliance with Other Laws Manual. Single copies of all of these short guidance documents may
be obtained by calling or writing the Superfund Docket and Information Center, U.S. EPA, OS-245, 401 M St.
SW, Washington, DC 20460; (202) or FTS 382-6940. Copies of the CERCLA Compliance with Other Laws
Manual (Part I -- EPA/540/G-89/006, Part II - EPA/540/G-89/009) may be obtained from CERI, U.S. EPA, 26 West
Martin Luther King Drive, Cincinnati, OH 45268; (513) 569-7562.
ARARs Q's and A's Publication 9234.2-01/FS
May 1989 4 pages
The ARARs Q's & A's Fact Sheet (first in an expected series of Q's & A's) addresses seven general
ARARs policy questions, such as: (1) the distinction between "applicable" and 'relevant and appropriate"
requirements; (2) whether ARARs that are not required for protectiveness have to be met; and (3) whether
environmental resource laws such as the Endangered Species Act are potential ARARs. The Q's & A's
also discusses three RCRA ARARs issues: (1) RCRA delisting when wastes remain on-site; (2) RCRA
financial responsibility requirements as potential ARARs; and (3) the applicability of minimum technology
requirements for existing hazardous waste pits closed before 1980. Finally, the Q's & A's addresses four
ARARs questions arising from the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act; one question
addresses ground-water antidegradation laws and three focus on MCLs and MCLGs.
Guide tO Manual Publication 9234.2-02/FS
September 1989 2 pages
The Guide to Manual Fact Sheet describes the overall purpose of the CERCLA Compliance with Other
Laws Manual: Parts I and II. It also serves as a table of contents to the manual by describing the
contents of each chapter of both parts of the manual.
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
ARARs SHORT GUIDANCE
QUARTERLY REPORT (cont'd)
RCRA ARARs: Focus on Publication 9234.2-04/FS
Closure Requirements
October 1989 5 pages
The RCRA ARARs Fact Sheet provides an overview of RCRA Subtitle C ARARs and describes when RCRA
requirements are ARARs. The Fact Sheet also focuses on RCRA closure requirements, discussing when
RCRA closure requirements are ARARs, and what the RCRA minimum technology requirements
encompass. The elements and consequences of State authorization under RCRA are also summarized.
Superfund LDR Guide #1, Overview Publication 9347.3-01 /FS
of RCRA LDRs
July 1989 4 Pages
The LDR Overview Fact Sheet defines land disposal, describes the RCRA LDR statutory deadlines, and
summarizes statutory waste categories. Other topics discussed include: types of LDR restrictions, LDR
compliance options, and soil and debris wastes. Finally, it addresses other LDR requirements, including
storage prohibitions, exemptions for treatment in surface impoundments, dilution prohibitions, and LDR
testing, notification, and compliance certification requirements.
Superfund LDR Guide #2, Complying with the Publication 9347.3-oa/FS
California List Restrictions under LDR
July 1989 2 pages
The LDR California List Restrictions Fact Sheet defines California List Wastes, describes the California List
LDR restrictions, and summan'zes the overlap between California List LDR restrictions and other treatment
standards. The Fact Sheet also provides a chart that sets forth prohibition levels and treatment standards
for California List Wastes.
-------
ARARs SHORT GUIDANCE
QUARTERLY REPORT (cont'd)
Superfund LDR Guide #3, Treatment Standards Publication 9347.3-os/FS
and Minimum Technology Requirements under LDR
July 1989 4 pages
The LDR Treatment Standards and Minimum Technology Requirements Fact Sheet describes the three
types of treatment standards (concentration levels, specified technologies, and no land disposal) and
discusses the two types of tests for evaluating compliance with LDR treatment standards (the Total Waste
Analysis and the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure). The Fact Sheet also reviews treatment
standards in effect for RCRA hazardous wastes, and explains minimum technology requirements that apply
during a national capacity extension. Charts illustrate effective dates and LDR restrictions for Solvents
and Dioxins, California List Wastes, and certain First Third Wastes.
Superfund LDR Guide #4, Complying with Hammer Publication 9347.3-04/ps
Restrictions under LDR
July 1989 4 pages
The LDR Hammer Restrictions Fact Sheet discusses soft hammer wastes, restrictions, and requirements
for notifications, certifications, and demonstrations. Other topics include the overlap between California
List Wastes, soft hammer wastes, and hard hammer wastes. The Fact Sheet also highlights soft hammor
notification, certification, and demonstration requirements, hard hammer deadlines, and the process for
identifying soft hammer waste restrictions.
Superfund LDR Guide #5, Determining when LDRs Publication 9347.3-os/FS
are Applicable
July 1989 4 pages
The LDR Applicability Fact Sheet addresses three questions: (1) Does the response constitute placement?
(2) Is the CERCLA substance a RCRA hazardous waste? and (3) Is the RCRA waste restricted under the
LDRs? In addition, the Fact Sheet provides examples of areas of contamination (AOCs), highlights LDR
statutory deadlines, and illustrates the process of determining when LDRs are applicable requirements.
-------
ARARs SHORT GUIDANCE
QUARTERLY REPORT (cont'd)
Superfund LDR Guide #6A, Obtaining a Soil and Publication 9347.3-oe/FS
Debris Treatability Variance for Remedial Actions
July 1989 6 pages
The LDR Soil and Debris Treatability Variance Fact Sheet discusses the basis for a testability variance,
describes how to obtain a treatability variance for soil and debris wastes, and summarizes compliance
with a treatability variance for soil and debris wastes. The Fact Sheet also highlights information to be
included when documenting a soil and debris treatability variance in an RI/FS report for on-site and off-
site CERCLA response actions. Sample language concerning treatability variances is provided for the
Proposed Plan and Record of Decision (ROD). A chart illustrates alternate treatability variance levels and
technologies established by EPA for structural/functional groups. The Fact Sheet also highlights stages
in the RI/FS process when LDRs are evaluated, and the identification of treatment levels for a treatability
variance.
Memorandum of Applicability of LDRs to Publication 9234.1-06
RCRA and CERCLA GW Treatment Reinfection
December 1989 5 pages
This Memorandum establishes that LDR is not applicable to underground disposal of hazardous waste
into Class IV injection wells during CERCLA response actions or RCRA corrective actions. The
Memorandum explains that because LDR is not applicable, BDAT does not have to be met prior to each
reinjection or at the completion of the action in a pump-and-treat reinjection remediation system. The
Memorandum additionally explains why LDRs generally will not be relevant and appropriate requirements
for CERCLA response actions that involve ground-water reinjection.
OverView Of ARARS - FOCUS On Publication 9234.2-03/FS
ARAR Waivers
December 1989 5 pages
The Overview ARARs Fact Sheet defines ARARs and To Be Considered (TBCs). It additionally focuses
on ARARs waivers by describing each waiver and providing waiver examples. Other topics discussed
include: (1) factors for identifying relevant and appropriate requirements; (2) "freezing" ARARs at the ROD;
(3) compliance with ARARs for on-site versus off-site actions; (4) types of ARARs; and (5) ARARs
documentation.
-------
ARARs SHORT GUIDANCE
QUARTERLY REPORT (cont'd)
CERCLA Compliance with State Publication 9234.2-os/FS
Requirements
December 1989 5 pages
The CERCLA Compliance with State Requirements Fact Sheet describes the statutory requirements for
State ARARs and defines such terms as 'promulgated' and 'more stringent.1 The Fact Sheet additionally
discusses policies with respect to the applicability of some typical State environmental or facility siting
laws. It also discusses roles of lead and support agencies with respect to the identification of ARARs,
and procedures to be followed when communicating ARARs.
-------
United States Office of Publication 9234.3-001
Environmental Protection Solid Waste and
Agency Emergency Response December 1989
&EPA ARARs Short Guidance
Quarterly Report
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response Intermittent Bulletin
Office of Program Management OS-240 Volume 1 Number 1
The ARARs Short Guidance Quarterly Report provides an annotated description of all published short
guidance on ARARs. Short guidance documents on ARARs include Fact Sheets, Q's & A's, Memoranda
resolving ARARs issues, and the Guide to the CERCLA Compliance with Other Laws Manual. Each Quarterly
Report is comprehensive to date, and each item below is final unless otherwise noted. The ARARs short
guidance documents are designed to supplement, not supplant, the CERCLA Compliance with Other Laws
Manual. This report will expressly note any ARARs short guidance that supercedes information provided in the
CERCLA Compliance with Other Laws Manual. Single copies of all of these short guidance documents may
be obtained by calling or writing the Superfund Docket and Information Center, U.S. EPA, OS-245, 401 M St.
SW, Washington, DC 20460; (202) or FTS 382-6940. Copies of the CERCLA Compliance with Other Laws
Manual (Part I ~ EPA/540/G-89/006, Part II - EPA/540/G-89/009) may be obtained from CERI, U.S. EPA, 26 West
Martin Luther King Drive, Cincinnati, OH 45268; (513) 569-7562.
ARARs Q's and A's Publication 9234.2-01/FS
May 1989 4 pages
The ARARs Q's & A's Fact Sheet (first in an expected series of Q's & A's) addresses seven general
ARARs policy questions, such as: (1) the distinction between "applicable" and "relevant and appropriate*
requirements; (2) whether ARARs that are not required for protectiveness have to be met; and (3) whether
environmental resource laws such as the Endangered Species Act are potential ARARs. The Q's & A's
also discusses three RCRA ARARs issues: (1) RCRA delisting when wastes remain on-site; (2) RCRA
financial responsibility requirements as potential ARARs; and (3) the applicability of minimum technology
requirements for existing hazardous waste pits closed before 1980. Finally, the Q's & A's addresses four
ARARs questions arising from the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act; one question
addresses ground-water antidegradation laws and three focus on MCLs and MCLGs.
Guide tO Manual Publication 9234.2-02/FS
September 1989 2 pages
The Guide to Manual Fact Sheet describes the overall purpose of the CERCLA Compliance with Other
Laws Manual: Parts I and II. It also serves as a table of contents to the manual by describing the
contents of each chapter of both parts of the manual.
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
ARARs SHORT GUIDANCE
QUARTERLY REPORT (cont'd)
RCRA ARARs: FOCUS On Publication 9234.2-04/FS
Closure Requirements
October 1989 5 pages
The RCRA ARARs Fact Sheet provides an overview of RCRA Subtitle C ARARs and describes when RCRA
requirements are ARARs. The Fact Sheet also focuses on RCRA closure requirements, discussing when
RCRA closure requirements are ARARs, and what the RCRA minimum technology requirements
encompass. The elements and consequences of State authorization under RCRA are also summarized.
Superfund LDR Guide #1, Overview Publication 9347.3-01 /FS
of RCRA LDRs
July 1989 4 pages
The LDR Overview Fact Sheet defines land disposal, describes the RCRA LDR statutory deadlines, and
summarizes statutory waste categories. Other topics discussed include: types of LDR restrictions, LDR
compliance options, and soil and debris wastes. Finally, it addresses other LDR requirements, including
storage prohibitions, exemptions for treatment in surface impoundments, dilution prohibitions, and LDR
testing, notification, and compliance certification requirements.
Superfund LDR Guide #2, Complying with the Publication 9347.3-02/FS
California List Restrictions under LDR
July 1989 2 pages
The LDR California List Restrictions Fact Sheet defines California List Wastes, describes the California List
LDR restrictions, and summarizes the overlap between California List LDR restrictions and other treatment
standards. The Fact Sheet also provides a chart that sets forth prohibition levels and treatment standards
for California List Wastes.
-------
ARARs SHORT GUIDANCE
QUARTERLY REPORT (cont'd)
Superfund LDR Guide #3, Treatment Standards Publication 9347.3-03/ps
and Minimum Technology Requirements under LDR
July 1989 4 pages
The LDR Treatment Standards and Minimum Technology Requirements Fact Sheet describes the three
types of treatment standards (concentration levels, specified technologies, ard no land disposal) and
discusses the two types of tests for evaluating compliance with LDR treatment standards (the Total Waste
Analysis and the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure). The Fact Sheet also reviews treatment
standards in effect for RCRA hazardous wastes, and explains minimum technology requirements that apply
during a national capacity extension. Charts illustrate effective dates and LOR restrictions for Solvents
and Dioxins, California List Wastes, and certain First Third Wastes.
Superfund LDR Guide #4, Complying with Hammer Publication 9347.3-oa/FS
Restrictions under LDR
July 1989
The LDR Hammer Restrictions Fact Sheet discusses soft hammer wastes, restrictions, and requirements
for notifications, certifications, and demonstrations. Other topics include the overlap between California
List Wastes, soft hammer wastes, and hard hammer wastes. The Fact Sheet also highlights soft hamme;r
notification, certification, and demonstration requirements, hard hammer deadlines, and the process for
identifying soft hammer waste restrictions.
Superfund LDR Guide #5, Determining when LDRs Publication 9347.3-os/FS
are Applicable
July 1989 4 pages
The LDR Applicability Fact Sheet addresses three questions: (1) Does the response constitute placement?
(2) Is the CERCLA substance a RCRA hazardous waste? and (3) Is the RCRA waste restricted under the
LDRs? In addition, the Fact Sheet provides examples of areas of contamination (AOCs), highlights LDR
statutory deadlines, and illustrates the process of determining when LDRs are applicable requirements.
-------
ARARs SHORT GUIDANCE
QUARTERLY REPORT (cont'd)
Superfund LDR Guide #6A, Obtaining a Soil and Publication 9347.3-os/FS
Debris Treatability Variance for Remedial Actions
July 1989 6 pages
The LDR Soil and Debris Treatabilrly Variance Fact Sheet discusses the basis for a treatability variance,
describes how to obtain a treatability variance for soil and debris wastes, and summarizes compliance
with a treatability variance for soil and debris wastes. The Fact Sheet also highlights information to be
included when documenting a soil and debris treatability variance in an RI/FS report for on-site and off-
site CERCLA response actions. Sample language concerning treatability variances is provided for the
Proposed Plan and Record of Decision (ROD). A chart illustrates alternate treatability variance levels and
technologies established by EPA for structural/functional groups. The Fact Sheet also highlights stages
in the RI/FS process when LDRs are evaluated, and the identification of treatment levels for a treatability
variance.
Memorandum of Applicability of LDRs to Publication 9234.1-06
RCRA and CERCLA GW Treatment Reinfection
December 1989 5 pages
This Memorandum establishes that LDR is not applicable to underground disposal of hazardous waste
into Class IV injection wells during CERCLA response actions or RCRA corrective actions. The
Memorandum explains that because LDR is not applicable, BDAT does not have to be met prior to each
reinjection or at the completion of the action in a pump-and-treat reinjection remediation system. The
Memorandum additionally explains why LDRs generally will not be relevant and appropriate requirements
for CERCLA response actions that involve ground-water reinjection.
Overview of ARARs - Focus on Publication 9234.2-03/ps
ARAR Waivers
December 1989 5 pages
The Overview ARARs Fact Sheet defines ARARs and To Be Considered (TBCs). It additionally focuses
on ARARs waivers by describing each waiver and providing waiver examples. Other topics discussed
include: (1) factors for identifying relevant and appropriate requirements; (2) 'freezing1 ARARs at the ROD;
(3) compliance with ARARs for on-site versus off-site actions; (4) types of ARARs; and (5) ARARs
documentation.
-------
ARARs SHORT GUIDANCE
QUARTERLY REPORT (cont'd)
CERCLA Compliance with State Publication 9234.2-os/FS
Requirements
December 1989 5 pages
The CERCLA Compliance with State Requirements Fact Sheet describes the statutory requirements for
State ARARs and defines such terms as "promulgated" and "more stringent." The Fact Sheet additionally
discusses policies with respect to the applicability of some typical State environmental or facility siting
laws. It also discusses roles of lead and support agencies with respect to the identification of ARARs,
and procedures to be followed when communicating ARARs.
-------
xvEPA
United State*
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
Directive 9234.2-02FS
September 1989
CERCLA Compliance with Other Laws Manual
GUIDE TO MANUAL
The 1986 Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) adopts and expands a provision in the 1985
National Contingency Plan (NCP) that remedial actions must at least attain applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements (ARARs). Section 121 (d) of CERCLA, as amended by SARA, requires attainment of Federal ARARs
and of State ARARs in State environmental or facility siting laws when the State requirements are promulgated, more
stringent than Federal laws, and identified by the State in a timely manner. Under EPA regulation and policy, removal
actions must comply with ARARs to the extent practicable.
To implement the ARARs provision, EPA has developed guidance, CERCLA Compliance with Other Laws Manual:
Parts I and II (OSWER Directives 9234.1-01 and 9234.1-02, respectively). EPA is preparing a series of short fact sheets
that summarize the guidance document (OSWER Directives 9234.2 series). This Fact Sheet provides a guide to the
compliance manual. The compliance manual is based on policies set forth in the proposed December 21,1988 revisions
to the NCP. The final NCP may adopt policies different from those covered here and should, when promulgated, be
considered the authoritative source.
I. PURPOSE OF MANUAL
The CERCLA Compliance with Other Laws
Manual is intended to assist in the identification and
evaluation of ARARs for removal and remedial actions.
The manual provides guidance to Remedial Project
Managers, On-Scene Coordinators, State personnel, and
others responsible for or assisting in response actions
under sections 104, 106, and 122 of CERCLA The
manual is also intended to assist in the selection of on-
site remedial actions that meet the ARARs of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the
Clean Water Act (CWA), the Safe Drinking Water Act
(SDWA), the Clean Air Act (CAA), the Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA), the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), and other
Federal and State environmental laws, as required by
CERCLA section 121. In general, different ARARs for
a site and its remedial action will be identified at
various points in the remedy selection process.
II. DEFINITIONS OF ARARS
A requirement under other environmental laws
may be either "applicable" or "relevant and appropriate,"
but not both. Identification of ARARs must be done
on a site-specific basis and involves a two-part analysis:
"rst, a determination of whether a given requirement is
pplicable; then, if it is not applicable, a determination
of whether it is nevertheless both relevant and
appropriate.
DEFINITIONS:
• Applicable requirements are those cleanup
standards, standards of control, and other
substantive environmental protection
requirements, criteria, or limitations
promulgated under Federal or State law that
specifically address a hazardous substance,
pollutant, contaminant, remedial action,
location, or other circumstance at a CERCLA
site.
• Relevant and appropriate requirements are
those same standards mentioned above that
while not "applicable" at the CERCLA site,
address problems or situations sufficiently
similar to those encountered at the site that
their use is well suited to the particular site.
On-site actions are required to comply with ARARs,
but must comply only with the substantive parts of an
applicable or relevant and appropriate requirement.
Off-site actions must comply only with legally applicable
requirements, but must comply fully with both
substantive and administrative requirements.
Fruited on Recycled Paper
-------
HI. CONTENTS OF MANUAL
Pan I describes general procedures for identifying
ARARs and complying with ARARs in RCRA, CWA,
SDWA and ground-water policies. Part I is organized
as follows:
• Chapter 1, General Procedures for CERCLA
Compliance with Other Statutes - defines the
terms "applicable" and "relevant and appropriate,"
describes general procedures for identifying and
analyzing requirements, identifies waivers from
ARARs, and provides matrices listing types of
potential ARARs from RCRA, CWA, and SDWA.
• Chapter 2, Guidance for CERCLA Compliance
with RCRA - discusses RCRA hazardous waste
requirements and policies for determining when
RCRA requirements are ARARs for CERCLA
actions, including what actions at a CERCLA site
constitute "disposal," as defined by RCRA.
• Chapter 3, Guidance for Compliance with Clean
Water Act Requirements - provides guidance for
compliance with CWA substantive requirements
for direct discharges, indirect discharges, and
dredge-and-fill activities.
• Chapter 4, Guidance for Compliance with
Requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act -
provides guidance for compliance with SDWA
requirements that may be ARARs, including
drinking water standards and the requirements for
underground injection control, sole-source
aquifers, and the wellhead protection program.
• Chapter 5, Ground Water Protection Policies -
discusses ground-water classification, provides
guidance on consistency with policies for ground-
water protection, and includes a hypothetical
scenario for illustrating how ARARs are identified
and used.
• Appendix A provides an overview of the major
environmental statutes and regulations covered in
Part I.
Part II of the manual describes general procedures for
complying with ARARs in CAA TSCA FIFRA, other
resource protection statutes, mining waste statutes, and
State ARARS. Part II is organized as follows:
• Chapter I, Introduction and Overview - provides
an introduction and overview of Part II of the
guidance manual and includes matrices of
potential ARARs covered in Part II.
• Chapter 2, Clean Air Act Requirements ana
Related RCRA and State Requirements - provides
guidance for compliance with CAA requirements
(including the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards, the National Emissions Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants, and the New Source
Performance Standards) and related RCRA and
State requirements for air emissions.
• Chapter 3, Standards for Toxics and Pesticides -
provides guidance for compliance with statutes
(i.e., TSCA and FIFRA) that address tone
substances (particularly PCBs) and pesticides.
• Chapter 4, Other Resource Protection Statutes -
provides guidance for compliance with other
resource protection statutes, including the
National Historic Preservation Act, the
Archeological and Historic Preservation Act, the
Endangered Species Act, the Wild and Scenic
Rivers Act, the Fish and Wildlife Coordination
Act, the Coastal Zone Management Act, and the
Wilderness Act.
• Chapter 5, Standards, Advisories, and Guidaw
for the Management of Radioactive Waste
discusses potential ARARs and potentially useful
guidance for cleaning up radioactively
contaminated sites and buildings. Major acts
discussed include the Uranium Mill Tailings
Radiation Control Act, the Atomic Energy Act,
the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, CAA, and CWA
• Chapter 6, Potential ARARs For CERCLA
Actions at Mining, Milling, or Smelting Sites -
provides guidance for compliance with statutes
incorporating standards for mining, milling, or
smelting sites, including the Surface Mining
Control and Reclamation Act and RCRA
• Chapter 7, CERCLA Compliance with State
Requirements discusses eligibility requirements for
State programs, specific types of State laws (e.g.,
siting requirements), and procedures for
communicating Stale ARARs.
• Appendix A provides guidance for compliance with
CAA Part C requirements under the Prevention
of Significant Deterioration program.
• Appendix B describes Federal/State relationshir
under major Federal environmental statute
including whether the statute allows for State
authorization of the program and whether the
State provisions are identical or more stringent
than the Federal requirements.
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
Publication 9234.2-03/FS
December 1989
&EPA
CERCLA Compliance With Other Laws Manual
Overview of ARARs
Focus on ARAR Waivers
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
Office of Program Management OS-240
Quick Reference Fact Sheet
The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) adopts and expands a provision in the 1985
National Contingency Plan (NCP) that remedial actions must at least attain applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements (ARARs). Section 121(d) of CERCLA, as amended by SARA, requires attainment of Federal ARARs and
of State ARARs in State environmental or facility siting laws when such requirements are promulgated, are more
stringent than Federal laws, and are identified by the State in a timely manner.
To implement the ARARs provision, EPA has developed guidance, CERCLA Compliance With Other Laws Manual:
Parts I and II (OSWER Directives 9234.1-01 and 9234.1-02). EPA is preparing a series of short fact sheets that
summarize these guidance documents. This fact sheet summarizes Chapter 1 of Part I, which provides an overview of
ARARs. The material covered here is based on policies in the proposed revisions to the NCP. The final NCP may
adopt policies different from those covered here and should, when promulgated, be considered the authoritative source.
I. OVERVIEW OF ARARS
A. Statutory Provisions
CERCLA section 121(d)(2) states that for wastes left
on-site, remedial actions must comply with Federal and
State environmental laws that are legally applicable or are
relevant and appropriate under the circumstances of the
release. This section, in effect, codified and expanded on
the 1985 NCP, which required compliance with Federal
applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements
(ARARs), a provision adopted to make use of other
programs' or agencies' standards.
In addition, CERCLA requires Superfund remedial
actions to comply with State environmental or facility
siting laws provided that the State requirements: (1) are
promulgated; (2) are more stringent than Federal laws;
and (3) are identified by the State in a timely manner.
CERCLA section 121(d) also mentions two criteria
specifically - Maximum Contaminant Level Goals
(MCLGs) developed under the Safe Drinking Water Act
(SDWA), and Water Quality Criteria (WQC) developed
under the Clean Water Act (CWA) -- and requires that
they be attained when they are relevant and appropriate
(compliance with these criteria is discussed in a separate
fact sheet). CERCLA also specifies six circumstances in
which ARARs can be waived. The ARAR waivers are
discussed in Part II of this fact sheet.
B. Compliance with ARARs for Removal Actions
Although CERCLA requires compliance with
ARARs for remedial actions only, the current NCP
requires that removal actions also comply with Federal
ARARs, to the extent practicable. Furthermore, EPA
policy under the proposed NCP requires that removal
actions comply with both State and Federal ARARs to
the extent practicable. Until this policy is promulgated
by regulation, however, compliance with State ARARs
during removal actions must be justified based upon
protectiveness.
Factors used in determining whether removal
compliance with ARARs is practicable include: (1) the
urgency of the situation; and (2) the scope of the
removal action to be conducted, which includes
consideration of the statutory limits for removal actions.
An example of a situation where compliance with
ARARs is not practicable for a removal action would be
a site where emergency conditions call for a rapid
response, thereby preventing the on-scene coordinator
from identifying and attaining ARARs. An ARAR that
is beyond the scope of a removal to remediate top-level
soil contamination due to leaking drums might be one
that applies to lower-level soil remediation. Of course,
such a standard may still be an ARAR for any remedial
action that is subsequently taken at the site.
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
C. Definitions of ARARs and TBCs
In the proposed revisions to the NCP (53 FR 51394),
EPA clarified the definitions of "applicable" and "relevant
and appropriate"-requirements (see Highlight 1).
Highlight 1: DEFINITION OF
"APPLICABLE" AND "RELEVANT AND
APPROPRIATE' REQUIREMENTS
Applicable requirements are defined as "cleanup
standards, standards of control, and other
substantive environmental protection requirements,
criteria, or limitations promulgated under Federal or
State law that specifically address a hazardous
substance, pollutant, contaminant, remedial action,
location, or other circumstance at a CERCLA site."
Relevant and appropriate requirements are defined
as "substantive environmental protection
requirements ... promulgated under Federal or State
law that, while not "applicable",... address problems
or situations sufficiently similar to those
encountered at the CERCLA site that their use is
well suited to the particular site,"
1. Applicable Requirements
An applicable requirement directly and fully addresses
the situation at the site. In other words, an applicable
requirement is a substantive requirement that a private
party would be subject to if it were undertaking the action
independently from any CERCLA authority. For a
requirement to be applicable, all jurisdictional
prerequisites of the requirement must be met, including:
(1) the party subject to the law; (2) the substances or
activities that fall under the authority of the law; (3) the
time period during which the law is in effect; and (4) the
types of activities the statute or regulation requires, limits,
or prohibits.
2. Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
While a determination of applicability is primarily a
legal one, a determination of whether a requirement is
relevant and appropriate is site-specific and is based on
best professional judgment, taking into account the
circumstances of the release or threatened release. This
determination should be made in conjunction with
pertinent national policies.
There is more flexibility and discretion in making
relevant and appropriate determinations than in
determining the applicability of a requirement. Only
those requirements that are both relevant and appropriate
are ARARs. A requirement may be relevant, but not
appropriate, because of the site circumstances. Such a
requirement would not be an ARAR for the site.
Moreover, it is possible for only a portion of a
requirement to be considered relevant and appropriate,
while other parts may not. However, once a requirement
(or part of a requirement) is found to be relevant and
appropriate, it must be complied with to the same degree
as if it were applicable.
In determining whether a requirement is both
relevant and appropriate to the circumstances of the
release, the following comparisons should be made:
• The purpose of the requirement and the purpose of
the CERCLA action;
• The medium regulated or affected by the
requirement and the medium contaminated or
affected at the CERCLA site;
• The substances regulated by the requirement and
the substances found at the CERCLA site;
• The actions or activities regulated by the
requirement and the remedial action contemplated
at the CERCLA site;
• Any variances, waivers, or exemptions of the
requirement and their availability for use given the
circumstances at the CERCLA site;
• The type of place regulated and the type of place
affected by the CERCLA site or CERCLA action;
• The type and size of the structure or facility
regulated and the type and size of the structure or
facility affected by the release or contemplated by
the CERCLA action; and
• Any consideration of the use or potential use of
affected resources in the requirement and the use
or potential use of the affected resource at the
CERCLA site.
A similarity to any one factor is not necessarily sufficient
to determine that a requirement is relevant and
appropriate. Nor does a requirement have to be similar
to the site situation with respect to each factor in order
for it to be relevant and appropriate.
3. TBCs
By definition, ARARs are promulgated, or legally
enforceable Federal and State requirements. (Because
CERCLA identifies them as potentially relevant and
appropriate, MCLGs and WQC are considered potential
ARARs, even though they are not otherwise enforceable
standards.) EPA has also developed another category of
requirements, known as "to be considered" (TBCs), that
includes nonpromulgated criteria, advisories, guidance,
-------
and proposed standards issued by Federal or State
governments. TBCs are not potential ARARs because
they are neither promulgated nor enforceable. It may be
necessary to consult TBCs to interpret ARARs, or to
determine preliminary remediation goals when ARARs
do not exist for particular contaminants. However,
identification and compliance with TBCs is not mandatory
in the same way that it is for ARARs.
D. Types of ARARs
EPA has divided ARARs into three categories to
facilitate their identification:
• Chemical-specific ARARs are usually health- or risk-
based numerical values or methodologies used to
determine acceptable concentrations of chemicals
that may be found in or discharged to the
environment, e.g., MCLs that establish safe levels in
drinking water.
• Location-specific ARARs restrict actions or
contaminant concentrations in certain environmentally
sensitive areas. Examples of areas regulated under
various Federal laws include floodplains, wetlands,
and locations where endangered species or historically
significant cultural resources are present.
• Action-specific ARARs are usually technology- or
activity-based requirements or limitations on actions
or conditions involving specific substances.
Chemical- and location-specific ARARs are identified
early in the process, generally during the site investigation,
while action-specific ARARs are usually identified during
the Feasibility Study (FS) in the detailed analysis of
alternatives.
E. Compliance with ARARs for On-site and Off-site
Actions
The ARARs provision in CERCLA addresses only
on-site actions (see Highlight 2 for definition of on-site).
In addition, section 121(e) exempts on-site actions from
having to obtain Federal, State, and local permits.
Consequently, the requirements under CERCLA for
compliance with other laws differ for on-site and off-site
actions, as follows:
• On-site actions must comply with applicable and
relevant and appropriate requirements, but need
comply only with the substantive parts of those
requirements.
• Off-site actions must comply only with requirements
that are legally applicable, but must comply with
both substantive and administrative parts of those
requirements.
(See Highlight 3 for definitions of "substantive" and
"administrative".) Compliance with "relevant and appro-
priate" requirements is not required for off-site actions.
Highlight 2: DEFINITION OF "ON-SITE"
"On-site" is defined in the proposed revisions
to the NCP as the "areal extent of contamination
and all suitable areas in very close proximity to the
contamination necessary for implementation of the
response action." See S3 FR S1477 (December 21,
1988). "Areal extent of contamination" refers to
both surface area, ground water beneath the site,
and air above the site. Examples of on-site
contamination and treatment units or staging areas
separate from (but in "very close proximity to") the
contamination include:
• A disposal site for treated wastes in a new
landfill outside, but in close proximity to, a
contaminated wetland;
• A point-source discharge into a river running
through a site. The discharge point would be
considered on-site, even if the discharge effluent
ultimately runs off-site. The action would have
to meet discharge limitations and monitoring
requirements, but would not require an NPDES
permit; and
• A pump-and-treat system located in the
contamination plume several miles downgradient
of the source. The ground-water treatment
system is considered on-site.
Highlight 3: DEFINITIONS OF SUBSTANTIVE
AND ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS
• Substantive requirements are those
requirements that pertain directly to actions or
conditions in the environment. Examples
include quantitative health or risk-based
standards for certain hazardous substances (e.g.,
MCLs for drinking water), and technology-
based standards (e.g., RCRA minimum
technology requirements for double liners and
leachate collection systems).
• Administrative requirements are those
mechanisms that facilitate the implementation
of the substantive requirements of a statute or
regulation (e.g., requirements related to the
approval of or consultation with administrative
bodies, documentation, permit issuances,
reporting, recordkeeping, and enforcement).
-------
F. ARARs Documentation
ARARs considered for each alternative in the
detailed analysis of alternatives should be documented in
detail in the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
(RI/FS). The Proposed Plan and the ROD should
summarize how the components of an alternative will
comply with major ARARs, and should describe why the
requirement is applicable or relevant and appropriate.
The ROD should document ARARs as follows: (1)
major ARARs should be discussed in the Description of
Alternatives; (2) ARAR compliance should be summarized
in the Summary of the Comparative Analysis; and (3) all
ARARs selected for the remedy should be listed and
briefly described in the Statutory Determinations section.
When an alternative is chosen that does not attain an
ARAR, the basis for waiving the requirement must be
fully documented and explained. TBCs referred to in the
ROD should be listed and described briefly, as well as
the reasons for their use. Generally, there is no need to
document why a requirement is not an ARAR, although
documentation should be provided for both ARARs and
TBCs when the determination has been difficult or
controversial. (See Guidance on Preparing Superfund
Documents. [ROD Guidance] EPA-540/G-89/007, July
1989, and Guidance for Conducting RI/FSs Under
CERCLA EPA 540/G-89/004, October 1988, for further
information.)
G. Policy on Newly Promulgated Requirements
"Freezing1 ARARs at the ROD
If a requirement that would be applicable or
relevant and appropriate to the remedial action is
promulgated after the Record of Decision (ROD) is
signed and the ARARs for the selected remedy have
already been established, the remedy will be evaluated in
light of the new requirement to ensure that the remedy
is still protective.
To the extent that the remedy remains protective in
light of any new information reflected in the requirement,
the original ARARs remain "frozen" at the ROD and
nothing more needs to be done. However, if it is
determined that the new requirement must be met in
order for the remedy to be protective, the remedy must
be modified to attain the requirement through an
Explanation of Significant Differences (BSD) or ROD
amendment. For example, a new requirement for a
chemical at a site may indicate, through new scientific
information on which it was based, that the cleanup level
selected for the chemical corresponds to a cancer risk of
Iff2 rather than Iff5, as originally thought The original
remedy would have to be reevaluated in terms of the new
requirement because it may no longer be protective.
O. FOCUS ON ARAR WAIVERS
CERCLA section 121(d) provides that, under certain
circumstances, an ARAR may be waived. The six
statutory waivers are provided in Highlight Box 4 and are
discussed more fully below. These waivers may not be
used for off-site actions.
Highlight* STATUTORY ARAR WAIVERS
The six ARAR waivers provided by CERCLA are:
1. Interim Measures Waiver,
2. Equivalent Standard of Performance Waiver;
3. Greater Risk to Health and the Environment
Waiver;
4. Technical Impracticability Waiver;
5. Inconsistent Application of State Standard
Waiver; and
6. Fund-Balancing Waiver.
The Interim Measure waiver may be used when an
interim measure that does not attain all ARARs is
expected to be followed by a complete measure that will
attain all ARARs (see Highlight Box 5 for an example).
The interim measure should not cause additional
migration of contaminants, complicate the site response,
or present an immediate threat to public health or the
environment, and must not interfere with or delay the
Higoligbt 5: EXAMPLE OF INTERIM
MEASURES WAIVER
At a mining she, interim measures were used to
address drainage of contaminated water from a
mine. The action involved passive treatment of
mine tunnel discharges through construction of an
artificial wetland, which would reduce
contamination from the mine tunnel to the level of
contamination present upstream. Since the
discharge exceeded State ambient water quality
standards for fee stream, the standards were waived
until the final remedy was implemented, which
would address in-stream contamination.
-------
final remedy. It should be noted, however, that if a
requirement relates to some portion of the long-range
site cleanup that is outside the scope of the immediate
remedial action, it is not an ARAR for this action and
a waiver is unnecessary.
The Equivalent Standard of Performance waiver may
be used in situations where an ARAR stipulates use of a
particular design or operating standard, but equivalent or
better remedial results could be achieved using an
alternative design or method of operation. In invoking
this waiver, the alternative should be equal to or greater
than the ARAR in terms of: (1) the degree of protection
afforded; (2) the level of performance achieved; and (3)
the potential to be protective in the future. The time
required to achieve beneficial results using the alternative
should be considered; however, the duration of the
alternative should be balanced against other beneficial
factors that may ensue from using the alternative. A
technology-based requirement must be evaluated from a
technology performance perspective, not from a risk
perspective.
The Greater Risk to Health and the Environment
waiver is available for situations where compliance with an
ARAR will cause greater risk to human health and the
environment than noncompliance. The more significant
the risks, the longer they are in duration, and the more
irreversible the harm from compliance with an ARAR, the
more appropriate the use of this waiver (see Highlight 6
for an example).
Highlight 6: EXAMPLE OF GREATER RISK
TO HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT WAIVER
A pump-and-treat system may be selected to
remove ground water contamination from landfill
releases. Analysis found that natural flushing
through the landfill, after excavation of the highly
contaminated waste, would facilitate cleanup of the
ground water and remove residual contamination
from the landfill The waiver for greater risk was
used to waive the applicable RCRA closure
requirement for an impermeable cap, because such a
cap would prevent natural flushing and would
significantly delay and reduce the effectiveness of
the ground water cleanup, and therefore the
remedial action's effectiveness in reducing risk.
The Technical Impracticability waiver may be used
when compliance with an ARAR is technically impract-
icable from an engineering perspective. The waiver can
be used if either of two criteria are met: (1) engineering
feasibility, in which current engineering methods necessary
to construct and maintain an alternative that will meet the
ARAR cannot reasonably be implemented; and (2) reli-
ability, in which the potential for the alternative to
continue to be protective into the future is low, either
because the continued reliability of technical and
institutional controls is doubtful, or because of inordinate
maintenance costs. Use of the waiver may consider cost,
although cost should not be the major factor (see
Highlight 7 for an example).
Highlight 7: EXAMPLE OF TECHNICAL
IMPRACTICABILITY WAIVER
Ground water located in bedrock fractures and
deep bedrock contained highly contaminated
pockets .of liquid waste along the fractures. MCLs
were waived because their attainment was
technically impracticable for several reasons,
including: (1) difficulty in predicting the extent
and location of fractures; (2) the inability to locate
and extract all pockets of liquid waste; (3) excessive
time frames for cleanup; and (4) the irregular
nature of the fractures that made effective
placement of extraction wells difficult.
The Inconsistent Application of State Standard
waiver may be invoked when evidence exists that demon-
strates that a State standard has not been or will not be
consistently applied to other remedial sites within the
State, including both NPL and non-NPL sites. A waiver
may be used, for example, for a Slate standard that was-
promulgated but never applied, or for a standard that has
been variably applied or enforced. A State standard is
presumed to have been consistently applied unless there
is evidence to the contrary.
The Fund-Balancing waiver may be invoked when
meeting an ARAR would entail such cost in relation to
the added degree of protection or reduction of risk
afforded by that standard that remedial actions at other
sites would be jeopardized. This waiver should be
considered when the cost of attaining an ARAR is 20%
of the annual remedial action budget or $100 million,
whichever is greater (see Highlight 8 for an example).
Highlights: EXAMPLE OF FUND-
BALANCING WAIVER
The Fund-balancing waiver was invoked to'
waive compliance with State water quality standards
because attaining these standards would have
required removal and off-site disposal of more than
4 million cubic yards of contaminated ore, tailings,
and bottom sediments in the streams and reservoir,
at an estimated cost of $1.4 billion. At the time of
ROD signature, the Fund had been nearly depleted,
with remaining monies reserved for ongoing
projects. The waiver allowed selection of a
protective alternative of partial capping and surface
water diversion, costing $72.2 million.
-------
xvEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
Directive 9234.2-04FS
October 1989
CERCLA Compliance with Other Laws Manual
RCRA ARARs:
Focus on Closure Requirements
The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) adopts and expands a provision in the
1985 National Contingency Plan (NCP) that remedial actions must at least attain applicable or relevant and
appropriate requirements (ARARs). Section 121(d) of CERCLA, as amended by SARA, requires attainment of
Federal ARARs and of State ARARs in State environmental or facility siting laws when the State requirements
are promulgated, more stringent than Federal laws, and identified by the State in a timely manner.
To implement the ARARs provision, EPA has developed guidance. CERCLA Compliance with Other Laws
Manual: Parts I and II (OSWER Directives 9234.1-01 and 9234.1-02, respectively). EPA is preparing a series of
short Fact Sheets (OSWER Directive 9234.2 series) that summarize the guidance documents. This particular Fact
Sheet addresses compliance with Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), as amended
by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA), with a focus on the RCRA Subtitle C closure
requirements. This Fact Sheet is based on policies in the proposed December 21,1988 revisions to the NCP. The
final NCP may adopt policies different from those covered here and, when promulgated, should be considered the
authoritative source.
I. AN OVERVIEW OF RCRA SUBTITLE C ARARS
The provisions of Subtitle C of RCRA mandate
"cradle-to-grave" management of hazardous waste, and
regulate three types of hazardous waste handlers: (1)
generators; (2) transporters; and (3) owners and
operators of treatment, storage, or disposal facilities
(TSDFs). Although there are RCRA requirements for
generators and transporters of hazardous waste, the
most extensive RCRA requirements are those for the
design, operation, and closure of hazardous waste
TSDFs (40 CFR Part 264). Highlight 1 shows the
types of hazardous waste management units regulated
under Subtitle C.
RCRA Subtitle C requirements for TSDFs will
frequently be ARARs for CERCLA actions^ because
RCRA regulates the same or similar wastes as those
found at many CERCLA sites, covers many of the
same activities, and addresses releases and threatened
releases similar to those found at CERCLA sites.
When RCRA requirements are ARARs, only the
substantive requirements of RCRA must be met if a
CERCLA action is to be conducted on site. On-site
actions do not require RCRA permits, nor is
compliance with administrative requirements necessary
for on-site actions. CERCLA actions to be conducted
off site, however, must comply with both substantive
and administrative RCRA requirements (see Highlight
2 on the next page).
Highlight 1: KEY SECTIONS OF RCRA
SUBTITLED
Solid Wutc
Regulation.
SUBTITLE C
HuarfouJ Waste
SUBTITLE i
UndMirouml Stonf*
Tank Regulations
Part 264 - Treatment, Storage,
and Disposal Facility Requirements '
SubpartF -
SubpartG-
Subpartl -
SubpartJ -
SubpartK-
SubpartL -
SubpartM-
SubpartN-
Subpart O -
SubpaitX -
Ground-water Protection
Closure and Post-Closure
Containers
Tanks
Surface Impoundments
Waste Piles
Land Treatment
Landfills
Incinerators
Miscellaneous Units
Part 268 - Land Disposal Restrictions
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
Highlight 2: SUBSTANTIVE AND
ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS
Substantive Requirements are those
requirements that pertain directly to actions
or conditions in the environment. Examples
include performance standards for
incinerators (40 CFR 264.343), treatment
standards for land disposal of restricted waste
(40 CFR 268), and concentration limits, such
as MCLs.
Administrative Requirements are those
mechanisms that facilitate the implementation
of the substantive requirements of a statute
or regulation. Examples include the
requirements for preparing a contingency
plan, submitting a petition to delist a listed
hazardous waste, recordkeeping, and
consultations.
A. WHEN RCRA IS APPLICABLE
RCRA Subtitle C requirements for the treatment,
storage, and disposal of hazardous waste are applicable
for a Superfund remedial action if the following
conditions are met:
• The waste is a RCRA hazardous waste, and either:
• The waste was initially treated, stored, or disposed
of after the effective date of the particular RCRA
requirement, or
• The activity at the CERCLA site constitutes
treatment, storage, or disposal, as defined by
RCRA.
1. When a CERCLA Waste is a RCRA Hazardous
Waste
In order for RCRA requirements to be applicable,
a Superfund waste must be determined to be a listed
or characteristic hazardous waste under RCRA (see
Highlights 3a and 3b for the definition of RCRA
hazardous waste). A waste that is hazardous because
it once exhibited a characteristic (or media containing
a characteristic waste) will not be subject to Subtitle
C regulation if it no longer exhibits the characteristic.
A listed waste may be delisted if it can be shown that
the specific waste is not hazardous based on the
standards in 40 CFR 264.22. If such a waste will be
shipped off site, it must be delisted through a
rulemaking process. However, to delist a RCRA
hazardous waste that will remain on site at a
Superfund site, only'the substantive requirements for
delisting must be met (see "ARARs Q's and A's,"
OSWER Directive 9234.2-01FS, May 1989).
Highlight 3a: CHARACTERISTIC RCRA
HAZARDOUS WASTES
(Subpart C of 40 CFR Part 261)
• Ignitability - i.e., a waste with a flash point
lower than 140 F;
• Corrosivity - i.e., a waste with a pH less
than or equal to 2.0 or greater than or equal
to 12,5, or capable of corroding steel at a
rate of more than 0.25 inches per year;
• Reactivity - i.e., a waste that is explosive,
reacts violently with water, or generates toxic
gases when exposed to water or liquids that
are moderately acidic or alkaline; and
• Extraction Procedure (EP) Toxicity* - i.e.,
a waste for which the EP test extract
contains a concentration of a specified
contaminant above its regulatory threshold.
*A final rulemaking is underway that will replace the EP test
with the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP).
Promulgation is expected in 1990.
Highlight 3b: LISTED RCRA
HAZARDOUS WASTES
(Subpart D of 40 CFR Part 261)
• F Waste Codes (Part 261.31) - wastes from
non-specific sources (e.g., F001 - F005 spent
solvents);
• K Waste Codes (Part 261.32) - wastes from
specific sources (e.g., K001 wastewater
treatment sludge from wood preserving
processes);
• P Waste Codes (Part 261.33(e)) - acutely
hazardous commercial chemical products;* and
• U Waste Codes (Part 261.34(f)) - toxic
commercial chemical products.*
In addition, any solid waste derived from the treatment,
storage, or disposal of a listed waste, and any mixture of solid
waste and listed waste is a RCRA hazardous waste
(regardless of the concentration of hazardous constituents or
the percentage of listed wastes in such a mixture).
'NOTE: The word "product" refers to a commercially pure or
technical grade of the chemical. A material does not qualify as a
product simply because it is a process waste.
-2-
-------
Any environmental media (i.e., soil or ground
water) contaminated with a listed waste is not a
hazardous waste, but must be managed as such until
it no longer contains the listed waste, generally when
constituents from the listed waste are at health-based
levels. Delisting is not required.
To determine whether a waste is a listed waste
under RCRA, it is often necessary to know the source
of that waste. For any Superrund site, if an
affirmative determination cannot be made that the
contamination is a RCRA hazardous waste, RCRA
requirements will not be applicable. A determination
of whether a waste is a characteristic waste can be
based on testing the waste. Alternatively, best
professional judgment (based on knowledge of the
waste and its constituents) can be used to determine
whether testing is necessary.
2. When the Date of Initial Disposal Triggers
RCRA Applicability
A RCRA requirement will be applicable if the
hazardous waste was treated, stored, or disposed of
after the effective date of the particular requirement.
The RCRA Subtitle C regulations that established the
hazardous waste management system first became
effective on November 19, 1980. RCRA regulations
will not be applicable to wastes disposed of before
that date, unless the CERCLA action itself constitutes
treatment, storage, or disposal (see below). Additional
standards have been issued since 1980; therefore,
applicable requirements may vary somewhat, depending
on the specific date on which the waste was disposed.
3. When Superfund Activities Trigger RCRA
Applicability
RCRA requirements for hazardous wastes will
also be applicable if the response activity at the
Superfund site constitutes treatment, storage, or
disposal, as defined under RCRA. Disposal of
hazardous waste, in particular, triggers a number of
significant requirements, including closure
requirements (see Part II of this Fact Sheet) and land
disposal restrictions, which require treatment of wastes
prior to land disposal. (See Guides on Superfund
Compliance with Land Disposal Restrictions, OSWER
Directives 9347.3-01FS through 9237.3-06FS, for a
detailed description of these requirements.)
Because remedial actions frequently involve
grading, excavating, dredging, or other measures that
disturb contaminated material, activities at Superfund
sites may constitute disposal, or placement, of
hazardous waste (see Highlight 4).
Highlight* ACTIONS
CONSTITUTING DISPOSAL
DISPOSAL OCCURS WHEN:
AOC/Untt Different AOC/Unlt
Wastes from different AOCs are consolidated into
one unit.
TREATMENT
RESIDUALS
AOC/Untt
Dtfftrwit AOC/Unlt
Wastes are removed from the AOC, treated in a
separate unit (even if physically within the same AOC),
and redeposited into the same or another AOC.
DISPOSAL DOES NOT OCCUR WHEN:
CONSOLIDATE
!•* AOC/Unrt—»1
I I
Wastes are consolidated within the same AOC or unit.
AOC/UnM
Trait In-SItu
Wastes are treated in situ.
CAP
AOC/Unlt
Wastes are capped or left in place.
-3-
-------
EPA has determined that disposal occurs when
wastes are placed in a land-based unit. However,
movement within a unit does not constitute disposal
or placement, and, at CERCLA sites, an area of
contamination (AOC) can be considered to be
comparable to a unit. Therefore, movement within an
AOC does not constitute placement.
B. WHEN RCRA IS RELEVANT AND
APPROPRIATE
RCRA requirements that are not applicable may,
nonetheless, be relevant and appropriate, based on
site-specific circumstances. For example, if the source
or prior use of a CERCLA waste is not identifiable,
but the waste is similar in composition to a known,
listed RCRA waste, the RCRA requirements may be
potentially relevant and appropriate, depending on
other circumstances at the site.
However, the similarity of the waste at the
CERCLA site to RCRA waste is not the only, nor
necessarily the most important, consideration in the
determination. An in-depth, constituent-by-constituent
analysis is generally neither necessary nor useful, since
most RCRA requirements are the same for a given
activity or unit, regardless of the specific composition
of the hazardous waste.
The determination of relevance and
appropriateness of RCRA requirements is based on
the circumstances of the release, including the
hazardous properties of the waste, its composition and
matrix, the characteristics of the site, the nature of the
release or threatened release from the site, and the
nature and purpose of the requirement itself. Some
requirements may be relevant and appropriate for
certain areas of the site, but not for other areas. In
addition, some RCRA requirements may be relevant
and appropriate at a site, while others are not, even
for the same waste. For example, minimum
technology requirements may be considered relevant
and appropriate for one area receiving waste because
of the high potential for migration of contaminants in
hazardous levels to ground water, but not for another
area that contains relatively immobile waste. Land
disposal restrictions may be determined not to be
relevant and appropriate for either area because the
treatment technology required by the requirement is
not appropriate, given the matrix of the waste. Only
those requirements that are determined to be both
relevant and appropriate must be attained.
C. STATE AUTHORIZATION UNDER RCRA
A State may be authorized to administer the
RCRA hazardous waste program in lieu of the
Federal program provided that the State has
equivalent authority. Authorization is granted
separately for the basic RCRA Subtitle C program,
which includes permitting and closure of TSDFs; for
regulations promulgated pursuant to HSWA, such as
land disposal restrictions; and for other programs,
such as delisting of hazardous wastes. If a site is
located in a State with an authorized RCRA program,
the State's promulgated RCRA requirements will
replace the equivalent Federal requirements as
potential ARARs.
An authorized State program may also be more
stringent than the Federal program. For example, a
State may have more stringent test methods for
characteristic wastes, or may list more wastes as
hazardous than the Federal program does. Therefore,
it is important to determine whether laws in an
authorized State go beyond the Federal regulations.
-------
H. FOCUS ON RCRA CLOSURE REQUIREMENTS
For each type of unit regulated under RCRA,
Subtitle C regulations contain closure standards that
must be met when a unit is closed. For treatment
and storage units, the standards require that all
hazardous waste and hazardous waste residues be
removed when the unit is closed. In addition to the
option of closure by removal, called "clean closure,"
units such as landfills, surface impoundments, and
waste piles may be closed as disposal or landfill units
with waste in place, referred to as "landfill closure."
Frequently, the closure requirements for such land-
based units will be either applicable or relevant and
appropriate at Superfund sites.
A. WHEN CLOSURE REQUIREMENTS ARE
APPLICABLE
The basic prerequisites for applicability of closure
requirements are: (1) the waste must be a hazardous
waste; and (2) the unit (or AOC) must have received
waste after the RCRA requirements became effective,
either because of the original date of disposal or
because the CERCLA action constitutes disposal
(described in Part I of this Fact Sheet). When RCRA
closure requirements are applicable, the regulations
allow only two types of closure: (1) clean closure:
and (2) disposal or landfill closure.
Highlight 5 provides a description of each type
of closure. Clean closure standards assume there will
be unrestricted use of the site and require no
maintenance after the closure has been completed, and
are often referred to as the "eatable solid, drinkable
leachate" standards. In contrast, disposal or landfill
closure standards require post-closure care and
maintenance of the unit for at least 30 years after
closure. EPA has prepared several guidance on
closure and final covers (e.g., the draft RCRA
Guidance Manual for Subpart G. Closure and Post-
Closure Standards. EPA-530-SW-78-010, and the
technical guidance document, Final Covers on
Hazardous Waste Landfills and Surface
Impoundments. EPA 530-SW-89-047, July 1989).
These guidance documents are not ARARs, but are to
be considered (TBC) for CERCLA actions and may
assist in complying with these regulations. Of course,
the performance standards in the regulation may be
attained in ways other than that described in guidance,
depending on the specific circumstances of the site.
Highlight 5: REQUIREMENTS FOR CLEAN
AND LANDFILL CLOSURE
Clean Closure; All waste residues and
contaminated containment system components
(e.g., liners), contaminated subsoils, and
structures and equipment contaminated with
waste and leachate must be removed and
managed as hazardous waste or
decontaminated before the site management is
completed, "edible soil, drinkable leachate" [see
40 CFR 264.111, 264.228(a)].
Landfill Closure: The unit must -be capped
with a final cover designed and constructed to:
- provide long-term minimization of
migration of liquids;
- function with minimum maintenance;
- promote drainage and minimize erosion;
- accommodate settling and subsidence; and
- have a permeability less than or equal to
any bottom liner system or natural
subsoils present.
Post-closure care includes maintenance of the
final cover; operation of a leachate and
removal system; and maintenance of a ground-
water monitoring system [see 40 CFR 264.117,
264.228(b)].
B. WHEN CLOSURE REQUIREMENTS ARE
RELEVANT ANTXAPPROPRIATE
If they are not applicable, RCRA closure
requirements may be relevant and appropriate.
However, there is more flexibility in designing closures
because a hybrid closure is possible. Hybrid closure
occurs when only certain requirements in the closure
standards are relevant and appropriate. Depending on
the site circumstances and the remedy selected, either
clean closure, landfill closure, or a combination of
both may be used.
-5-
-------
The proposed revisions to the NCP discuss the
concept of hybrid closure (53 FR 51446). The NCP
illustrated the following possible hybrid closure
approaches: (1) hybrid-clean closure; and (2) hybrid-
landfill closure, which combines elements of clean
closure and closure with waste in place, as described
in Highlight 6.
Highlight 6: HYBRID-CLEAN AND
HYBRID-LANDFILL CLOSURES
Hybrid-Clean Closure: Used when leachate
will not impact the ground water (even though
residual contamination and leachate are above
health-based levels) and contamination does
not pose a direct contact threat.
- No covers or long-term management are
required;
- Fate and transport modeling and model
verification are used to ensure that
ground water is usable; and
- A property deed notice is used to indicate
the presence of hazardous substances.
Hybrid-Landfill Closure: Used when residual
contamination poses a direct contact threat,
but does not pose a ground-water threat.
- Covers, which may be permeable, are used
to address the direct contact threat;
- Limited long-term management includes
site and cover maintenance and minimal
ground-water monitoring;
- Institutional controls (e.g., land-use
restrictions or deed notices) are used as
necessary.
The two hybrid closure alternatives are constructs of
applicable laws but are not themselves promulgated
at this time. These alternatives are possible when
RCRA requirements are relevant and appropriate, but
are not available when closure requirements are
applicable.
AFTERWORD! MINIMUM TECHNOLOGY
REQUKEMENTS
While every unit to which RCRA applies must be
closed in accordance with RCRA closure requirements
(as discussed in Pan II of this Fact Sheet), the
minimum technology requirements (MTR) apply only
to a subset of these regulated units. The MTR
require installation of double liners and a leachate
collection system, in addition to compliance with other
design standards.
The MTR apply only to new units, replacement
units." and lateral expansions of existing landfills (40
CFR 254.301(c)) and surface impoundments (40 CFR
254.221(c)) °'c Therefore, an existing landfill or AOC
would not be subject to MTR, even if disposal of
hazardous waste occurred as part of the CERCLA
action. The unit or AOC would, however, be subject
to RCRA closure standards for landfills. Although
not applicable, MTR may be relevant and appropriate
depending on the circumstances of the release and the
site.
a A replacement unit is further defined as an existing unit that meets the following criteria: (1) the unit is taken
out of service; (2) all or substantially all of the waste is removed; and (3) the unit is reused, which does not include
removal and replacement of waste into the same unit.
* In addition, as of November 19, 1988, existing surface impoundments that actively receive wastes must be
retrofitted to comply with MTR (with some limited exceptions).
J-LDR requires that certain restricted wastes, such as soft hammer wastes, be disposed of in a unit that meets
MTR, and therefore can trigger MTR indirectly (see Superfund LDR Guide. «MT OSWER Directive 9347.3-03FS).
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
Publication 9234.2-05/FS
December 1989
&EPA
CERCLA Compliance With Other Laws Manual
CERCLA Compliance
with State Requirements
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
Office of Program Management OS-240
Quick Reference Fact Sheet
The 1986 Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) adopts and expands a provision in the 1985
National Contingency Plan (NCP) that remedial actions must at least attain applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements (ARARs). Section 121(d) of CERCLA, as amended by SARA, requires attainment of Federal ARARs and
of State ARARs in State environmental or facility siting laws when the State requirements are promulgated, more
stringent than Federal laws, and identified by the State in a timely manner.
To implement the ARARs provision, EPA has developed guidance, CERCLA Compliance With Other Laws Manual:
Parts I and II (Publications 9234.1-01 and 9234.1-02). EPA is preparing a series of short fact sheets that summarize these
guidance documents. This fact sheet provides a guide to Chapter 6 of Part II, which addresses CERCLA compliance with
State requirements. The material covered here is based on SARA and on policies in the proposed revisions to the NCP.
The final NCP may adopt policies different from those covered here and should, when promulgated, be considered the
authoritative source.
I. INTRODUCTION TO STATE ARARs
Prior to SARA, the NCP classified all State
requirements as criteria that EPA should consider when
selecting a remedy. The amendments elevated to the level
of potential ARARs any "promulgated" State requirements
that are "more stringent" than Federal requirements (see
Highlight 1 for specific criteria).
Highlight 1: CRITERIA FOR A STATE
REQUIREMENT TO QUALIFY AS AN ARAR
In order to qualify as a State ARAR, a State
requirement should be:
• A State law;
• An environmental or facility siting law;
• Promulgated;
• More stringent than the Federal requirement;
• Identified in a timely manner; and
• Consistently applied.
State requirements, like Federal requirements, must
also be substantive in nature to qualify as ARARs.
Administrative or procedural State requirements are not
ARARs. Elements of State ARARs are discussed below.
Generally, laws and regulations adopted at the State
level, as distinguished from the regional, county, or local
level, are considered to be State ARARs. Local laws in
themselves are not ARARs. However, requirements that
are developed by a local or regional body and are both
adopted and legally enforceable by the State may be
potential State ARARs. Potential State ARARs may
also be found where local or regional boards have
established standards that become part of a legally
enforceable State "plan."
II. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL OR FACILITY SITING
LAWS AS ARARs
Several common types of State statutes that may
provide State ARARs are described below. Guidance
on compliance with these requirements is provided.
A. State Siting Requirements (Location Standards)
State siting requirements may restrict the location
of existing and expanding or new hazardous waste
treatment, storage, and disposal (TSD) facilities
(Highlight 2 provides the triggers for State siting
Printed on Recycled Papar
-------
requirements). Siting restrictions have generally been left
to the States to implement. However, the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) contains limited
siting provisions that restrict locations in fault zones, 100-
year floodplains, salt dome and salt bed formations, and
underground caves. As of 1987, 33 States had
promulgated siting requirements that were more stringent
than Federal requirements.7
Highlight 2: TRIGGERS FOR STATE
SITING REQUIREMENTS
State siting requirements may be triggered as
potential ARARs when:
• An existing hazardous waste site is in a restricted
location, and a corresponding action is required
(such as a removal, remediation, design, or
modified care);
• A new hazardous waste unit is to be created in a
restricted location; or
• A non-land-based unit is brought on-site.
The application of a State siting law to a Superfund
action also depends upon the State's definition of a "new"
or "existing" site. Because Superfund sites generally
represent pre-existing (and unplanned) situations, State
restrictions for new or operating facilities may not apply
to Superfund sites.
State siting requirements are commonly found in
State laws that address environmentally sensitive areas
such as wetlands, endangered species habitats, gamelands,
parks, preserves, and underground mining/subsidence
areas. States also protect ground water and surface water
through a variety of location standards such as: (1)
prohibitions of facilities in certain locations; (2)
quantitative setback distances from water supplies or other
water bodies; (3) quantitative thickness or hydraulic
conductivity in soil barriers; and (4) designation of
acceptable soil or rock type for facility siting. Finally,
buffer zones may also contain location standards ranging
from specific setback distances to general statements that
preclude interference with population areas.
B. Discharge of Toxic Pollutants to Surface Waters
The Clean Water Act (CWA) requires States to
identify water bodies that may be adversely affected by
toxic pollutants and to develop criteria to protect these
areas. State toxic pollutant regulations are generally pre-
1 Temple, Barker, and Sloane, Inc, Review of Slate Hazardous Waste
Facility Criteria. Revised Draft Final Report U.S EPA, Washington,
DC, 1987
sented in the form of narrative goals rather than numeric
criteria. For example, State narrative requirements may
be expressed in terms predicated upon specific toxicity
testing procedures or in terms of whole effluent toxicity
limits. All substantive aspects of these narrative
requirements may be ARARs for CERCLA discharges.
In addition, general prohibitions on toxic pollutant
discharges of known carcinogens may be State ARARs
for on-site CERCLA discharges. All such State
requirements should be examined for any exemptions of
Federal activities.
C. Antidegradation Requirements for Surface Water
The CWA requires all States to adopt statutes or
regulations that prevent the degradation of high-quality
waters. In addition, States may have promulgated other
antidegradation requirements for surface waters (see
Highlight 3 for typical State antidegradation
requirements).
Highlights: TYPICAL STATE
ANTIDEGRADATION REQUIREMENTS
Typical State antidegradation requirements will
mandate the:
• Maintenance of existing in-stream designated
beneficial uses;
• Maintenance of high-quality waters unless the
State decides to allow limited degradation where
economically or socially justifiable;
• Maintenance of the quality of Outstanding
National Resource Waters (ONRW); and
• Use of best available technology for treatment
of new or increased pollution into high-quality
waters.
If a CERCLA remedial action involves a point-source
discharge of treated effluent to high-quality surface
waters, these various State antidegradation requirements
may be ARARs for the discharge.
D. Antidegradation Requirements for Ground Water
Like antidegradation requirements for surface water,
anlidegradation requirements for ground water are
generally prospective in nature and are designed to
prevent further degradation of water quality. If a State
has developed antidegradation requirements for groun''
water, CERCLA remedial actions involving injection ».
partially treated water into a pristine aquifer may be
affected. These State requirements would not, however,
require cleanup to the aquifer's original quality prior to
contamination However, there may be a State cleanup
-------
law that specifically requires cleanup to background, which
would constitute an ARAR for the remediation.
III. "PROMULGATED" LAWS AS ARARs
A State requirement must be promulgated to qualify
as an ARAR. A State requirement is promulgated if it
is: (1) legally enforceable; and (2) of general applicability
(see Highlight 4).
Highlight 4: PROMULGATED STATE LAWS
• Legal Enforceability: State requirements may be
legally enforceable in several ways. State statutes
or regulations may either: (1) have their own
specific enforcement provisions written into them;
or (2) be enforced through the State's general
legal authority.
• General Applicability: State requirements must
apply to a broader universe than Superfund sites.
For example, a State requirement having general
applicability ("of general applicability") would
apply to all hazardous waste sites in the State
that meet the jurisdictional prerequisites of the
requirement, not just to CERCLA sites.
Promulgated requirements are found in State statutes
and regulations that have been adopted by authorized
State agencies. Statute numbers, enactment dates, and
effective dates may indicate whether the requirements have
been promulgated. Such promulgated requirements may
be either numerical or narrative in form.
A. Criteria That Are "To Be Considered" (TBCs)
Although they are not ARARs, State advisories,
guidance and policies, etc., may help EPA define and
develop protective remedies and interpret State laws.
These State policies and guidance, known as "to be
considered" (TBCs), are not potential ARARs because
they are neither promulgated nor enforceable. It may be
necessary to consult TBCs to interpret ARARs or to
determine preliminary remediation goals when ARARs do
not exist for particular contaminants. States should
identify or communicate to EPA TBCs that they consider
to be pertinent to the remedy.
B. Narrative Standards
Occasionally, a State may submit as an ARAR a
narrative State statute. While narrative State statutes may
be ARARs, unpromulgated methodologies that are
designed to implement narrative statutes are not. EPA has
discretion to determine whether numbers obtained from
unpromulgated methodology should be met, or whether
they constitute TBCs. It is important to note, however,
that numbers derived from Slate narrative statutes may be
ARARs if the narrative statute is an ARAR, and has
implementing regulations that are also ARARs.
IV. "MORE STRINGENT" LAWS AS ARARs
CERCLA requires remedies to comply with State
requirements that are more stringent than Federal
requirements (see Highlight 5 for a definition of "more
stringent").
Highlights: CRITERIA FOR
"MORE STRINGENT"
• State requirements are more stringent than
Federal requirements if the State program has
Federal authorization and the State
requirements are "at least" as stringent.
• State programs that do not have a Federal
counterpart are generally more stringent
because they add new requirements.
• Stringency comparisons may be necessary if a
State program is not Federally authorized but
has a Federal counterpart.
It is important to note that EPA believes that if a State
is authorized to implement a program in lieu of a
Federal agency, State laws arising out of that program
constitute the ARARs instead of the Federal authorizing
legislation. A stringency comparison is unnecessary
because State regulations under Federally authorized
programs are considered to be Federal requirements.
V. IDENTIFYING AND COMMUNICATING STATE
ARARs IN A TIMELY MANNER
CERCLA requires States to identify ARARs in a
timely manner. As a result, EPA and a State may enter
into a Superfund Memorandum of Agreement (SMOA)
which, among other things, establishes a schedule for
communicating ARARs. In the absence of a SMOA,
States must identify ARARs within certain timeframes
(identified below) in order for that identification to be
considered "timely". EPA is not legally required to
consider potential State ARARs that are not identified
within these timeframes. The responsibilities of a State
to communicate ARARs will vary depending upon its
role at the site (see Highlight 6 for State roles and
responsibilities).
A. Critical Points for Identifying State ARARs
There are particular points in the preremcdial and
remedial processes during which the lead and support
agencies must communicate with each other. SMOAs
may identify timeframes for communicating potential
ARARs. Highlight 7 presents the critical points in the
-------
Highlight 6: STATE ROLES AND
RESPONSIBILITIES
As the support agency, the State is responsible for:
• Receiving and reviewing information about
proposed Federal ARARs and TBCs, as early as
site characterization;
• Coordinating State input on ARARs from all
State agencies;
• Identifying State ARARs during the RI/FS;
• Justifying proposed State ARARs; and
• Reviewing ARARs identified in the proposed
plan and ROD.
As the lead agency, the State is responsible for:
• Requesting EPA's identification of Federal
ARARs;
• Identifying State ARARs during the RI/FS;
• Identifying ARARs and waivers in the proposed
plan; and
• Documenting compliance with ARARs in the
draft ROD.
pre-remedial and remedial processes if no SMOA exists,
or if the SMOA fails to address such timeframes. It is
important to note that regardless of their role, EPA and
the States each have an unvarying responsibility. States
are always responsible for identifying State ARARs and
communicating them to EPA in a timely manner. EPA
is always responsible for making the final determination
on ARARs as part of remedy selection, regardless of who
conducts the RI/FS (i.e., EPA, the State, or PRP), or who
recommends the remedy (i.e., EPA or the State), except
for State-lead non-Fund-financed sites.
B. EPA Responsibilities for Communicating
Waivers
If EPA intends to waive any State-identified ARARs
in its proposed plan, or does not agree with the State
that a certain State standard is an ARAR, it must
formally notify the State either: (1) when the Agency
submits the RI/FS for State review; or (2) when the
Agency responds to the State's submission of the RI/FS.
In addition, EPA must respond to State comments on
waivers from, or disagreements about, State ARARs after
making the RI/FS and proposed plan available for public
comment.
Highlight 7: CRITICAL POINTS
FOR IDENTIFYING ARARS
Scoping of the RI/FS
• Lead and support agencies Initial* dltcuif Ion i
ot potential ARARt and TBC», focusing on
chemical- end location-specific requirements
-
F
Sttt Characterization
• Lead agency sends Preliminary Site Char-
acterization Summary to support •genclea to
facilitate ARARs Identification.
• Lead agency requests potential chemlcal-
and location-specific ARAR* and TBCs from
support agency.
• Support agency has 30 days from receipt
of request to respond.
i
.
Development of Alter latJvos 1
• Lead agency begins preliminary consideration
of action-specific ARARs. |
\
i
Scrawling of Alternatives
• Lead agency begins Identification of
action-specific ARARs.
• Lead Agency notifies the support agency ot
alternatives that passed Initial screening
f
* BetaBed Analysis of Alternatives
• Before Comparative Analysis begins, lead
agency requests action-specific and any addi-
tional ARARe and TBCs from support agency
• Support agency has 30 days from receipt
of requeet to respond.
1
Selection of Preferred Alternative
• Lead agency states In Proposed Plan whether
each alternative will comply with all Identified
ARAR* and/or Identifies proposed waiver*
and their Justification.
• Lead agency provide* Proposed Plan and
Rl/FS report te support agency for review.
t
Record of Dedsfcrv(ROD)
• Lead agency summarizes ARAR compliance
In ROD and provldee draft ROD to support
agenda* for review.
t
Remedial Design/Remedial Action
• Lead agency:
— provide* a copy of the RD to aupport
agencle* for review,
— Identlflee additional ARAR* bated upon
deelgn •p*clflc*tlon»/change*;
-- verlfle* protectlvene** ot remedy H
•Ignlf leant new ARAB* are promulgated;
and
— review* ARAR* If RA elgnlfleantly
different than the ROD.
-------
C. State Responsibilities for Documenting State ARARs
To demonstrate that the State requirement is an
ARAR, States are required by the NCP to provide
citations to the statute or regulation number. In addition,
Stales should provide the requirement's effective date and
description of scope, where appropriate. Furthermore,
States should provide evidence that the requirement is
more stringent than the Federal requirement. -Finally,
States should also describe in writing the relationship
between the State requirement and the site or action, to
show that the State requirement is applicable or relevant
and appropriate to that particular site or action.
VI. STATE STANDARD WAIVERS
A. Statutory Waivers
Of the six ARAR waivers set forth in CERCLA, one
applies exclusively to State ARARs: inconsistent
application of the State standard by the State. This
waiver may be invoked when evidence exists that a State
standard has not been or will not be consistently applied
to both non-NPL and NPL sites within the State. The
waiver may be used, for example, for a State standard
that was promulgated but never applied, or for a standard
that has been variably applied or enforced. A State
standard is presumed to have been consistently applied
unless there is evidence to the contrary.
B. State Waivers
In addition to the waivers provided by CERCLA,
many State regulations have their own waivers or excep-
tions to their requirements. When a State requirement
has a waiver that is applicable, the State requirement does
not have to be met. EPA makes the final determination
as part of the selection of remedy.
State waivers are common components of State
siting requirements. Usually only temporary or
emergency situations qualify for waivers of, State siting
requirements. Remedial actions at Superfund sites may
qualify for State waivers depending upon their design and
the particular waiver requirements. To determine if a
remedial action qualifies for a State waiver, the State
waiver provision should be examined for its duration,
circumstances that justify its use, and any renewal
provisions.
C. State-Wide Bans
Under CERCLA section 121(d), a State-wide ban
prohibiting land disposal of hazardous substances is not
an ARAR unless the following three criteria are met:
• The State requirement is of general applicability
and was adopted by formal means;
• The State requirement was adopted on the basis of
hydrologic, geologic, or other relevant considerations
and was not adopted for the purpose of precluding
on-site remedial actions or other land disposal for
reasons unrelated to protection of human health
and the environment; and
• The State arranges for, and assures payment of the
incremental costs of, utilizing a facility for
hazardous waste disposal.
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
Publication 9234.2-05/FS
December 1989
c/EPA
CERCLA Compliance With Other Laws Manual
CERCLA Compliance
with State Requirements
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
Office of Program Management OS-240
Quick Reference Fact Sheet
The 1986 Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) adopts and expands a provision in the 1985
National Contingency Plan (NCP) that remedial actions must at least attain applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements (ARARs). Section 121(d) of CERCLA, as amended by SARA, requires attainment of Federal ARARs and
of State ARARs in State environmental or facility siting laws when the State requirements are promulgated, more
stringent than Federal laws, and identified by the State in a timely manner.
To implement the ARARs provision, EPA has developed guidance, CERCLA Compliance With Other Laws Manual:
Parts I and II (Publications 9234.1-01 and 9234.1-02). EPA is preparing a series of short fact sheets that summarize these
guidance documents. This fact sheet provides a guide to Chapter 6 of Part II, which addresses CERCLA compliance with
State requirements. The material covered here is based on SARA and on policies in the proposed revisions to the NCP.
The final NCP may adopt policies different from those covered here and should, when promulgated, be considered the
authoritative source.
1. INTRODUCTION TO STATE ARARs
Prior to SARA, the NCP classified all State
requirements as criteria that EPA should consider when
selecting a remedy. The amendments elevated to the level
of potential ARARs any "promulgated" State requirements
that are "more stringent" than Federal requirements (see
Highlight 1 for specific criteria).
Highlight 1: CRITERIA FOR A STATE
REQUIREMENT TO QUALIFY AS AN ARAR
In order to qualify as a State ARAR, a State
requirement should be:
• A State law,
• An environmental or facility siting law;
• Promulgated;
• More stringent than the Federal requirement;
• Identified in a timely manner; and
• Consistently applied.
State requirements, like Federal requirements, must
also be substantive in nature to qualify as ARARs.
Administrative or procedural State requirements are not
ARARs. Elements of State ARARs are discussed below.
Generally, laws and regulations adopted at the State
level, as distinguished from the regional, county, or local
level, are considered to be State ARARs. Local laws in
themselves are not ARARs. However, requirements that
are developed by a local or regional body and are both
adopted and legally enforceable by the State may be
potential State ARARs. Potential State ARARs may
also be found where local or regional boards have
established standards that become part of a legally
enforceable State "plan."
II. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL OR FACILITY SITING
LAWS AS ARARs
Several common types of State statutes that may
provide Slate ARARs are described below. Guidance
on compliance with these requirements is provided.
A. State Siting Requirements (Location Standards)
State siting requirements may restrict the location
of existing and expanding or new hazardous waste
treatment, storage, and disposal (TSD) facilities
(Highlight 2 provides the triggers for State siting
Pnniodon Recycled Paper
-------
requirements). Siting restrictions have generally been left
to the States to implement. However, the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) contains limited
siting provisions that restrict locations in fault zones, 100-
year floodplains, salt dome and salt bed formations, and
underground caves. As of 1987, 33 States had
promulgated siting requirements that were more stringent
than Federal requirements.1
Highlight 2: TRIGGERS FOR STATE
SITING REQUIREMENTS
State siting requirements may be triggered as
potential ARARs when:
• An existing hazardous waste site is in a restricted
location, and a corresponding action is required
(such as a removal, remediation, design, or
modified care);
• A new hazardous waste unit is to be created in a
restricted location; or
• A Don-land-based unit is brought on-site.
The application of a State siting law to a Superfund
action also depends upon the State's definition of a "new"
or "existing" site. Because Superfund sites generally
represent pre-existing (and unplanned) situations, State
restrictions for new or operating facilities may not apply
to Superfund sites.
State siting requirements are commonly found in
State laws that address environmentally sensitive areas
such as wetlands, endangered species habitats, gamelands,
parks, preserves, and underground mining/subsidence
areas. States also protect ground water and surface water
through a variety of location standards such as: (1)
prohibitions of facilities in certain locations; (2)
quantitative setback distances from water supplies or other
water bodies; (3) quantitative thickness or hydraulic
conductivity in soil barriers; and (4) designation of
acceptable soil or rock type for facility siting. Finally,
buffer zones may also contain location standards ranging
from specific setback distances to general statements that
preclude interference with population areas.
B. Discharge of Toxic Pollutants to Surface Waters
The Clean Water Act (CWA) requires States to
identify water bodies that may be adversely affected by
toxic pollutants and to develop criteria to protect these
areas. State toxic pollutant regulations are generally pre-
1 Temple, Barker, and Sloane, Inc., Review of Stale Hazardous Waste
Facility Criteria. Revised Draft Final Report. U.S EPA, Washington,
DC, 1987
sented in the form of narrative goals rather than numeric
criteria. For example, State narrative requirements may
be expressed in terms predicated upon specific toxicity
testing procedures or in terms of whole effluent toxicity
limits. All substantive aspects of these narrative
requirements may be ARARs for CERCLA discharges.
In addition, general prohibitions on toxic pollutant
discharges of known carcinogens may be State ARARs
for on-site CERCLA discharges. All such State
requirements should be examined for any exemptions of
Federal activities.
C. Antidegradation Requirements for Surface Water
The CWA requires all States to adopt statutes or
regulations that prevent the degradation of high-quality
waters. In addition, States may have promulgated other
antidegradation requirements for surface waters (see
Highlight 3 for typical State antidegradalion
requirements).
Highlights: TYPICAL STATE
ANTIDEGRADATION REQUIREMENTS
Typical State antidegradation requirements will
mandate the:
• Maintenance of existing in-stream designated
beneficial uses;
• Maintenance of high-quality waters unless the
Stale decides to allow limited degradation where
economically or socially justifiable;
• Maintenance of the quality of Outstanding
National Resource Waters (ONRW); and
• Use of best available technology for treatment
of new or increased pollution into high-quality
waters.
If a CERCLA remedial action involves a point-source
discharge of treated effluent to high-quality surface
waters, these various State antidegradation requirements
may be ARARs for the discharge.
D. Antidegradation Requirements for Ground Water
Like antidegradation requirements for surface water,
antidegradation requirements for ground water are
generally prospective in nature and are designed to
prevent further degradation of water quality. If a Sta»
has developed antidegradation requirements for grou
water, CERCLA remedial actions involving injection 01
partially treated water into a pristine aquifer may be
affected. These State requirements would not, however,
require cleanup to the aquifer's original quality prior to
contamination. However, there may be a State cleanup
-------
law that specifically requires cleanup to background, which
/ould constitute an ARAR for the remediation.
III. "PROMULGATED" LAWS AS ARARs
A State requirement must be promulgated to qualify
as an ARAR. A State requirement is promulgated if it
is: (1) legally enforceable; and (2) of general applicability
(see Highlight 4).
Highlight 4: PROMULGATED STATE LAWS
• Legal Enforceability: State requirements may be
legally enforceable in several ways. State statutes
or regulations may either: (1) have their own
specific enforcement provisions written into them;
or (2) be enforced through the State's general
legal authority.
• General Applicability: Slate requirements must
apply to a broader universe than Superfund sites.
For example, a State requirement having general
applicability ("of general applicability") would
apply to all hazardous waste sites in the State
that meet the jurisdictional prerequisites of the
requirement, not just to CERCLA sites.
Promulgated requirements are found in State statutes
and regulations that have been adopted by authorized
Stale agencies. Statuie numbers, enactment dates, and
effective dates may indicate whether the requirements have
been promulgated. Such promulgated requirements may
be either numerical or narrative in form.
A. Criteria That Are "To Be Considered" (TBCs)
Although they are not ARARs, State advisories,
guidance and policies, etc., may help EPA define and
develop protective remedies and interpret State laws.
These State policies and guidance, known as "to be
considered" (TBCs), are not potential ARARs because
they are neither promulgated nor enforceable. It may be
necessary to consult TBCs to interpret ARARs or to
determine preliminary remediation goals when ARARs do
not exist for particular contaminants. States should
identify or communicate to EPA TBCs that they consider
to be pertinent to the remedy.
B. Narrative Standards
Occasionally, a State may submit as an ARAR a
narrative State statute. While narrative State statutes may
be ARARs, unpromulgated methodologies that are
designed to implement narrative statutes are not. EPA has
discretion to determine whether numbers obtained from
unpromulgated methodology should be met, or whether
they constitute TBCs. It is important to note, however,
that numbers derived from State narrative statutes may be
ARARs if the narrative statute is an ARAR, and has
implementing regulations that are also ARARs.
IV. "MORE STRINGENT" LAWS AS ARARs
CERCLA requires remedies to comply with State
requirements that are more stringent than Federal
requirements (see Highlight 5 for a definition of "more
stringent").
Highlights: CRITERIA FOR
"MORE STRINGENT"
• State requirements are more stringent than
Federal requirements if the State program has
Federal authorization and the State
requirements are "at least" as stringent.
• State programs that do not have a Federal
counterpart are generally more stringent
because they add new requirements.
• Stringency comparisons may be necessary if a
State program is not Federally authorized but
has a Federal counterpart.
It is important to note that EPA believes that if a State
is authorized to implement a program in lieu of a
Federal agency, State laws arising out of that program
constitute the ARARs instead of the Federal authorizing
legislation. A stringency comparison is unnecessary
because State regulations under Federally authorized
programs are considered to be Federal requirements.
V. IDENTIFYING AND COMMUNICATING STATE
ARARs IN A TIMELY MANNER
CERCLA requires States to identify ARARs in a
timely manner. As a result, EPA and a State may enter
into a Superfund Memorandum of Agreement (SMOA)
which, among other things, establishes a schedule for
communicating ARARs. In the absence of a SMOA,
States must identify ARARs within certain timeframes
(identified below) in order for that identification to be
considered "timely". EPA is not legally required to
consider potential State ARARs that are not identified
within these timeframes. The responsibilities of a State
to communicate ARARs will vary depending upon its
role at the site (see Highlight 6 for State roles and
responsibilities).
A. Critical Points for Identifying State ARARs
There are particular points in the preremedial and
remedial processes during which the lead and support
agencies must communicate with each other. SMOAs
may identify timeframes for communicating potential
ARARs. Highlight 7 presents the critical points in the
-------
Highlight 6: STATE ROLES AND
RESPONSIBILITIES
As the support agency, the State is responsible for:
• Receiving and reviewing information about
proposed Federal ARARs and TBCs, as early as
site characterization;
e Coordinating State input on ARARs from all
State agencies;
• Identifying State ARARs during the RI/FS;
e Justifying proposed State ARARs; and
• Reviewing ARARs identified in the proposed
plan and ROD.
As the lead agency, the State is responsible for:
e Requesting EPA's identification of Federal
ARARs;
e Identifying State ARARs during the RI/FS;
• Identifying ARARs and waivers in the proposed
plan; and
e Documenting compliance with ARARs in the
draft ROD.
pre-remedial and remedial processes if no SMOA exists,
or if the SMOA fails to address such timeframes. It is
important to note that regardless of their role, EPA and
the States each have an unvarying responsibility. States
are always responsible for identifying State ARARs and
communicating them to EPA in a timely manner. EPA
is always responsible for making the final determination
on ARARs as part of remedy selection, regardless of who
conducts the RI/FS (i.e., EPA, the State, or PRP), or who
recommends the remedy (i.e., EPA or the State), except
for State-lead non-Fund-fmanced sites.
B. EPA Responsibilities for Communicating
Waivers
If EPA intends to waive any State-identified ARARs
in its proposed plan, or does not agree with the State
that a certain State standard is an ARAR, it must
formally notify the Slate either: (1) when the Agency
submits the RI/FS for State review; or (2) when the
Agency responds to the State's submission of the RI/FS.
In addition, EPA must respond to State comments on
waivers from, or disagreements about, State ARARs after
making the RI/FS and proposed plan available for public
comment.
Highlight 7: CRITICAL POINTS
FOR IDENTIFYING ARARS
Scoping of tin RI/FS
• Lead and support agencies Initiate dlscuit Ion
ot potential ARARt and TBCa, looming on
chemical- and locatlon-ap*clllc requirement!.
,
Site Characterization
• Lead agency tendt Preliminary Site Char-
acterization Summary to aupport agenelea to
facilitate ARAR* Identification.
• Lead agency requests potential chomleal-
and locatlon-apeclflc ARAR* and TBCa from
support agency.
• Support agency his 30 days from receipt
of request to respond.
1
Development of Alternative*
* Lead agency begins preliminary consideration
ol action-specific ARARs.
,
Screening of Alternatives
• Lead agency begins Identification of
action-specific ARARs.
• Lead Agency notifies the support agency of
alternatives that passed Initial screening.
t
* totaled Analysis of Alternatives
• Before Comparative Analysts begins, lead
agency requeate aetlon-apeclflc and any addi-
tional ARARa and TBCa from support agency
• Support agency hae 30 daya from receipt
of request to respond.
T
Selection of Preferred Alternative
• Lead agency etates In Propoaed Plan whether
each alternative will comply with all Identified
ARARs and/or Identlftoa proposed waivers
and their justification.
• Lead agency provldea Proposed Plan and
RI/FS report to support agency for review.
t
Record of Decision (ROD)
• Leed agency eummarlzes ARAR compliance
In ROD and provldee draft ROD to support
agencies for review.
*
Remedial Design/Remedial Action
• Lead agency:
— provldea a copy of the RD to eupport
agenelee for review,
— Identifies addition*! ARARt baaed upon
design specifications/changes;
— verifies protectlveness ol remedy If
significant new ARARs sre promulgated;
end
- reviews ARARa If RA elgnlflcantly
different than the ROD.
-------
C. State Responsibilities for Documenting State ARARs
To demonstrate that the State requirement is an
ARAR, States are required by the NCP to provide
citations to the statute or regulation number. In addition,
States should provide the requirement's effective date and
description of scope, where appropriate. Furthermore,
States should provide evidence that the requirement is
more stringent than the Federal requirement. -Finally,
States should also describe in writing the relationship
between the State requirement and the site or action, to
show that the State requirement is applicable or relevant
and appropriate to that particular site or action.
VI. STATE STANDARD WAIVERS
A. Statutory Waivers
Of the six ARAR waivers set forth in CERCLA, one
applies exclusively to State ARARs: inconsistent
application of the State standard by the State. This
waiver may be invoked when evidence exists that a State
standard has not been or will not be consistently applied
to both non-NPL and NPL sites within the State. The
waiver may be used, for example, for a State standard
that was promulgated but never applied, or for a standard
that has been variably applied or enforced. A State
standard is presumed to have been consistently applied
•nless there is evidence to the contrary.
B. State Waivers
In addition to the waivers provided by CERCLA,
many Slate regulations have their own waivers or excep-
tions to their requirements. When a State requirement
has a waiver that is applicable, the State requirement does
not have to be met. EPA makes the final determination
as part of the selection of remedy.
State waivers are common components of State
siting requirements. Usually only temporary or
emergency situations qualify for waivers of, Stale siting
requirements. Remedial actions at Superfund sites may
qualify for State waivers depending upon their design and
the particular waiver requirements. To determine if a
remedial action qualifies for a State waiver, the Stale
waiver provision should be examined for its duration,
circumstances that justify its use, and any renewal
provisions.
C. State-Wide Bans
Under CERCLA section 121(d), a State-wide ban
prohibiting land disposal of hazardous substances is not
an ARAR unless the following three criteria are met:
• The State requirement is of general applicability
and was adopted by formal means;
• The State requirement was adopted on the basis of
hydrologic, geologic, or other relevant considerations
and was not adopled for the purpose of precluding
on-site remedial actions or other land disposal for
reasons unrelated to protection of human health
and the environment; and
• The State arranges for, and assures payment of the
incremental costs of, utilizing a facility for
hazardous waste disposal.
-------
E. ROD Fact Sheet
-------
SUPERFUND
RECORDS OF DECISION
UPDATE
From: Hazardous Site Control Division
To: EPA Regional Offices
August 1989
Vol. 5, No. 1
I
The flOD Update is back!
The purpose of the BOD Updah is to aid RPMs in developing highxjualityRODs by proving useful ^omatjonarxl a means by whictiRPMs
with similar site issues can network. The Update wiB include a variety of features, inducing charts with information on sites with related issues,
updates on major policy decisions, and highlights ol technical topics. In every case, the Update will try to provide the names of individuals to
contact for further information.
We hope the flCD Update wiB help you with ROD devetopmertjfvoj haw any sugo^sttons corral
TOD Update, or if you would ike to see certain topics Discussed, please contact SteronFrey in the Hazardous Site &sntrd Division, OERR at
FTS 382-2449.
Signed RODs To Date in FT 1089
Regm
iV^efe ^ /SWMUIHMJ
ran of vontwno
Contact
Headquarters
Con tad
1 PnauftS*ngt,m OUOW F PCBtend
cMotobenmnea
htolandGW
1 Su&wnlLeofeMA 0608/80 F PCfc.w*l
chloride, and
Muttvl toiVBnti
fa Ml
^v fin n>ij), N J OVZWB F Sotraifc.TCE,
oMorabanaina,
nlm^hQW
D CtaMarOitpoaiMV 120M8 F PMtowdVOCi
hMi
I dan Ridge Radum, HI OMQ/M F RadnctiH
(SamaUomdaAWflBtOnnga natenah Intel
flOOf
D UontlainWati Orange, Kl osaon F RadioactfM
(Same at<2lan Rdge Radun rnaHriakihaal
ROD)
TSCA ExcanMnand
•lninnm*na ftt
ranannonoi
PCB(oi:tolNni
vathing:GW
pump and nat
TSCA EBanfen:
taUSiaion, en-
•M pkMmant
Entonmni GWpunpmd
fe a Fund-toad treat wti
ti» dMtaipeiofiwr
N>goia«» Sotcow
terPRP
tttover
•*j._ 1 1__J t^_^_B^JJ ^t
SHKiUHi VKBUOnol
•^^•a^twW ^B^BA «UKa«MA
MDnBawr IHOn ITUDQDOn
Uk^M 4^MAM* ^U^LB^^I
waw orange ajnaoK
» jj— •••JiJ •• i^^^^awa^^ ^J
MBOIWO • ifiMiViWn 0*
paVtofGiin ndon nubQitaM
AdQaiiliC cytiom;
Sttto flcckralon;off-
flOffljUfffiflUf MttdBBQUil
UtoJatmki
FTS-833-t78€
617473-5786
JmDownig
FTS433-1730
617-67W708
FttWak
FTS4644774
212-2644774
HarbKng
FTS-2W-1129
212-264-1129
Ramliat
FTS-2844099
212^644099
RavnoUat
FTS-2644098
212-264-8089
JennbfHaler
FT$47S47DS
JonnifBT H&loy
FTS47S^70S
ULtfctMa ua* Bn rlnn
TMMHI W1 nOOBn
FTS475-9839
VtaonavanRodan
FTS-475-9839
•ctontt VBJI Rodsn
FTS-475-9839
VietonavanRoden
FTS475-9839
-------
Signed RODS To Date In FT 1989
(continued,)
Region Site Nam. Sue
Signature
Data
Uad
Pointer
Conadarad
Regan)
Conttd
Hadquanm
Conbct
III Croyden TCE. PA
III Habata Auto Salvage. PA
III UWUanufaBB0ing,PA
IB RaauftLandfl,PA
Bwit jit i .ojn nc
WituMrLrMtn Duta-via fcaT
WAfflaVnn ftawato TN
WlfnnMa ftiimn Til
IV CetorM*eCani.NC
IV toseuHGmering.R
ViWa^m laantBI Ml
V MDCOIM
12/29/88 F
0301/89 F
0301/tt F
03OM8 F
11BMM C
DBflBM F
WfflMB r
flaacm F
caeaw E
C001/V E
09AIM E
MOW E
TCEflGW
Laid, PA*, and
pMhatakaatamin
Mi
Hat* and
totals
Uaiak, pMute
•M,andTCA
ii.i.i.
Vmlk Urn 'n mil
puk unn.
pkanek,antf
MMiiiaW.ioi.
•nddabnt
pro, BJkLk.nl
matakntai
Mth.tfMa.Md
phanohkiaoiand
OW
HaavynwMiand
laad
Otonoiand
targankilnHl.
aadhwniantfSW
knenmnnwoy
Rflcyrtngtsnocy
Copoar
racBunafion
ta*r
OpeiHitint
minautedaa
fflunopal anoll
Pa^athr
manufaeuing
put torn
BattaQf racydar
UiM^hmffH
TnokbBy
varianca taly
MP*
Fnton;landfl
OM«a|at
^^•"^"
honentnn
No acton
Dwimiawar
cuing |uuwl,
conatucoonot
new pond
Ttemd
tM&Mnt
TaVric nd fttri
lanmaV
j , , , ,1
QKpQaMi
Owmal
Matnantlood
cenmh
-.,. [inji|
aatibatonof
ulon«iB;off-
tiladRpoialoi
oetrii;
ntubanel
hdneratecGW
pumpandtMl
Chanieal
Raton of •
atatnlint
Mi
terflW
•awMtakiMM
inoravn^
j^j maW
ttftdionind
etaMatacOW
punptnd tout*
InaT UTuxMiH*
JOT ntnegar
FT&597-2193
21W97-2193
FnmBurm
FTS697-47SO
21M97-4750
Rch Wattnan
FTW97-3155
21M97-3155
VfcJanot*
FTS597-8896
21M07-8g9B
AnrivPHntri
FTSO7-1288
215-597-1286
KavCniM
FTS457-77gi
40W47-7791
Hvy Hudson
FTS-257-7791
40^347-7791
DnoNuMmr
FTS4S7-7791
404447-7791
UkhabGIn
FTS-257-77B1
404447-7791
Dmidtttet
FTS-2S7-2643
484347-8643
DnMWkn
FTS-888-7275
31206-7275
fBrfiBoba
FTS48M740
918-B8S4740
FTS475-9754
Carolina Roe
FTS-475-9754
Caroline Roe
FTS475-9754
Carolina Roe
FTS475-9754
CanGnaRoa
FT5475-9754
Robin Andanon
FTS482-2MS
Robin Anderson
FTS482-2446
Robin Andenon
FTS482-2446
CandaceWngfald
FTS47S4317
CandaoaWingGald
FTS475-9317
Kirtlttite
FTS^82-4W1
KurtLmter
FTS482-4831
-------
Signed RODs To Date in FT 1989
(continued)
Region Site Nura, SUB
Sfcntiure Lead ThrwtProUem
Petifeof
•t
Considered
Remedy
V
V
V
V
VI
VII
VIII
K
K
MDCOILN
Ninth Avenue Dump, K
Wauoonda Sand 4 Gravel, 0.
Wmanii (Mil rVnfcuiifuitnn Ufl
WauuuGWConttnmtBn.WI
PMIM CftftMith^ Cn TV
ttniA Vm^m 1BA
FndeaOon>.UO
UbbyGW.UT
FakrtiMnir IfhMflilnl
RaytaoniCA
FaKMd(SanJbeo),CA
BU.CA
069009 E Ctgamand Traattbitv Stebfeatoi; GW
rarganantoi, vanancafely pump and seat
tadhNnt,and
QW
OSS009 F Onjaflia, Combinem HoKpol removal:
inoraanca, and oontaranenV ranaiaton; nl
damna in GW and tHttnaiM remedy containment GW
iai pumpandnat
03)3109 E Inonjana PouUegas Uamoringieap
mgalon mprovements,
laachattoodadan
(fapoaal
449400 C TRChAMf ........ Ronwwdwtfl
treatmant to reduce
TCEbadan
120308 F TCEinGW SubtaquantOU. GWwalmenl
19O9IBB F Ifatrit -- fcniti tttMi>«*«"'
12/2808 F VOCa.wBMoi, ReeyoBng laca> Hydra* control
•Vld MrVMfe Bid QAC
natnantdachBige
toP07W:ofl«lB
128008 E Woge^nHaning GWOUL PtoHaring
^_____^ chamtaaJi aialaniabba
O&QQiaa ^ E VOCiandTCE kMili
j^*aiMk«d^^ B«||B
wncBDnvnn
tw&iNrt by vBpor
•rtmBrt Carton
vdflUBvation
Wan vHIMnl
aaratorcQW
axtactionand
ttaaonant
030009 E VCCahiaiand StnyvaUtobnit QW pump and
QW ihakMQW t-axmuavioi
12rt60B E VOCanuland Water we and Soi removal: aoi
GW nejong vapor anacaon;
OWtraaBnam
FtetiBoce
FTS48M740
312-88W740
AfisonHltner
FT&3534417
3124534417
Uaknda Gould
312486-7253
FTS4864399
3124864399
ManjniGuameio
FTS48B43B9
3124884399
OwidKalari
FT5-255471S
2144554715
TknUndannod
FTS-2554735
214455473S
David Cmrfbrd
FTS-757-2856
912-236-2856
KanWaJlaea
FTS4854415
30»2934415
GtanKatnar
FTS4544481
4154744481
HetanUcMnby
FTS4544453
4154744453
HatanUcNnlay
4154744453
Kurt Umber
FTS482-4831
Lu Canton
FTS-475-9758
XurtLamber
IkaCaiufl
FTS-175-9758
Lisa Canon
FTS475-9758
StaM Golan
F15-475-97SO
FTS4754372
TahZimmflrman
FTS482-2461
JaeTiegar
F1S4754372
FTS4754372
JaaTiegar
FTS4754372
JaaTngar
FT54754372
-------
RODS Scheduled for Signature in FT 1989
Region
Site tame. State
Operate Lead ThreatPrettem Rons of Considered Regnal
Unt kitamt Remedy Contaa
Hoodquaftsfs
Conttcf
I Auburn Road Undo. NH SubMquent F Met*. PowUe Range of Mura ChotJuwMlri Jerwfer Haley
rargann.and cteacbnsfc andGW FTS*3-1fiZS FTS47W70S
utonttflui watte etontiMi 61747M623
endOW
Baird&McQun.UA SubMavant F Onjam. EiCMtonand MnySendenon JennderHatoy
PAH^ traatment FT5433-1738 FTS47MTO
parfcid«.8nd eontairment 617^67^736
•MM
inudknant
I Beacon Heighfe,CT Subeeouam E Inch* Lendbl Ranged HanjaratVeto Candaoa WngfieM
doposMon •Kemaiwior FT«33-1«60 FTS475«17
dkpotitionof 617473«eo
I CoaUayLandlil,NH FM F VQCaand Cap: QW pump Paul Jennifer Haley
ounkifal endlW l*mheiiii
-------
RODS Scheduled for Signature in FT 1969
(continued)
E
Region Site Name, Stale
Operate
Unrt
Poirmof
Regnal
Conbei
Headquarters
ContKt
II BECTruGknj.NY Fnt
II Bog Creek Farm. Nl Subtequent
II CekMTruckng,NJ Subuquert
II ChemirinttclMo,NJ Fnt
II Chemical Uamafl,HJ Fnt
HRnminm NJ ft«f
II Da Re«a1 Chemical. NJ Fnt
OrVAiKBnarf 111 EWi
D EOT Property. NJ Subuquent
n Futon Terrrinak, NY Fret
QflnniiioM rfK
(Central Foundry). NY
B Low Pirn UndO. HI Subuquant
F
F
F
F
E
F
F
F
E
Some
eddmed
•astern GW
andiadmem
TCEandVOCe
hGW
enddoonin
GW
waajHWaWJ* mm*
manthGW
endioi
fan
TCE. cadmium.
end mercury n
GWandtoi
benmend
TGE
Tokianeend
xytenainQW
Orgarieain
GW.ioi.and
udmnb
-fj.. -
endeedRMnti
VOCanGW
Aquifer not
eomaminated by
ffe
Uunpto
operable untt
Uuimprectica-
bilywamr.GW
pump end treat
doe* not meet
ucu
operable undK
Tank and tndar
nntinQ
MfcMVriMMM
OpflraDDm
Attarnaie main
CERCUS
lUBpajunili;
^ ^ ^j—^^^j—j—^
arnoaDiayByDn
cleanup
iBnoarai
Raumpling
iaquirad;TAG
•Muded
hufimntM
adjaoemtJBin
tiemofwaala
FUTFSiorolUite
GWeNy
Nofurtner acton
GW pump and
treat:
nunaiaton of
eadimantt
Natural
tftonu&bon with
GWandurtaoa
deanup
GW pump and
treat
SnlffiaiiuH of
GWpumpend
tvat
GW pump and
«BBJ;
andeoHHicaton
ofeei
GWpumpand
LBV-
tonporotufo
tomal
•rraction of
eat GW pump
CM-
incraraionor
BBIVIMUtBn
GWpumpend
Damon Duda
FTS-264-9589
RchScrmiz
nS-264-1252
212-264-1252
EdFnwiy
FTS-264-3555
212-264^555
JonJaeepha
FT&2644D88
2124644098
TomUzB
2124644392
KflwhWBb
FTS-264-1784
212-264-1784
Larry Grante
FTS464-7668
212464-7668
FTS4644425
2124644425
CntjtfeBiau
FTS-264-5383
212-2644393
CrisMTiium
FTS-26W713
2124644713
212-2644857
Sharon Jafkw
FTS464.259B
212-264-2596
Victoria van Roden
FTS475-9839
Victoria van Roden
FTS475-9839
Vctoru van Roden
FfS-475-9839
VetoravsnRodan
FTS47S4839
NeJBmaSenjaBa
FTS-4754839
Victons von Rodtn
FTS475-9839
V- Uuui _j.i Q(v4an
FTS475-9839
U^^i^> ** — • —
vnona van nooen
FTS47S4839
FTS475-9839
Noima Senjtaa
FTS475-7027
NaimaSerpia
FTS-475-7027
-------
RODs Scheduled for Signature in FT 1989
(continued)
Region Site Name, Sttt
Opera*
Una
Lead Threat/Problem
Pant of.
Considered
Remedy
Regm!
Contact
HeadQuarten
Contact
II Marathon Battery, NY Subuquom
II North Sea. NY Fnt
II PepeFMU.hU Fnt
Port Washington, NY Fnt
U Preferred Paring. NY Fnt
II Roebfng Steal, HI Fnt
Q SCP.NJ Fret
II SUSInHumenB,NY Fnt
II VauaJ Water Supp*, NY Subaaquent
II Vnetand Chemical, NJ Find
ID BaByQW.PA Fnt
n CryoChem,PA Fnt
PJ DougtBa^OkpoBBLPA Sutauquent
F
E
F
F
F
E
F
F
F
E
E
F
Cadmium in
aadlmenti
MuncipalMhl
andtapfc
lagoons
Methane gu
ILritwM nnm
Motnanagaa,
TCE.and*»i
Chromum
MatakandPCai
in toi and debris
Organic* and
mas* in ad
ChMnaM
JiLihiiLrJiiiJU»« M
nfOnOmtMMm n
eel
CNorinetad
rtvwsandTCE
hew
Arsenic.
cadmium, and
TCEinGW.SW.
toi, and
•RE.FCE.and
TCAinGW
TCEnOW
PC8i,andlaadln
eWandaoi
Stan conflict on
cleanup level
Threat »o*4ne
eiMronnent
Site wad tor
dhpoaalorob
andtoep
Buklng
OWtOUM
VVMMMI1 MM
uRJonpicMing:
muKpiauRn
i."
TCE
an^anal ••••••ll
MCU
Daavhaocata
toMwtWpaik
Ragjon attempt
todafeKBI
Concarator
CfOHIMflnl
il**11 ^"**^fl*^l
opambfeunni
Flood plain
Dredging wd
taton; off-tita
Undlldoaure
No action under
Superfund
rMAWmmn
end Beat
•imlMEflw ^i^^^BfM
QW pump and
net
Dhpoaalef
turface matenali
^^•^^A
nrong
natablrttidw
Techncalimprao-
QW pump and
natvtti
ninjacDM;iMib
Haw atripping
QW pump and
natutingar-
•trimJum
•rpHp
•Miaiaoi
pump and nat
toiwaahnxon-
aaialBBDeat
QW pump and
option open
35F
bBBMriomaoi
eowr.Aatar
GW
PamTemee
FTS-264-1036
212-264-1036
CarotneKNan
FTS-2644151
212-2644151
BiFrietKne
FTS464-7HM
212464-7604
EdAfe
FTS.264.5022
212-264-5022
Janet Cappall
FTS2644679
21M644679
TamamRoaa)
FTS-2644583
21246*4583
Janet Fount!
FTS4644613
2124644613
Abftni rtyon
FTS26M706
2124644706
Ed Ah
FT84644522
FTMB44S22
FndCatanao
FTS.264-1913
212464-1013
Pat Tan
FTS4674164
21&697-3164
ChnaPia
FTS«7-31»
21S«07-316B
VkJanoak
FT84674886
VictonB wn Rooofl
FTS475-9839
Neftma SanpTa
FTS475-7027
ViooriBwi Roden
Vetma van Rodan
FTS475-98J8
Victoria van Rodan
FTS475-9839
Vidanawn Roden
FTS475-9839
NafenaSenjaBi
FTS475-7027
Victoria van Roden
FTS4754831
fjt^^UM k^Mt Hftrfftrt
vuuiH wi nouvn
FTS47S4830
• * 1 Rntinn
laiAUni VHI HUUUn
FTS4754839
JackSchad
JaskSchad
FTSJ82-48W
CanbwRDa
FT5-47M754
-------
RODs Scheduled for Signature in FT 1989
(continued)
Site Nairn. Soda
Opambta Laid TtratPnotam Pontot Contidarad Regmal
UM Intanat Remedy Contad
Headqua>m
Contact
ID
II
U
II
U
IV
IV
Greanwod Charm* VA Fnt
UnmlaMiNwi DMM! DA ttnlwmiUMt
MWMNNUH HIHfl, rn aUOMX|Mni
Kmbert»n.PA Subtaquant
kimilloMl C flftfi HO ClLlMMaUMt
OrdnanoaWart^WV SubMquant
OsbonaL«lfl,PA Fim
DtihlMaAwrfma Pi Fblt
aS.Tttanwn.VA Sutaaguant
BtadSB^FL Fill
CapaFar.NC Fht
CanaMn.SC Rnt
ttmAlM* it CaMt
BHlM*t*ta|^ 11 Alt
F
E
E
F
c
E
r
E
Ugoon
skJdgn,ni,
afbWtta^ind
otftiV 40bn
UQCtnfiW
TCE.DCE.and
utiaul «4tlMMa an
nvj i UMIUVJ ii
GW
R«n«M
vocx
^^^J^^.^J
BraDnHBD
ofganxB,
dmmun,and
MbiOW
PAHikiaai
andQW
PAH^PCBa.
andVOCiin
col
VQC^nui-
bukvaaa)
Farricaultaa
auttiieaddin
lurtut WM
la^ai Pdk
and banana In
GW
CCAcnmoax
PAhh.and
VOCihGW
and ad
voainaw
UD&
•vWl.
-• r J
paaaaai.
cyanidailnGW
iMilnrinl
kiGW
Ttattabity
UldBK
votatibs&on flnd
<^MIMIMMI
QUOBDQn
Cress modtt
OOnOaVTal
• fc_tt*n|i
WDpW
apaiabtounni;
aoitrlaa
baton ite
chain
Atfanlavel
UnjaAOC,
tailBWleon
tanralon;
BMaHVttidr
Prior MUb
•fc.
QWdaarwp
•Mb)
Pramua
Im-Luuih
RCfUdto
H'lTuJl hujjjiui^-
atogytoinenilar
Lov-Miparaun
vubdiuiDn; high-
tamperanm
oxidation (on- or
ofl-eifc)
GW pump and
•tipping
•Vn iiiiiaiti iliii i
HOfmpvOamDDn
SdnsMng
llwindar
-•---I --••-! • t
fUjnCaWGnfinlGBl
natmant
Samlaad
OtMedbpoialef
CCA. emu*
andaibaHDi:aol
vaUingar
thannal traatneni
uw NfMdjf! inu
O.U.
Danw Osnuskat
FTS587-3167
215407^167
GivaDmiVflfic
FT&S974166
21S49741B6
WlamSleutebilla
CTfiJUTJuna
21S497467B
BMW 1 urina
FTS4074910
21S«7-0910
GamdoAmador
FTS«7-3167
21M87^167
Pal Tan
FTW87-3164
21S«7-316*
laffHTiMM.
FT&S07-126S
21M87-12S6
Paula Ratter
FTSW7-1113
21S«7-1113
taiMJUtofl
FTS-257-2643
40W47-2643
vOn D&IVUUml
FTS-257-7791
40W«7-7791
Jan Bofflnani
FTS-257-7791
4MM7-77B1
ftiraha Ifmn
FT&257-2643
40*447-2643
FTS757-2643
40*4*7-2643
CarekneHoa
FTS475-9754
h^C^^t
FTS482-4648
JaekSchad
erejiQA JAJB
JMkQHuarf
FTS482-4M8
J&GxScnsd
FTM82^«48
CBRHnaRDe
FTS47M754
Camfinafba
FTS47S475*
JaekSchad
FTS382-4W8
(hJJn iiwtvBM
FTM8a-2448
Robn Andanon
FTS482-2446
CandaeaWvigfiald
FTS47S-0317
fimtairn WmfinlH
FTS47M317
IMM IjLlLjUUL
FT&4S2-2446
-------
RODS Scheduled for Signature in FT 1989
(continued)
IV Uuwport LandS. Fl
Fnt
F Uhosnan
anvifonmanul
Cam* Warm Rotai Anderson
FTS-257-2643
404447-2543
IV Newom Bretws, US Fnt
F PAHtandPCai
hSW
ArttwCoara Robin Anderson
FTS-257-2643 FTS4S24446
404447-2643
IV NorftHoRyaoodDuRiptTN
E PAHtmitis.
EXIMIQ loi csp
from old Slafi
nGWwdtoi
FabaaBamaa Cendeoe WmgfiekJ
FTS-257-2643 FT54754317
404447-2543
IV ScruyUUelBk.FL
Fnt E Lead, enrontum, ComprehansM
endriGMhOW PX» d
end sol
BeronSohustgr CandacaMfinafieU
FTS457-2G43 FTS47S43I7
404447-2643
IV Smr*tF8rm,KY
Fkit
F PAHS.PC8*.
UfW^a ^mA ^k^e^k — *— M A!AA^ IfMWI^MMtbwt
viAii% ino nwfli KapBiipiiCH luwijun
kisoh
DamNuemer RobnAndarson
FTS-257-7791 FTS4B2-2446
404447-7701
IV Sttuflar.ColdCnek.AL Fnt
E SotMrtilnaW
QWpumpnd
unto(SWMUi)
dOHdpriorlB
RCRA
OmSeaa
FTS-257-2643
404447-2643
FTS47M317
IV
Fnt E SahMrnshOW SWIUsdoud GW pump end
priKtoRCRA «Btt
Dim Soon CmdaaWinali
FTS-257-2643 FTS4754317
404447-2643
IV Sydney MneSMDe, a Fnt
••
OWwdtai;
GW remedy NttSeto Candace WkigfiaVl
madeoontsffli- FTS457-2643 FTS47M3I7
nstsdaoufsr 404447-2643
V AISOO.OH
Fnt
E FD19riudgM0d
GWhmdW
Dim tUtoy
FTW8M2B7
31248M287
KurtUmbar
FT54B24831
V Auto ton. ID
IflftOW Hotspois/
RntCactsrie KurtLmbar
FTS4534SOO FTS4824a31
312-35M600
tdUfieHion; eff-
V Berfn4Fem>,UI
SutMquM E VOOiMd
VH*
Boo Wippo
P1S88M75B
KurtUmbar
FTS48Z4B31
SubOtCc*
(HMlHd
MlppilBfcraw
Flit
ROD
•ndtotgnaln
Oiumandsai JsnBartM
FTS46M438
312-8864438
GWtaahati
Lin Canon
FTS4754758
-------
RODs Scheduled for Signature in FT 1989
(continued)
Region Sita Name, Safe
Operable
Unit
Lad ThresvProbton
Pan* of
Coradered
Reganel
Conact
Headquarter*
Contest
V Buckeye, OH
V Brran Stage Yard. L
V amatory Dump, Ml
V CHI/Dow. Ml
Vf*m~mm Pmihuffi I
V HedUmMuahaa.!!!
V hdustWEnaatCH
V kmeCity.lH
V JamnfleAefiBeoi.*!
V Kenwood. Ul
V KywrWustfrtli
V LasWrVPophrCiOH
Fnt E
Subsequent F
Suteequent S
Fm E
CWl 9
FM F
Sutaaequam F
FM E
Fnt E
FhJ E
FM 8
Subsequent F
MuradpaJand
industrial trasta in
GWandaoi
TCE.VOCJ.
Rt6te4eV, VQ
cyerideinGW
Drummed wane
Coal tv content-
nankinaai
tnhmk Mil
end dye residue in
OWandaoI
TCE,PCE,TCA.
nd cMorotaftn hi
OW ended
•bidflVQBnBi
•nd MfQaVHi In
QWendMi
VOCanGW;
buried drama
VOCaeiQWand
at
VOCa.TCE.and
Ifeudetgannin
OWandael
Onanice.Kb.
endTCOOkiQW
endaoj
Addmina
dmrage;
oompicKl&d
hydrogwtegy
FractunDO
hnjimrk
PBOlPCK
PrwousROO
addfBBB0dd
•Quren
GW contBfflra-
tm
Remedy all
beng
i J -M
ooiManM
Vary high
JRMIt
StattARAR
iaswoidendfl
ki flood pleh
Fotraaai:M>
amei under
RCRAoder:
aim
LanahndH;
QlMaimDeBX
QWoontamina-
eon
lUapleeoum
akm
RCfMfMed
•eateieubjecl
to UK
Capwn
dManuon ditch;
SubtttoDconr
owrmunapal
Altarmtowstar
»rtl
No further action
i .[, i , _j
rananDon 01
hotipoti;ofl-
ateRCRA
lend! tor other
MiftBlMl-
GW pump and
Met
Sol Mating; GW
treatment
Ceo: pea
«amna:GW
pump end tat
bvtfcj
vHifGBtieicGW
.. . ,'*-J- .
MMltNleyt
oonBtt winn
eraaeipkim
Cowr
apefcction;
enhmoemeRt
GW pump and
nacendngaa
VHEHMnt
CepimpnM-
RMTItti
monnoring:GW
tanepfion:GW
pump and net;
pjeioondol
Soume
MBtmantGW
pump and Met
eWAMMertMMi*
I M MM l<
.^A^B^l^^^AAB
ooraQunon;
Gevwh^iuiiv
j >- j
OPiOiVinQ
KenTMaO
FTS«64895
31248viB896
BBBolen
FTM6M316
312-35M316
UauYang
FT&3GM284
312«M2S4
Frank Boffins
FTS«Wa3
312-88W663
WMrivCaiMv
FTS4B6-7b71
31Z«B-7S7t
Angola Porter
FTW63-1331
312463-1331
TheraaeGioia
F1S4864B94
312486MM
UkoGinord
FT5486-7257
312-886-72S7
Dan Com
FTM86-7252
312^88-7252
Pater Micr
FTSM64783
S12-88W783
Uan/QuitBhon
F1S4864144
31248M144
JohnOetainnut
FT508M756
312^634756
KurtLamber
FTM824S31
Lisa Canon
FTS475-97S8
LJU Carson
FTS475-9758
Kurtlamber
FTM82-4831
Uaa Canon
FTS47M758
LJU Canon
FT547M7S8
Lisa Canon
FT547547SB
KurtLambar
FTS482-4831
Kun Umber
FTS382-4831
KurtLamber
FTS482-4831
Usa Canon
FTW7M758
Use Canon
FTS47M7S8
-------
RODs Scheduled for Signature in FT 1989
(continued)
OpanUa Lead Thmffnblm Point of Corwderad
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
VI
VI
VI
Iteii County. OH
norMrraure rung, w
PCA.UI
RasflUMfilDunjhUI
Schffino,OH
SpiegaIbergUnd11,M
SpnnQMd Tmnph HI
Union CaMa. OH
Uhen Scrap ken, MN
WodzabEntarpniM. M
• • *-• ULa^a M*J
nOnWraMD HnRQi PM
Ifcfeo. IX
StaridanDkpaaa).TX
Fnt F UMfconjato.
and pHtcidMin
QWandMl
Sutoaquanl S tanjannkiGW
Fnt E PulpmilquJdiin
OWindSW
Fnt S P*t studoea in
GWndHi
Fnt E Uuldi«m
SutaquM F NntibdBM,
VOC^ntf
pMidtoh
iwdwIiindGW
PWi B ICvMlAH^MMW M
rHI r MMOOiyBHiii
GWndHi
Fnt E DWmlnHl:
•gneiinOW
Fnt S PmUtlMdtnd
PCSiiinlwd
OW
Fnt F PCa^dtadm,
wdkomhOW
ndnl
FkM E fWonki
houMnoldi
SufeMquM E VOCihQW
Fnt E VOCkndPCBi
mow
Plum
i iilinminnlaii wMt
•nmimpN wivi
GWptonasfrom
•MHV^M KflIM
l^A^^^MaLwt
•nvnunQm
SCMBOtWfMn
dm hounQ n
PVMUi
(•ntonlfMy
^1 ^BAbk^BMAi^A
• BDnVmlUWI
Pranoui
ivnowl
•ddnMBdri
tolndOWcav
^^k^M^Mk
mmmnn
Radon IM!
oouUnoltN
MfbuMto
urwiunimi
tfngi
PkjnweMli
Sounoontun-
mentGW
(H^^Mk^tfrf
uWiMnl
QW pump ml
trad
Surteestib3»
bon;GWpunip
tndmt
HeMpetwdGW
nnwdwton; ap
Cap with out
talon; tknyvd
nundiito:
• ^-- •> — * —
••cnv GDMcnn
QWimolBta:
onno)
uidnicflion« G«^p
SounandGW
h^Mta^Mri
nBTWIi
Cap; Mi vapor
•MtaGW
taamorvoai;GW
pumpondtaat
air (noMDntiQ
Pouiblt no acton
Raparor
•^Miaoiau oi^HaBV
•VWj l0Mr
•MB
OWnmadblien
Bonmadiaien:
TonyRuBar
FTS486«61
312-886-8961
UnyOutiBhon
FTS48fr«144
312486<144
Peter Millar
FT&48M783
3124864783
Jon PotofBon
FTS353-1284
312-353-1264
TofnAfcamo
FTS486-7278
312486-7278
JonPatanon
FTS353-1284
312453-1264
Gam Wong
FTS4864337
3124864337
JohnOaWmit
nSOS34755
3124634756
KanTndal
FTS48648K
SicvovvBSv
TnkaHyda
FTS4864286
3124884296
WBavn RDM
FT5-25M730
2144664730
RobanDeaw
FTS254735
2144S6473S
Ruthtoaal
FTS-25S473S
2144664736
Lu Canon
FTS475475B
Loa Carson
FTS4754758
Kurt Lumbar
FT54824831
Lsa Carson
FTS-475-97S8
KurtUmbar
FTM82-4831
LJU Canon
FTS47S4756
Liu Canon
FTS47M758
Kurt Umber
FTS4B24831
Liu Canon
FTS47S4758
Ua Canon
FTS47S47S8
Joaliagar
FTS47M372
JeaTwoar
FTS47M372
JoaTNgar
FTS4764372
-------
RODs Scheduled for Signature in FT 1989
(continued)
Ugwn !
Sue Mm, SOB
Operate
Unt
Laad ThreavPrabtan
rMiaiof
VII
Ifll
Vtl
VII
VII
VII
vu
VII
vn
VII
VIII
urn
VIII
Afkansa City Dump, KS Subcequam
diMiriav 14 Coat
Chen*at,KS Subooquont
DM*. IS (M
Hartngo,NE SubMquam
Johm'StudgePendlKS Fnt
K«n PMI LriunUM 110 rm
Itmmti^nm U ftot
SoMSamHO Ft*
Mhvwb MB CM
nnwiji nE »WOM
Bui»onNufiam.UT Fht
C HnUanai Iff Fbvf
LJbbyGW.Iff Subooquent
S
F
F
E
E
E
E
E
PNtoando*
tadmntnGW
piUt UQCi ml
^^IA^—H.AAJ
cnomnao
OORlpOUKll If) GW
andooi
Znc.eadum.
ooppor. toad, and
act* in fob and
cM
VOCup— %
PCBiond
Sti""6*
Carbon
MBddarideand
EOBkiari
FCBahGW
PatfKtfain
lagoon and GW
^^
vnvmnHnBi ino
1 U^TCA in CtW
ondoal
TCEkiGW
Cartm
MKhtofdeond
eNontaminGW
N001«Dod-
ntol
• ^-? — nra^rtn
and none in GW
PAHiandVOOi
In GW and Hi
PaMaum
UuhNito flnamhla
mk
IMnginj;
loochabiUyMof
tei;raprapoiad
^^•klB^J
ranwoy
bafartwrdafnod
duineRDAA
lUptaniMoneat
Ida
He PCSi found
during poot-
dotunnanilBring
Pubic vderwal
oonhninaM
Cermmifla>wkT
NMRIQNBOn
polBionwIba
QW fwnodifloon
maybatachniealV
MliMvMkbkalrifea)
(WponoYkMrnik
nn^mmf -^
nanWaV am
fVtocBDonof
msB rack and
ground pboomant
orourtaeeeovar;
•BMk^^ ^^BMIhWkJ
inanonnogw
wrtaDO raeonlBur.
pjfoaKbon ol doap
aquHor
— "S—
No (urthar action
£• ml
Pnwanl nugiaton
Pnnant mignion
toodwweai
OfMalond
••kaa^^aMal ^ ^a^Mrf
uwuiwunpara
Frcnnkin im4
fOTDQUOTl Of (Ofli
QW rNMoivbon
DonCnrM
FT5-757.28S6
912-236-2856
U««- M.
FTS-757-2856
913436-2856
Alice Fuent
FTS-757-2856
FTS-757-2856
Ma_Me goce
Oaml
SOffVTMmflUSBf
FTS-7974856
9134364856
David Crawbrri
FTS-7S74866
9134364856
^kimKiMK
FTS-757-2856
9134364856
FTS-757-2856
9134364856
Stow Audi tanoiw
FTS-757-2856
9134364856
Steve Auchfertonie
FTS-757-2856
9134364856
Stephana Waflace
FTM6M4U
firtlBmn
FTS48S4414
4064494414
KanWalbca
FTS43M414
40644fr6414
T«h Zffimerman
FT^382-2461
J»ckSchad
FT&382-464a
Tish Zintin8rrn8n
FTS082-246I
brfiSdiad
FTS4824648
r«hZnwwrman
FTS-3B2-2461
JackSenad
FTS4834848
FTS382-2461
JadcSeha4
FTS4824848
JackSenad
FTS382-4848
itocxScnBo
FTS4824848
JOeTieger
FTS475-8372
_
FTS4754372
JooTtogar
FTS475-8372
-------
RODs Scheduled for Signature in FT 1989
(continued)
VIII
VII
VIII
VIII
VIII
DC
DC
DC
DC
DC
DC
K
DC
K
Mantnuo Vcnfy, ui Fnt
Portend Cement UT rnt
Sand Creak Mut», 00 r KB
Sharon Stool UT Fnt
Silwr BON Creek. UT Fnt
WeodbuyChMMLOO SutetfMnf
Applied IMMfak.CA Fnt
Ata£oelinga,CA Fnt
DeUuiian kMunenk,CA Rat
Cant Wood. CA Fnl
FmMt,CA Ftat
Kappa*. CA Fnt
UcCol.CA SuaMquM
PhoenaGeodper.AZ Sutaequert
E
F
E
E
F
E
E
8
E
F
E
IbwMHM kAlMH
unnain BMQa
and radon
Urinknl
ananieineamant
UnduitaMlGW
J.-LJT U-JUaH
pMticidai.ind
nyorunoni
Mlaingi;GW
MnngMM.
MMflKk iVM (VMH
(•hoi in Ming
pandtandbypau
•nddttam
VOCainGWnd
Hi
Atbaatoain
PCBandVOCa
kiGWandtol;
^MMklM^tHtM MMl
aMcnpMang ano
ChnmmlnGW
tanCCApnxeaa
VOCakiGW
PCP.PA*.
dtadaehromua.
andanMricinaol
andQW
aal
SolMnfeinQW
•llnfnntti Qnt\
^ui.vpoMiri.1
LDPt
Btomng tutwiQi
t&Mf
Vbkm:21
mlonoubic
lift
GWpkma
aiMdaelMto
Bkwing aabailoi
dual
TwmveMtm
CkMto
aBTieullunl
acMy
GWplunw
MndtofMa
•riMdl OlrHi
ndkw-
taiMlbum
Deap^Nl
SUbalateceap
SMUfaidon of
bama;OW
nknaption;cap
ssr
GW pump and laac
soiMBion
Conu6daion;cap
lSoWfafal
GW pump and IM.
IWH
GW pump and taat
GW pump and tMt
ooAipranancM
^^^_^_^^M>
•nwnmc
andaaad atucnn
duatoarannaioni
GW pump and n«
FTSS64-1793
303493-1793
GonaTavtar
FTS564.1BIO
309-293-1640
Brian Pntowsta
FT&S64-1512
Vn.9Q3.1Sl9
SamVancB
303-293-1515
SoottBravn
FTS48M414
303-293^*14
UunWBama
FTS«4.1B39
303493-1838
Glenn Nttw
FTS4544481
41M7444B1
Dan Her
FTS4544370
41647M37D
JufciBuney
FTS4544910
41M744910
Jin Hnon
FT&4S44389
41M744M9
JeffOhont
FIS4S44990
41547448BO
John KMUMiV
FT545W910
41S«744910
JOIWI BHWaV
F1S4544103
41M7*«103
Jin HOMTDlUHl
F1S4S44566
4164744666
FTS47M372
FTS4754372
EydiePnes
FTS47M7S9
JoeTwger
FTSJ7S-8375
EytfiePnes
FTS47S4759
JbeTMgar
FT&4754372
JoeTiagar
FTS47M372
EydiePinaa
FT&47S47S9
Joefegar
FTS475072
JoaTnotr
FTS47S4372
JoaT«gar
FTS47M372
JoaTnger
FTS47S4372
EydttPirMa
FTS47M7SB
JoeTieger
FTS47S4372
-------
RODs Scheduled for Signature in FT 1989
(continued)
Rogion Site tome. Sttis
Oparabte Lnd TrnalAQblam Nnfeof Considered Regional Headquarters
tint Memat Remedy Contact Contact
K Puny 01 Sataa. CA
Fhl
VKi. panadas, TreataMny
and had
BEST process: or Roberta Blank EydttPinai
low-temperature FTS454«14 FTS47W759
thermal bum 41W74-8214
K San Fernando tl.CA
Subaequent
F TCE and PCE in hoDrponbon ol Aintnppinp. with
QW Aquadett nt) vapor phase GAC: FTS45W015
diM reuse of 415474-8015
EyolePirtes
FTS475-9759
K SocftBay.CA
Subuquant
Fnal source Paw contanu- Carolyn
UNiliu acaon ratad ttuck and d'Abnana
MusMyoos; FTS4544Z2S
anuraNESHAPft 415474«25
ooveri on IsndfiUt
control ttreet dual
EyoTe Pines
FTS47S-97S9
X Comm.BayMST.WA Subuquant F PC* and
Dewatop Corav«ency ROD; MOajSMor
tedmnt nmtar-tny, FTS<399-2710
deanuporikria carmnad oquatie 206442-2710
dieoial and near
ahneontrwrnant
EyAPnas
FTW75-9759
X Comm. Bay/So. Taooma a*aaquanl
Snmp.WA
E UadandPAHin
dradpjing; kMitu;
op
Chnhnt Piyfc
Kun Umber
FTS0824831
X NoriUHM unon^ WA nut
E TCE.PCE.and
TCAkiGW
IjndnaaH
Site doun;GW Nai Thompson
pump and treat; FTS3N-7177
atarate rater 20M42-7177
•upply
Kut Umber
FTW82-W31
X Nortwnt TimtanMTi WA Rnt
F PCatneol TreataHBystudy BMOUvrtrifioafcn ChrisaMPiyk EydiePnec
FTS09M519 FTS47M759
20M424S19
X SrMrUBuntaiiUna.WA Ft*
F Oyaridaand
anariehcoi:
poaMialGW
WwaeRlfS Not yet
JamtOHam
FTSOB8»7721
296442-7721
EyoB PmoB
FTS4754759
TatodynaWah Chant) WA Sutaaouanl
E Sbdgairin
ojdudiortand
SoH
Nei Thompson Kurt Umber
FTM99-7177 FTS3824831
206442-7177
RCRAandSttt
tod plain
-------
F. SITE Fact Sheet
-------
SITE Program Participants
Developer Solicitation
Biological Technologies
MoTec, be.
Mt. Juliet, TN
Zimpro/Passavant, Inc.
Rothschfld. WI
BioTroI, Inc.
Chaska, MN
DETOX. Inc.
Dayton, OH
ECOVA Corporation
Redmond, WA
Physical/Chemical Technologies
Resource Conservation Co.
BeUevue, WA
Terra Vac, Inc.
Dorado, PR
CF Systems Corporation
Wai than, MA
BioTroI, Inc.
Chaska, MN
E.I. Du Pont de Nemours, Inc.
Newark, DE
Oberlin Filter Co.
Waukesha, WI
Freeze Technologies Corp.
Raleigh, NC
Toxic Treatments, Inc.
SanMateo, CA
Ultrox International, Inc.
Santa Ana, CA
002
002
003
003
003
001
001
002
003
003
003
003
003
Technology
Liquid/Solid Contact
Digestion of Organics
Combination Activated Sludge Biotreat-
ment with Powdered Activated Carbon
Fixed-Film Biodegradation
of Organics in Aqueous Waste
Fixed-Film Biodegradation
of Organics in Aqueous Waste
In-Situ Bioremediation of
Organics in Soil and Water
Solvent Extraction of Organics
from Soil/Sludge
In-Situ Vacuum Extraction
of Organics
Solvent Extraction of Organics
from Soil/Sludge
Soil Washing for Organics
Microfiltration of Metals
from Wastewater
Separation of Contaminants from
Wastewater by Freezing
In-Situ Stream/ Air Stripping
of Volatile Organics
Ultra-violet Radiation and Ozone
Treatment of Organics in Water
Developer Contact
Norm Allworth
615-754-9626
William Copa
715-359-7211
Thomas Chresand
612-448-2515
Edward Galaska
513-433-7394
Michael Nelson
206483-1900
Paul McGough
206-828-2400
James Malot
809-723-9171
Christopher SbaUice
Thomas C. Cody
617490-1200
Steve Valine
612-448-2515
Ernest Mayer
302-366-3652
James E. Heist
919-8504600
Philip La Mori
415-391-2113
David Fletcher
714-545-5557
EPA Contact
Ronald Lewis
513-569-7856
John Martin
513-569-7758
Mary Stinson
201-321-6683
Ronald Lewis
513-569-7856
Naomi Barkley
513-569-7854
Edward Bates
513-569-7774
Mary Stinson
201-321-6683
Dick Valentmetti
202-382-261 1
Mary Stinson
201-321-6683
John Martin
513-569-7758
Jack Hubbard
513-569-7507
Paul de Percin
513-569-7797
Norms Lewis
513-569-7665
* taken from EPA/540/8-89/010
-------
SITE Program Participants (continued)
Developer
Solicitation
Technology
Physical/Chemical Technologies (continued)
AWD Technologies, Inc. 004 In-Situ Vapor Extraction of
San Francisco, CA VOCs and Steara Stripping of
Extracted Vapor and Ground-
Water
Dchydro-Tech Corp.
East Hanover, NJ
Epoc Water, Inc.
Fresno, CA
Exxon Chemical Co./
Rio Linda Chemical Co.
Long Beach, CA
Exxon Chemical Co./
Rio Linda Chemical Co.
Long Beach, CA
Ozomcs Recycling Corp.
Key Biscayne, FL
Quad Environmental
Technologies, Corp.
Northbrook, IL
Solvent Services, Inc.
San Jose, CA
Solidification/Stabilization
Hazcon, Inc.
Katy, TX
International Waste
Technologies/GeoCon, Inc.
Wichita, KS
Cherafix Technologies, Inc.
Metairie, LA
Geosafe Corporation
Kirkland, WA
004
004
004
004
004
004
004
001
001
002
002
Chemical Extraction of
Orgamcs from Oily Waste
Chemical Leaching and
Microfdtration
Chemical Oxidation of
Cyanides in Soil/Sludge
Chemical Oxidation of
Organics in Wastewater
Soil Washing for Organics
and Metals; Ozone, UV,
Ultrasonic Treatment of
Washwater
Chemical Scrubbing System
for Organics in Gases
In-Situ Steam Injection/
Vacuum Extraction for Soils
Solidification/Stabilization for
Metals and Organics
In-Situ Stabilization of
Organics (PCBs)/Metals in
Soils and Sludges
Chemical Solidification/Stabilization
of Metals/Organics in Soils
In-situ Vitrification
of Organics
Developer Contact
David A. Bluestein
412-876-1504
Charles Greenfield
201-887-2182
Ray Groves
209-291-8144
Mark McGlathery
213-597-1937
Mark McGlathery
213-597-1937
Lucas Boeve"
305-361-8936
Harold J. Rafson
312-564-5070
Doug Dieter
408-453-6046
Ray Fundeibuik
713-9344500
Jeff Newton
316-269-2660
Philip Baldwin
504-831-3600
James Hansen
206-822-4000
EPAContK
Norraa Lewu
513-569-7665
Gordon Evans
513-569-7684
Laurel Staley
513-569-7863
Jack Hubbard
513-569-7507
Ten Shearer
513-569-7949
Ten Shearer
513-569-7949
Norma Lewis
513-569-7665
Ronald Lewis
513-569-7856
Paul de Percu
513-569-7797
Paul de Percia
513-569-7797
Mary Stinson
201-321-6683
Edwin Barth
513-569-7669
Ten Shearer
513-569-7949
-------
SITE Program Participants (continued)
Developer
Solidification/Stabilization
Separation and Recovery
Systems (SRS). Inc.
Irvine, CA
Soliditech, Inc.
Houston, TX
Silicate Technology Corp.
Scottsdale, AZ
S.M.W Seiko. Inc.
Redwood City, CA
Wastech. Inc.
Oak Ridge. TN
Thermal Technologies
American Combustion, Inc.
Norcrosi, GA
HAZTECH/EPA Region 4
Atlanta, GA
Ogden Environmental Services
San Diego, CA
Shirco Infrared Systems, Inc.
Dallas, TX
Retech, Inc.
Ukiah, CA
Riverdale, 0.
American Toxic Disposal
Wilmette, Q.
Honehead Resource
Development Cc., be.
Monaca. PA
Solicitation
(continued)
002
002
003
004
004
001
001
001
001
002
003
004
004
Technology
Solidification/Stabilization of
Organics in Soils
Solidification for Soils
and Sludge
Pozzolonic/Silicate Based
Solidification
In-Situ Soil Mixing
Solidificatmn/StabQizaticn for
Metals/Organic* in Soils
Pyretron Oxygen Burner
Shirco Infrared Thermal
Destruction of Organics
Circulating Fluidized Bed for
Waste Containing Organics
Infrared Thermal Destruction
of Organics
Plasma Heat and Vitrification
of MetaU/Orgaaics in Soils
Low-Temperature Thermal
Desorption of Organics
Low-Temperature Fluidized
Bed for Organics in Soils,
Sediments, and Sludges
Flame Slagging Reactor for
Metals in Solid Waste
Developer Contact
Joseph De Franco
714-261-8860
Carl Brassow
713-778-1800
Steve Pegler
602-941-1400
David S Yang
415-591-9646
E. Benjamin Peacock
615483-6515
Mark Zwecker
404-662-8156
Fred Stroud (Reg 4)
404-347-3931
Harold Due
619455-2383
Kenneth Johansen
214404-7540
R.C. Eschenback
707462-6522
Robert La Boube
312-841-8360
George D. Sullivan
312-251-6138
W.C. Meenan
312-662-6750
John F. Pusaten
412-773-2280
EPA Contact
Edward Bates
513-569-7774
Walter Grube
513-569-7798
Edward Bates
513-569-7774
Jack Hubbard
513-569-7507
Edward Bates
513-569-7774
Laurel Staley
513-569-7863
Howard Wall
513-569-7691
Joseph McSorley
919-541-2920
Howard Wall
513-569-7691
Laurel Staley
513-569-7863
Paul de Percin
513-569-7797
Laurel Staley
513-569-7863
Donald Oberecker
513-569-7510
-------
SITE Program Participants (continued)
Developer Solicitation
Emerging Technologies Program
Atomic Energy of Canada Limited £01
Chalk River, Ontario, Canada
Babcock&Wilcox.Co. £02
Alliance, OH
Battelle Memorial Institute £01
Columbus Division
Columbus, OH
Bio-Recovery Systems, Inc. EOI
Las Cruccs, NM
Colorado School of Mines EO 1
Golden, CO
Energy and Environmental £01
Engineering, Inc.
Somerville, MA
Harmon Environmental Services, Inc. EOI
(formerly Envirite Field Services, Inc.)
Auburn, AL
Membrane Technology and £01
Research, Inc.
Menlo Park, CA
Western Research Institute £01
Laramie, WY
Center for Hazardous £02
Materials Research
Pittsburgh, PA
Electro-Pure Systems, Inc. £02
Amherst, NY
Envuo-Sciences, Inc. E02
Arlington, NJ
IT Corporation E02
Kooxville, TN
University of Washington £02
Seattle, WA
Wastewater Tech. Centre £02
Burlington, Ontario, Canada
Technology
UltraTdtradon of Metal/delate
Complexes from Water
Cyclone Combustor for Soils with
Metala and Organics
In-Siru Electroaeoustic
Decontamination of Oils, Organics,
and MetaU from Soil
Biological Sorption of
Metal-Ions from Ground water
Wetlands-Based Treatment
for Mine Runoff
Laser-Stimulated Photochemical
Oxidation of Organics in Water
Solvent-Enhanced Soil Washing
for Organics
Membrane Process for Organic}
Contained Recovery of
Oily Wastes
Acid Extraction of Organic
Soils, Sludges and Ash
A/C Electro-Coagulation Phase
Separation and Removal
Low-Energy Solvent Extraction
for Organics
Batch Steam Distillation/Metal
Extraction of Organics and
Heavy Metals
Adsorpuve Filtration of
Inorganics from Liquids
Cross-Flow Pervaporadon System
for removal of VOCs from
Aqueous Waste*
Developer Contact
Leo Buckley
613-584-3311
Lawrence P. King
216-821-9110
H.S. Muralidhara
614-424-5018
Dennis W. Darnell
505-646-5888
Thomas Wildeman
303-273-3642
James H. Porter
617-666-5500
William C. Webster
205-821-9253
Hans Wijmans
415-328-2228
Lyle Johnson
307-721-2281
Roger L. Price
412-826-5320
Patrick E. Ryan
716-691.2600
Zvi Blank
201-398-8183
Robert D. Fox
615-690-3211
Mark M. Benjamin
206-543-7645
Abbas Zaidi
416-336-4618
EPA Cental ,
John Martin
513-569-7758
Laurel Staley
513-569-7863
DIAQA Guznun
513-569-7819
Naomi Barkley
513-569-7854
Edward Bates
513-569-7774
Ronald Lewis
513-569-7856
Jack Hubbard
513-569-7507
Paul de Percui
513-569-7797
Eugene Hams
513-569-7862
Pinna Guzman
513-569-7819
Naomi Barkley
513-569-7854
Jack Hubbard
513-569-7507
Ron Lewis
513-569-7856
Norma Lewis
513-569-7665
John Martin
513-569-7758
-------
G. Sample Proposed Plan
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Public Affairs
Region 5
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Illinois Indiana
Michigan Minnesota
Ohio Wisconsin
<&EPA Mid-State Disposal, Inc.
Superfund Site
Proposed Plan
July 1988
INTRODUCTION
The United States Environmental
Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), in coopera-
tion with the Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources (WDNR), recently com-
pleted an evaluation of remedial alter na-
tives for containing and treating chemical
contamination at the Mid-State Disposal,
Inc. Superfund site in Cleveland Township,
Marathon County, Wisconsin. Based on
this evaluation, U.S. EPA has identified a
preferred remedial alternative.
Section 111 (a) of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act (commonly referred to as
the Superfund law) requires that U.S. EPA
publish a proposed plan for addressing
contamination problems at Superfund sites.
This fact sheet presents U.S. EPA's pro-
posed plan for the Mid-State Disposal site
and summarizes all the remedial alterna-
tives considered by U.S. EPA. Also includ-
ed is a description of the criteria used to
select U.S. EPA's preferred alternative.
A more detailed analysis of the remedial
alternatives is presented in the Mid-State
Disposal Feasibility Study Report, avail-
able for public review at the Stratford
Village Hall and Marathon County Public
Library, Stratford Branch (see "Opportu-
nities for Public Involvement" on the back
page). In addition, this proposed plan out-
lines opportunities for the community to
participate in U.S. EPA's remedy selection
process. Terms first appearing in bold are
defined in a glossary on page 7.
SITE BACKGROUND
The Mid-State Disposal site is located
four miles northeast of Stratford and 18
miles southwest of Wausau, Wisconsin (see
Figure 1). There are two landfills on the
160-acre site: the 25-acre "Old Mound"
and the five-acre "Interim Expansion" area
LEGEND:
• Residential Wells
(see Figure 2), each covered with soil and
vegetation. The site also contains a three-
acre sludge lagoon covered with soil and
vegetation, and an area where leachate for-
merly collected on the site. Over the years,
the soil and vegetation covers on the Old
Mound and Interim Expansion area land-
fills and sludge lagoon have not been prop-
erly maintained, causing portions of the
covers to be washed away by rainfall.
The site is surrounded by abandoned
railroad tracks on the west and north; two
off-site sludge disposal lagoons owned by
Weyerhaeuser, Inc. on the northeast; and
farm property on the east. Big Rapids
Road is along the southern border of the
site. Land near the site primarily is used
for dairy and cash crop farming, although a
1
Figure I
Site Location Map
few small businesses are scattered through-
out the area.
From 1970 to 1979, Mid-State Disposal,
Inc. operated virtually the only solid waste
disposal facility in north-central Wisconsin.
The Mid- State Disposal facility accepted
municipal, commercial, and industrial
waste that included paper-mill sludge,
asbestos dust, solvents, pesticides, paint
sludge, and metals. Waste materials were
initially disposed of in the Old Mound
landfill and later in the Interim Expansion
area landfill. Paper-mill sludge was dis-
posed of in the Old Mound landfill and the
sludge lagoon. The site was placed on the
Superfund National Priorities List in
September 1984. U.S. EPA conducted a
Remedial Investigation of the site from the
-------
summer of 1984 to the winter of 1988. A
more detailed chronology of related events
is presented in an April 1988 U.S. EPA fact
sheet, available for review at the informa-
tion repositories (see the back page).
IDENTIFYING THE PROBLEMS
U.S. EPA conducted a Remedial
Investigation of the Mid-State Disposal site
to identify sources of contamination and
determine how humans or animals and
plants might be endangered by contami-
nants. The Remedial Investigation includ-
ed an Exposure Assessment to determine
the potential impact thai exposure to con-
taminants may have on humans, animals, or
plants.
U.S. EPA's Remedial Investigation con-
cluded that leachate, ground water, on-
and off-site surface water, on-site sedi-
ment, and on-site soil are contaminated
with metals and organic compounds.
Some samples collected from surface water
and ground water contained metals and
organic compounds at concentrations above
federal water quality standards.
The Exposure Assessment concluded
that conditions at the site do not currently
pose a threat to human health or the envi-
ronment However, the assessment indicat-
ed that contaminant releases from the site
may have posed a threat to human health in
the past, and potential releases from the site
may threaten human health or the environ-
ment in the future. U.S. EPA is concerned
about potential contaminant releases from
the site. These concerns include:
• Ground-water Migration. Ground
water contaminated with metals or
organic compounds may flow to the
south or southeast toward residential
wells that are presently unaffected by
site-related contamination;
• Future Ground-water Use. The area
above contaminated ground water may
be developed for residential use in the
future and those new homeowners may
drill wells into the contaminated ground
water;
• Direct Contact. If the existing landfill
or sludge lagoon covers are completely
washed away by rainfall, trespassers
may come into direct skin contact with
or ingest contaminants in exposed
waste; and
• Off-site Surface Water Flow. Aquatic
animals may be affected by site-related
contamination if rainfall runoff or
ground-water flow from the site causes
Rock Creek or its tributaries to become
contaminated.
SUMMARY OF REMEDIAL
ALTERNATIVES
Based on information gathered during
the Remedial Investigation, U.S. EPA con-
ducted a Feasibility Study that involved
reviewing all possible remedial methods,
and identifying and evaluating several
remedial alternatives to address concerns
related to (he Mid-State Disposal site.
In the Feasibility Study, U.S. EPA con-
sidered seven remedial alternatives. All the
remedial alternatives, except Alternative 1,
contain the same following components:
Imposing deed restrictions. Through
deed restrictions, future site owners
would be prohibited from building on or
excavating soil from the site to ensure
that future activity does not cause ne-
contaminant releases from the site.
Restrictions also would be placed on
large off-site ground-water withdrawals
to prevent interference with any ground-
water collection and treatment compo-
nents.
Constructing a fence around the site.
A fence would be installed around the
site to prevent trespassing on the site.
The fence would include signs warning
potential trespassers about contamina-
tion and threats to human health and the
environment at the site.
Weyerhaeuser,
Inc. Waste
Settling
Lagoons
Former
Leachate
Pond Area
Unnamed
Tributary
to Rock
Creek
Interim
Expansion
Area
Old
Mound
Landfill
Big Rapids Road
Figure 2
Site Detail Map
-------
• Reconstructing on-site roads. About 800
feel of roads would be reconstructed on
the site, primarily near the sludge
lagoon, to accommodate truck traffic on
the site during the remedial action
cleanup.
• Monitoring ground water and surface
•water. Ten new off-site ground-water
monitoring wells would be installed
near the southeast and northwest borders
of the site. Samples from these wells
would be collected to assess the effec-
tiveness of the remedial action. In addi-
tion, several existing on-site monitoring
wells, and two residential wells along
Big Rapids Road also would be sam-
pled. Samples would be collected four
times during the first year of monitoring
and twice annually in subsequent years.
To monitor surface water quality, sam-
ples from four locations would be col-
lected two on the unnamed tributary to
Rock Creek and two on Rock Creek.
The surface- water samples would be
collected on four occasions during the
first year of monitoring and twice annu-
ally in subsequent years. Samples col-
lected from the unnamed tributary to
Rock Creek would be compared with
those from Rock Creek to see if surface
water flow from the site is affecting
water quality in Rock Creek.
• Monitoring landfill gas. Ten landfill gas
monitoring wells would be installed
around the disposal areas and samples
from the wells would be collected four
times each year for several years to ana-
lyze gases contained in on-site soil. Gas
thai may be released from the site to the
air would be monitored.
The major components of each alternative
are described below.
Remedial Alternative 1
• Construct Fence
• Monitor Residential Wells
Remedial Alternative 1 would involve
constructing a fence around the waste dis-
posal portions of the site. Signs would be
posted on the fence warning trespassers
about contamination at the site. In addi-
tion, water samples would be collected
from two residential wells along Big
Rapids Road to continue monitoring water
quality in these residential wells. Samples
would be collected on two occasions dur-
ig the first year of monitoring and once a
year in four subsequent years. Based on
the results of residential well monitoring
during the initial five year period, the need
for continued monitoring would be evaluat-
ed. U.S. EPA considers Alternative 1 a "no
action" alternative, required by law to be
evaluated. The no action alternative serves
as a basis against which the other alterna-
tives can be compared.
Estimated Total Cost: Estimated Time
(in present worth) to Construct:
5180,000 1 month
Remedial Alternative 2
• Provide Alternate Water Supply
• Repair Existing Landfill and Sludge
Lagoon Covers
• Improve Surface Water Drainage
• Treat Leachate Off-site
Remedial Alternative 2 includes provid-
ing new drinking water wells for four resi-
dences on Big Rapids Road whose wells
draw water from the aquifer that is threat-
ened by contamination. The new wells
would be drilled upgradient of the area
potentially threatened by contamination.
To prevent rainfall seepage into the Old
Mound and Interim Expansion area land-
fills and the sludge lagoon, areas where the
soil covers have washed away would be
replaced with clay and soil. The patched
areas would be graded to promote rainfall
runoff and vegetation would be planted to
strengthen the covers. These covers would
be maintained to ensure their continued
effectiveness. In addition, several ditches
and trenches would be constructed to direct
rainfall off the site. Directing rainfall off
the site will minimize seepage into soil and
help prevent surface water accumulation on
the site.
The Feasibility Study report shows that
up to 236,000 gallons of surface water con-
taining leachate may accumulate on the site
during spring rains. This alternative
includes collecting ponded surface water
and treating it at an off-site municipal or
industrial wastewater treatment plant to
remove contaminants. Leachate from the
leachate collection system installed under
the Interim Expansion area in 1980 would
be collected and treated off-site at a munic-
ipal or industrial wastewater treatment
plant.
Estimated Total Cost: Estimated Time
(in present worth) to Construct:
$ 3.4 million 6 months
Remedial Alternative 3
• Provide Alternate Water Supply
• Collect and Treat Ground Water On-
site
• Repair Existing Landfill and Sludge
Lagoon Covers
• Improve Surface Water Drainage
• Treat Leachate On-site
In addition 10 providing an alternate
water supply as described in Alternative 2,
Remedial Alternative 3 would involve col-
lecting contaminated ground water and
treating it on the site. Contaminated
ground water would be withdrawn from
along the southeast and northwest borders
of the site. A water treatment plant would
be constructed on the site to remove con-
taminants from the extracted water.
Leachate collected from the site also would
be treated in the treatment plant. Treated
water would meet state and federal water
quality standards before being discharged
to the unnamed tributary to Rock Creek.
Similar to Remedial Alternative 2,
Remedial Alternative 3 would include
repairing the existing landfill and sludge
lagoon covers and diverting rainfall off the
site.
Estimated Total Cost Estimated Time
(in present worth) to Construct
$ 7.5 million 6 months
Remedial Alternative 4
Provide Alternate Water Supply
Collect and Treat Ground Water On-
site
Repair Existing Landfill Covers
Improve Surface Water Drainage
Treat Leachate On-site
Solidify Sludge and Cap Sludge
Lagoon
Remedial Alternative 4 is the same as
Remedial Alternative 3 except that sludge
in the sludge lagoon would be solidified to
the extent necessary to support the cap by
using materials such as ash and dust. This
material would absorb liquid, reducing
water content in the sludge. After the
sludge is solidified, the lagoon would be
covered with a new soil and clay cap. The
cap would consist of a two-foot compacted
clay layer directly covering the solidified
sludge, a liquid drainage layer, three feet of
clean soil, and six inches of top soil. The
cap will minimize rainfall seepage into the
lagoon, help to protect ground-water quali-
ty, and prevent direct contact with the
solidified sludge.
Estimated Total Cost
(in present worth)
$ 12 million
Estimated Time
to Construct
1 year
Remedial Alternative 5
Provide Alternate Water Supply
Install New Soil/Clay Landfill Caps
Improve Surface Water Drainage
Treat Leachate Off-site
Solidify Sludge and Cap Sludge
Lagoon
-------
Like Alternative 2, Remedial Alternative S
involves drilling new drinking water wells
for four residences along Big Rapids Road.
The new wells would be drilled upgradient
of the area threatened by contamination.
Remedial Alternative 5 also involves
installing a new soil and clay cap over the
Old Mound and Interim Expansion area
landfills. The caps would minimize rainfall
seepage into the landfills, reducing the
amount of leachate produced by an estimat-
ed 75 to 80 percent more than the existing
landfill covers. To prevent surface water
from accumulating on the site, drainage
trenches and ditches would be constructed
to carry rain water off the site. Leachate
would be collected from the site and treated
at an off-site municipal or industrial
wastewater treatment plant. Remedial
Alternative 5 also involves solidifying
sludge to the extent necessary to support
the cap and capping the sludge lagoon as
described in Remedial Alternative 4.
Estimated Total Cost:
(in present worth)
S 19 million
Estimated Time
to Construct
Estimated Total Cost:
(in present worth)
S 16 million
Estimated Time
to Construct
2 years
Remedial Alternative &
• Provide Alternate Water S upply
• Collect and Treat Ground Water
On-site
• Install New Soil/Clay Landfill
Caps
• Improve Surface Water Drainage
• Treat Leachate On-site
• Solidify Sludge and Cap Sludge
Lagoon
Remedial Alternative 6 combines the
ground-water collection and treatment
components of Remedial Alternative 3 with
the soil/clay cap and sludge solidification
components of Remedial Alternative S.
With this remedial alternative, ground
water would be extracted from the south-
east and northwest perimeter of the site.
Contaminants would be removed from
extracted water by a treatment plant that
would be constructed on the site. Contam-
inants also would be removed from surface
water and Interim Expansion area leachate
by the on-site water treatment plant Once
treated, water would be discharged to the
unnamed tributary to Rock Creek. The Old
Mound and Interim Expansion area land-
fills would be covered with combination
soil and clay caps. A soil/clay cap also
would be used to cover the sludge lagoon
once liquid content in the sludge was
reduced by applying ash and dust to the
sludge. To promote rain-water runoff from
the site, several trenches and ditches would
be contracted on the site.
2 years
Remedial Alternative 7
• Provide Alternate Water Supply
• Collect and Treat Ground Water
On-site
• Install New Multi-layer Landfill
Caps
• Improve Surface Water Drainage
• Treat Leachate On-site
• Solidify Sludge and Cap Sludge
Lagoon
Remedial Alternative 7 is the same as
Remedial Alternative 6 except that an
impermeable synthetic membrane layer
would be added to the soil/clay caps cover-
ing the sludge lagoon, Old Mound landfill,
and Interim Expansion area landfill, mak-
ing them multi-layer caps. The multi-layer
caps would reduce leachate production by
an estimated 99 percent over the existing
covers.
Estimated Total Cost:
(in present worth)
$ 22 million
Estimated Time
to Construct:
2 years
EVALUATING THE
ALTERNATIVES
U.S. EPA and WDNR evaluated each of
the remedial alternatives against the fol-
lowing criteria:
1) Overall protection of human health and
the environment. U.S. EPA measures
each alternative against how it protects
human health and the environment and
describes how threats are eliminated,
reduced, or controlled through treat-
ment, engineering methods (e.g., a soil
and clay cap), or institutional controls
(e.g., deed restrictions).
2) Compliance with state and federal reg-
ulations. The alternatives are evaluated
for compliance with those environmen-
tal regulations determined to be applica-
ble, or relevant and appropriate to the
site.
3) Cost. The benefits realized by imple-
menting a remedial alternative are
weighed against the cost of implementa-
tion.
4) Implementability. U.S. EPA considers
the technical (e.g., how difficult is the
alternative to construct and operate?)
and administrative (e.g., coordination
with other government agencies)
feasibility of a remedy, including the
availability of goods and services.
5) Short-term effectiveness. Implementing
each alternative may take varying
lengths of time and present differen'
risks to human health and the envirc
ment during implementation (e.g., will
contaminated dust be produced during
soil excavation?).
6) Long-term effectiveness. Long-term
effectiveness relates to the remedy's
ability to maintain reliable protection of
human health and the environment over
time once it has been implemented.
7) Reduction of contaminant toxicity,
mobility, and volume. U.S. EPA evalu-
ates each alternative based on how it
reduces (1) potential threats to human
health and the environment, (2) the con-
taminant's ability to move, and (3) the
amount of contamination.
8) State acceptance. After reviewing the
Remedial Investigation and Feasibility
Study reports, the state may concur
with, oppose, or have no comment on
U.S. EPA's proposed plan for cleaning
up a site.
9) Community response. U.S. EPA consid-
ers community response to the proposed
cleanup plan and the other remedial
alternatives when selecting the fma'
remedial action.
During the Feasibility Study, each
alternative was evaluated against the first
seven criteria. Table 1 on page S presents
the evaluation of remedial alternatives. A
complete description of the evaluation of
remedial alternatives can be found in the
Feasability Study report located at the
Stratford Village Hall and the Marathon
Public Library, Stratford Branch.
Based on current information, U.S. EPA
has identified Remedial Alternative 5 as
the preferred remedial alternative for the
Mid-State Disposal site. The preferred
alternative is described in the box on page
6. Community understanding of and
response to the preferred alternative will be
evaluated during the public comment peri-
od. Public comments will be summarized
and responses provided in the
Responsiveness Summary section of the
Record of Decision. The Record of
Decision is the document that presents U.S.
EPA's final selection for cleanup. Based on
new information or public comments, U.S.
EPA and WDNR may modify the pref'
alternative or select another of the res
actions presented in the proposed plan.
Feasibility Study report.
-------
^^^^^^^^^^M TABLE 1 ^^^^^^^^^^^m
^•^•^•^•^•1 EVALUATION OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES •••^••^••H
(Excluding state and community acceptance) |
Cmerii
Ovenll protection of
public health and the
cn vu oiuncnL
Compliance with stale
ind federal regula-
Uom (ARARs=)
Implemenlsbilily
Shon-unn
Effectiveness''
Long-torn
E(Tccuveafs>d
Reduction of conumi-
mm toxicity, mobi-
lity, ind volume.
Alternative !•
No Action
Least protective
of public health
ind envuraimenL
Does not meet my
ARARj.
Very asy to
implement.
Not effective in
protecting public
health and envi-
tofunenL No WODC*
en topioted
during unplemen-
talion.
Not protective or
effective. Hu the
greatest amount of
nsk. Hu no long-
term maintenance.
No reduction of
toxi city, mobility.
or volume.
Altemiuve V:
Alternate Water
Supply and Cap Repairs
Protects human health
through alternate wa-
ter wpply, institution-
al contrail? and main-
tenance of caps Pro-
tects surface water by
controlling surface
run-off
Does not meet WDNR
(did waste
regulation!.
Easy to construct and
operate.
Greatly and reliably
reduces future risk.
Most protective of
community and workers
during implementation.
Alternative would be
ongoing
Greatly and reliably re-
duces future risk. Re-
quires long-term moni-
toring and maintenance
of caps. Reliability of
institutional controls
a less than an extrac-
u'on system.
See Alternative 1
Alternative 3*.
Ground- water Remediation
and Cap Repairs
Protects human health and
the environment through
source control actions
and ground-water extrac-
tion. Emotion is more
reliable dun institu-
tional controls for pro-
tecting new uses of the
aquifer.
Complies with chemical
specific ARARs and dis-
charge limits. Does not
meet WDNR solid waste
regulators.
Easy lo construct. Opera-
tion of treabftent system
requires regulu atten-
tion to many details for
I long time.
See Alternative 2
Greatly and reliably re-
duces future risk Re-
quires maintenance of
treatment system
Reduces volume of con-
taminated ground water
Alternative 4*.
Sludge Solidification,
Ground- water Remedia-
tion, and Cap Repairs
See Alternative 3.
See Alternative 3.
Difficult to solidify
lagoon and operate
treatment system.
Sludge solidification
may produce odors dur-
ing implementation
May involve some nsk
to community and work-
ers during implementa-
tion.
Similar to Alterna-
tive 2, except greater
reliability that sludge
will no longer affect
Utc environment.
Reduces volume of con-
laminated ground water
Solidification reduces
mobilization of poten-
tial contaminants in
the sludge.
Alternatives'
Soil/Clay Caps.
Sludge Solidification.
and Alternate Water
Supply
Similar to Alter-
native 2. Cap
would reduce fu-
ture contamination
of aquifer even
further than exist-
ing covers
Complies with all
ARARs.
Difficult to con-
struct caps, but
easy to opera us
because no treat-
ment system u
involved
Provides further
reduction in fu-
ture risk than Al-
ternatives 2 - 4
by reducing leach-
ate production by
75%. Potential
nsk to community
and workers during
implementation.
Provides improved
reliability of
source control
actions Relia-
bility of institu-
tional controls is
las than an ex-
traction system.
Reduces mobility
of potential con-
taminants through
solidification
Reduces leaehale
production by 73%.
Alternative 6*
Soil/Clay Caps, Sludge
Solidification, and
Ground-water Remedia-
tion
Most protective of en-
vironment and public
health.
See Alternative 5
More difficult lo con-
struct and operate than
Alternatives 1-5
Meets standards for
off -site ground water
in 10 -20 years.
Reduces future nsk
Leaehale production re-
duced by 75% Potential
nsk to workers.
Provides increased re-
liability and less
long-term management.
Similar lo Alternatives
3 and 4 Also reduces
leaehale production
by 75*
Alternative 7
Multi-layer Caps. Sludge
Solidification, and Ground-
water Remediation
See Alternative 6
See Alternative 5
Most difficult alterna-
tive to conjunct because
of liner Operation re-
quiremenu are sundar lo
Alternative 3
Sim ilar to Alternative 4,
except more likely lo
meet standards in time
estimate Leachate product-
uon reduced Potential
nsk lo workers
Similar to Alternative 6
Long-term reliability of
multi-layer caps better
than soil/clay caps
Similar lo Alternatives
3 and 4 Reduces leachate
production by 99%.
Present - Worth Cost
1180.000
$3.400.000
$7.500,000
S12.000.000
S 16.000,000
SI9.000.000
S22.000.000
a Alternatives 2 - 7 include an alternate water supply, monitoring, and fencing
b Institutional controls refer to control over ground water well installation and access to the site.
c ARARs refer to Federal and Slate Applicable or Relevant and Appnpnate Requirements
d Cleanup pcnods and percent of leachate reduction are best estimates based on many simplifying assumptions and are presented for comparative purposes only
-------
U.S. EPA'S PREFERRED REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE
After completing the Mid-State Disposal Feasibility Study, U.S. EPA identified Remedial
Alternative 5 as the preferred remedial alternative for the Mid-State site. U.S. EPA's preferred
alternative includes:
Imposing deed restrictions on the site to ensure that future site owners do not cause new contami-
nant releases from the site by building on or excavating soil from the site. Restrictions also would
be placed on large off-site ground-water withdrawals in the site vicinity to prevent possible with-
drawals from altering natural ground-water flow directions and rates.
Constructing a fence around the site to prevent potential trespassing on the site.
Reconstructing on-site roads to accommodate truck traffic during the remedial action.
Monitoring ground water, surface water, and residential well water to evaluate the effectiveness of
the remedial action.
Monitoring landfill gas to analyze gases contained in soil and gases that may be released from the
site to the air.
Providing an alternate drinking water supply for four residences along Big Rapids Road.
Installing new soil/clay landfill caps on the Old Mound and Interim Expansion area landfills to
reduce the amount of rainfall seeping into the landfills.
Improving on-site surface water drainage to prevent water accumulation on the site.
Collecting and treating surface water and leachate off the site.
Solidifying sludge to reduce water content in the sludge and capping the sludge lagoon to reduce
rainfall seepage into the sludge lagoon.
U.S. EPA's preferred remedial alternative is estimated to cost $ 16 million. U.S. EPA esti-
mates that construction of its preferred remedial alternative will take two years.
MAILING LIST ADDITIONS
Due to computer problems, U.S. EPA no longer has the most current mailing list for the Mid-State Disposal site. Even if you have
received mailings from U.S. EPA in the past, please fill out and mail this form to Susan Pastor to ensure that you will receive future
U.S. EPA mailings.
Susan Pastor 5PA-14 Name:
Community Relations Coordinator Address:
Office of Public Affairs
U-S- EPA -
P Telephone:
230 South Dearborn Street *. .
Chicago, Illinois 60604 Affiliation:
-------
GLOSSARY
Aquifer An underground rock or soil formation capable of
yielding water in usable quantities.
Asbestos A fireproofmg insulator used in brake linings,
gaskets, and electrical and heating devices. Some
types of asbestos can occur naturally. Unless
properly encased, asbestos can break into small
fibers. These fibers are easily inhaled and swal-
lowed. Inhalation of asbestos fibers over a long
period of time may cause lung cancer.
Exposure A site-specific study of the actual or potential
Assessment danger to human health or the environment posed
by the release or threatened release of contami-
nants from a Superfund site to the environment.
Ground Water contained in rock, sand, soil, or gravel
Water beneath the earth's surface. Rain that does not
evaporate or immediately flow to streams and
rivers slowly seeps into the ground to form
ground-water reservoirs. Ground water flows at a
very slow rate, compared to surface water, along
routes that often lead to streams, rivers, and
lakes.
Leachate A liquid that accumulates contaminants as it seeps
through contaminated material (e.g., soil and
landfill waste).
National A federal roster of uncontrolled hazardous waste
Priorities sites that actually or potentially threaten human
List (NPL) health or the environment and are eligible for
investigation and cleanup under the federal
Superfund program.
Organic One of two classes of chemical compounds,
Compounds organic and inorganic. Organic compounds are
distinct from inorganic compounds because they
contain carbon. Petroleum, solvents, and pesti-
cides are examples of materials containing organ-
ic compounds.
Remedial A two-part study of a Superfund site that must be
Investigation/ completed before a cleanup can begin. The first
Feasibility part, the Remedial Investigation, determines the
Study nature and extent of contamination at a Superfund
(RI/FS) site. The second part, or Feasibility Study, evalu-
ates several alternative remedies to the problems
identified during the Remedial Investigation.
Sediment Sand, soil, gravel, and decomposing animals and
plants that settle to the bottom of a stream, lake,
river, or pond.
Sludge A highly-concentrated liquid byproduct of munic-
ipal or industrial wastewater treatment processes.
Solvent A chemical compound that is able to dissolve
another to form a solution.
Surface Standing or flowing water on the ground surface
Water such as streams, lakes, rivers, or ponds.
Superfund A common name for the federal program estab-
lished by the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of
1980 as amended in 1986. U.S. EPA administers
the Superfund program to investigate and clean up
actual or threatened releases of hazardous sub-
stances from uncontrolled hazardous waste sites.
Toxics Substances which can damage living tissues,
cause nervous disorders, birth defects, behavioral
problems, illness, or death when ingested, inhaled,
transferred to unborn babies, or absorbed through
skin. Overexposure to the sun can be toxic, for
example, resulting in sunburn; overexposure to
alcohol also can be toxic, resulting in vomiting
and headaches.
Upgradient A description for the ground-water equivalent of
"upstream" in river water flow.
Present An economic term used to describe today's cost
Worth for a Superfund cleanup that reflects the discount-
ed value of future costs. A present worth cost
estimate includes construction and future opera -
Uon and maintenance costs. For the Mid-State
Disposal site, U.S. EPA used a discount rate of
five percent when estimating the present worth of
future costs for each remedial alternative.
-------
OPPORTUNITIES FOR PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
Public Comment Period and Public Meeting on the Feasibility Study
U.S. EPA would like to hear your comments before selecting a final remedial action for the site. U.S. EPA has established a public
comment period from July 25 through August 14,1988 to provide members of the community with an opportunity to send written
comments to U.S. EPA. In addition, community members are encouraged to attend a public meeting on the Feasibility Study. At
the meeting, U.S. EPA personnel will discuss results of the Feasibility Study, present the preferred alternative, accept comments on
all the remedial alternatives, and answer any questions.
Date: July 28,1988
Time: 8 P.M.
Location: Stratford Community Hall
300 East Larch Street
Stratford, WI 54484
Available Information
Anyone interested in learning more about the Mid-State Disposal site is encouraged to review the documents contained in (he infor-
mation repositories. Copies of the applicable laws. Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study reports, and other relevant infor-
mation, are located at:
Marathon County Public Library
Stratford Branch
300 East Larch Street
Stratford, WI 54484
(715)687-4420
Hours:
Tues. 9A.M. to 5P.M.
Wed., Thurs. 3 P.M. to 9 P.M.
Fri. 1P.M. to 5P.M.
Sat-Mon. Closed
Stratford Village Hall
265 North Third Street
Stratford, WI 54484
(715)687-4166
Hours:
Mon.-Fri. 8 A.M. to 12P.M.
1P.M. to 4:30 P.M.
Sat.-Sun. Closed
The Administrative Record, which contains all the information U.S. EPA will use to make a final decision at the Mid-State Disposal
site, is located in the Marathon County Public Library, Stratford Branch.
For additional information on the Mid-State Disposal site, please contact the following U.S. EPA personnel:
Susan Pastor
Community Relations Coordinator
Office of Public Affairs
(312) 353-1325
Mary Elaine Gustafson
Remedial Project Manager
Remedial and Enforcement
Response Branch
(312)886-6144
U.S. EPA - Region 5 - 230 South Dearborn Street - Chicago, Illinois 60604
Toll free number: 1-800-621-8431 (8:30 A.M. to 4:30 P.M. Central Time)
U.S. EPA Region 5
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL 60604
-------
H. Glossary
-------
GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND ACRONYMS USED
AA (Assistant Administrator): Assistant Administrator for the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response (OSWER).
ANPRM (Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking): An announcement appearing in the Federal
Register that notifies the public of EPA's intent to publish a specific proposed rule.
AOC (Administrative Order of Consent): An agreement reached between EPA and a potentially
responsible party that is used to agree on the roles, responsibilities, and payment for conducting
removal and RI/FS actions.
AOC (Area of contamination): A continuous (significant) extent of contamination at a Superfund she.
For the purposes of ARARs, is used as the equivalent of a RCRA land-based unit to determine
whether disposal occurs.
ARARS (Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements): Those cleanup standards, standards
of control, and other substantive environmental protection requirements, criteria, or limitations
promulgated under Federal or State law that specifically address a hazardous substance, pollutant,
contaminant, remedial action, location, or other circumstance at a CERCLA site, or that address
problems or situations sufficiently similar to those encountered at the CERCLA site that their use is
well-suited to the particular site.
ARCS (Alternative Remedial Contracts Strategy): A contracting initiative intended to promote the
continuity of contractor performance from Ri/FS to construction management (or remedial action),
increase the level of competition for contract awards, and facilitate the delegation of contract
management to the Regions.
ATS (Action Tracking System): A data base that tracks the development of major regulations,
guidance, and policy for all EPA programs.
ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry): An Agency within the Department of
Health and Human Services that conducts health assessments at Superfund sites.
CA (Cooperative Agreement): A Federal assistance agreement with States and/or its political
subdivisions to transfer Federal funds and/or responsibilities. Cooperative agreements are required
for State-lead, fund-financed Superfund actions.
CDC (Centers for Disease Control): An operating health agency within the Public Health Service of
the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services that develops and implements programs to deal
with environmental health problems, including responding to environmental, chemical, and radiation
emergencies.
CEPP (Chemical Emergency Preparedness Program): As part of EPA's Air Toxics Strategy, provides
guidance, training, and technical assistance to States and local communities to help them in
preparing for and responding to chemical accidents.
CERCLA (Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act): A Federal law
passed in 1980 and modified in 1986 by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
(SARA). The Acts created a special tax that goes into a Trust Fund, commonly known as Superfund,
G-1
-------
to investigate and clean up abandoned or uncontrolled hazardous waste sites. Under the program,
EPA can either: (1) Pay for site cleanup when parties responsible for the contamination cannot be
located or are unwilling or unable to perform the work; or (2) Take legal action to force parties
responsible for site contamination to clean up the site or pay back the Federal government for the
cost of the cleanup.
CERCLIS (Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System):
EPA's comprehensive data base and management system that inventories and tracks releases
addressed or needing to be addressed by the Superfund program.
CFR (Code of Federal Regulations): All Federal regulations in force are published annually in codified
form in the Code of Federal Regulations. The NCP is found at 40 CFR Part 300.
CLP (Contract Lab Program): Laboratories under contract to EPA that analyze soil, water, and waste
samples taken from areas at or near Superfund sites.
CMS (Case Management System): A data base that contains general information on all enforcement
activities, with information on cost recovery and settlements.
CMS (Corrective Measures Study): The portion of a RCRA corrective action that is generally
equivalent to an FS taken under Superfund.
COE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers): A branch of the U.S. Department of Defense that has
specialized equipment and personnel for maintaining navigation channels for removing navigation
obstruction, for accomplishing structural repairs, and for performing maintenance to hydropower
electric generating equipment. The Corps can also provide design services, perform construction,
and provide contract writing and contract administrative services for other Federal agencies, such as
EPA for Superfund actions.
Cost-Effective Alternative: The cleanup alternative selected for a site on the National Priorities List
(NPL) based on protectiveness, technical feasibility, permanence, reliability, and cost. The selected
alternative does not require EPA to choose the least expensive alternative. It requires that if there are
several cleanup alternatives available that deal effectively with the problems at a site, EPA must
choose the remedy on the basis of the criteria mentioned above.
CRP (Community Relations Plan): A plan that is prepared at the start of most Superfund response
activities to direct activities that will allow the community affected by the site to be kept informed of
EPA, State, and PRP activities.
CWA (Clean Water Act): A statute under which EPA promulgates Water Quality Criteria and
administers the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program, as well as
regulates discharges to or dredging of wetlands.
DoD (Department of Defense): A Federal department that operates many military facilities that are
potentially subject to CERCLA actions.
DOE (Department of Energy): A Federal department that operates many nudear weapons and
research facilities that are potentially subject to CERCLA actions.
DOI (Department of the Interior): A Federal department that is responsible for Federal lands on which
Superfund sites may be located.
G-2
-------
DOJ (Department of Justice}: A federal department that is responsible for bringing legal actions to
court on behalf of-EPA against potentially responsible parties.
DQO (Data Quality Objectives): Qualitative and quantitative statements that are developed before
sampling begins to allow EPA to identify the quality of data that must be collected during Superfund
actions.
EA (Endangerment Assessment): A study conducted as a supplement to a remedial investigation to
determine the nature and extent of contamination at a Superfund site and the risks posed to public
health and/or the environment. EPA or State agencies conduct the study when legal action is
pending to require potentially responsible parties to perform or pay for the site cleanup.
EE/CA (Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis): Performed to evaluate alternate removal actions or
expedited response actions (ERAs) in terms of their effectiveness, implementability, and cost.
EERU (Environmental Emergency Response Unit): Provides emergency response support to
hazardous waste sites or spills posing an immediate threat.
ERA (Expedited Response Actions): Actions taken by the remedial program using removal program
contract authorities. ERA'S generally require an EE/CA and are designed to remove immediate
threats discovered during a remedial investigation.
ERGS (Emergency Response Cleanup Services): Together with TAT and EERU, these contracts
provide the technical assistance and cleanup service that EPA needs to implement an effective
removal program.
ERD (Emergency Response Division): Under the supervision of a Director, who reports to the Director
of the Office of Emergency and Remedial Response (OERR), ERD is made up of three subordinate
units: Response Operations Branch, Response Standards and Criteria Branch, and Environmental
Response Team (ERT).
ERNS (Emergency Response Notification System): A central data base that provides EPA with a more
comprehensive perspective on release notifications nationwide because it includes, in addition to the
National Response Center (NRC) reports, notifications of releases reported directly to EPA Regional
offices and to the U.S. Coast Guard district offices.
ERT (Environmental Response Team): EPA hazardous waste experts who provide 24-hour technical
assistance to EPA Regional offices and States during all types of emergencies involving releases at
hazardous waste sites and spills of hazardous substances. ERT also provides hazardous site
response training for all EPA employees.
ESAT (Environmental Services Assistance Teams): Contractor teams that provide laboratory,
analytical, and review services to all areas of the Superfund program.
ESD (Environmental Services Division): Regional divisions that often provide data validation and
quality assurance/quality control functions.
FIT (Field Investigation Team): Contracts that provide support for pre-remedial activities, often by
conducting PAs and Sis.
G-3
-------
FR (Federal Register): Each Federal working day, the Government Printing Office publishes current
Presidential proclamations and Executive Orders, Federal agency regulations having general
applicability and legal effect, proposed agency rules, and documents that are required by statute to
be published in the Federal Register.
FS (Feasibility Study): A study undertaken by the lead agency to develop and evaluate options for
remedial action. The feasibility study emphasizes data analysis, implementability of alternatives, and
cost analyses, as well as compliance with mandates to protect human health and the environment
and attain regulatory standards of other laws. The FS is generally performed concurrently and in an
interactive fashion with the remedial investigation, using data gathered during the remedial
investigation.
FTE (Fulltime Equivalent): Represents the level of effort or labor for one person for one year.
FY (Fiscal Year): For the U.S. government, begins on October 1 and ends on September 30. For
example, FY88 began on October 1, 1988 and ended on September 30, 1989.
GAD (Grants Administration Division): Made up of the following four branches: Grants Operations
Branch; Grants Information and Analysis Branch, which handles Irneragency Agreements and the
Asbestos-in-Schools Grants; Compliance Branch, which manages environmental and suspension
activities for both grants and contracts; and Grants Policies and Procedures Branch, which oversees
the regulations, policies, and procedures for EPA assistance agreements.
GOB (Grants Operations Branch): As part of the Grants Administration Division, awards EPA
Headquarters grants and research and development grants to the public.
MRS (Hazard Ranking System): A scoring system used to evaluate potential relative risks to public
health and the environment from releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances. EPA and
States use the HRS to calculate a site score, from 0 to 100, based on the actual or potential threat of
a release of hazardous substances to air, surface water, or groundwater. This score is the primary
factor used to decide if a hazardous waste site should be placed on the National Priorities List (NPL).
HSCD (Hazardous Site Control Division): Under the supervision of a Director, who reports to the
Director of the Office of Emergency and Remedial Response (OERR), HSCD is made up of five
subordinate units: Remedial Planning Staff, Site Policy and Guidance Branch, Remedial Planning and
Response Branch, Design and Construction Management Branch, and State and Local Coordination
Branch. This Division also includes the Fund-lead Regional Coordinators.
HSED (Hazardous Site Evaluation Division): Under the supervision of a Director, who reports to the
Director of the Office of Emergency and Remedial Response (OERR), HSED is made up of four
subordinate units: Site Assessment Branch, Analytical Operations Branch, Hazard Ranking and Listing
Branch, and Toxics Integration Branch.
HSWA (Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments): Amendments to the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) that Congress passed in 1984. HSWA added the land disposal restrictions,
minimum technology requirements, and expanded corrective action authorities to the RCRA statute.
Hazardous Substance: Section 101(14) of CERCLA, as amended, defines 'hazardous substance1
chiefly by reference to other environmental statutes, such as the Solid Waste Disposal Act, Federal
Water Pollution Control Act, Clean Air Act, and Toxic Substances Control Act. The term excludes
petroleum, crude oil or any fraction thereof, natural gas, natural gas liquids, or synthetic gas usable
G-4
-------
for fuel. Under the Act, OERR also may include other substances that it specifically designates as
•hazardous."
IAG (Interagency Agreement): A comprehensive document that addresses all hazardous waste
activities that will be conducted at a Federal facility or with another Federal Agency (e.g., Corps of
Engineers), from the RI/FS through the implementation of the remedial action. An IAG formalizes the
procedure and timing for submittal and review of documents and establishes a mechanism to resolve
disputes.
IG (Office of the Inspector General): Responsible for overseeing the implementation by EPA of Federal
environmental legislation; conducting internal management audits, financial management and indirect
costs audits, and operation and maintenance audits of EPA programs and operations; overseeing the
accounting systems and procedures of EPA contractors and subcontractors; and conducting criminal
investigations of EPA personnel, contractors, and subcontractors.
LDRs (Land Disposal Restrictions): A RCRA program that restricts the land disposal of RCRA
hazardous wastes and requires treatment to promulgated treatment standards. The LDRs may be an
important ARAR for Superfund actions.
LIRA (Long Term Response Actions): Actions such as ground-water pump and treat operations that
require extensive timeframes to achieve remedial cleanup objectives.
MCLs (Maximum Contaminant Levels): Under the Safe Drinking Water Act, the maximum permissible
level of a contaminant in water that is delivered to any user of a public water system that serves 15
or more connections and 25 or more people. The standards set as MCLs take into account the
feasibility and cost of attaining the standard.
MCLG (Maximum Contaminant Level Goals): A non-enforceable goal established under the Safe
Drinking Water Act for drinking water that considers only health-based factors.
MOU (Memorandum of Understanding): A statement agreed to by two or more parties that recognizes
the interrelationship of their functions and specifies appropriate interactions between or among the
parties.
NAAQS (National Ambient Air Quality Standards): Standards established under the Clean Air Act that
regulate the ambient air quality for six priority pollutants. These may be potential ARARs for
Superfund sites.
NCP (National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan): The Federal regulation (40
CFR 300) that guides the Superfund program. The revised NCP was newly signed on February 2,
1990.
NESHAPS (National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants): Standards set under the
Clean Air Act that regulate the release of hazardous substances from specific sources. These
standards may be ARARs for Superfund actions.
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration): A Federal administration that may provide
assistance on coastal zone or atmospheric issues.
NPL (National Priorities List): EPA's list of the most serious uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous
waste sites identified for possible long-term remedial response using money from the Trust Fund.
G-5
-------
The list is based primarily on the score a site receives on the Hazard Ranking System (MRS). EPA is
required to update the NPL at least once a year.
NPRM (Notice of Proposed Rulemaking): A document published in the Federal Register that sets
forth proposed regulatory language, provides notice of issues to be commented on, and presents
other supplementary and background information about the rulemaking.
NRC (National Response Center): The center operated by the U.S. Coast Guard that receives and
evaluates reports of oil and hazardous substance releases into the environment and notifies the
appropriate agency(s). The NRC can be contacted 24-hours a day, toll-free at (800) 424-8802.
NRT (National Response Team): Representatives of 12 Federal agencies that coordinate Federal
responses to nationally significant pollution incidents and provide advice and technical assistance to
the responding agency(s).
NSF (National Strike Force): Consists of the Strike Teams established by the U.S. Coast Guard on
the Pacific and Gulf Coasts. These teams can provide a variety of response support services
including communications, technical advice and assistance, specialized equipment, training, and
contingency planning.
OECM (Office of Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring): Coordinates civil and criminal
enforcement actions with the U.S. Department of Justice and provides Superfund enforcement support
through the activities of the National Enforcement Investigation Center (NEIC). The NEIC performs
special environmental monitoring work, evidence audit control processes to ensure proper chain-of-
custody procedures, cleanup of Federal facility sites, and nonbinding preliminary allocations of
responsibility (NBARs).
OERR (Office of Emergency and Remedial Response): Under the supervision of a Director, is
responsible to the Assistant Administrator for the emergency and remedial response functions of the
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER). The Director is responsible for developing
national strategy, programs, technical policies, regulations, and guidelines for the control of
abandoned hazardous waste sites and response to and prevention of oil and hazardous substance
spills.
OHMTADS (Oil and Hazardous Material Technical Assistance Data System): An automated
informational repository data base containing 126 fields of information on physical, chemical,
biological, lexicological, and commercial data on approximately 1,400 oil and hazardous materials that
are potentially harmful to human health and welfare and/or the environment.
O&M (Operation and Maintenance): Activities conducted at a site, generally by States, after a
response action occurs to ensure that the cleanup or containment system is functioning properly.
OPM (Office of Program Management): Under the supervision of a Director, who reports to the
Director of the Office of Emergency and Remedial Response (OERR), OPM is made up of three
subordinate units: Policy and Analysis Staff, Management and Evaluation Staff, and Resources
Management Staff.
OSC (On-Scene Coordinator): The Federal official who coordinates and directs superfund removal
actions.
G-6
-------
OSW (Office of Solid Waste): As part ol the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
(OSWER), is responsible for managing and implementing the RCRA program.
OSWER (Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response): Provides policy, guidance, and direction
for EPA's hazardous waste and emergency response programs. The functions of these programs
include the development and enforcement of policies, standards, and regulations for solid and
hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal; national management of Superfund; and the
development of guidelines for the Emergency Preparedness, •Community Right-to-Know," and
Underground Storage Tank programs.
OU (Operable Unit): An action taken as one part of an overall site cleanup. For example, a carbon
adsorption system could be installed to halt rapidly spreading groundwater contaminants while a
more comprehensive and long-term remedial investigation/feasibility study (Rl/FS) to investigate soil
contamination is underway. A number of operable units can be used in the course of a site cleanup.
OWPE (Office of Waste Programs Enforcement): As part of the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response (OSWER), provides enforcement policy and support for the Superfund and RCRA
programs.
PA (Preliminary Assessment): The process of collecting and reviewing available information about a
known or suspected hazardous waste site or release. EPA or States use this information to
determine if the site requires further study. If further study is needed, a Site Inspection (SI) is
undertaken.
PIAT (Public Information Assist Team): A U.S. Coast Guard organization available through the NRC to
assist OSCs and Regional offices in meeting demands for public information and participation.
PRP (Potentially Responsible Party): Any individual or company (such as an owner, operator,
transporter, or generator) potentially responsible for, or contributing to, the contamination problems at
a Superfund site. Whenever possible, EPA requires PRPs, through administrative and legal actions,
to clean up sites contaminated by hazardous substances.
QA/QC (Quality Assurance/Quality Control): A system of procedures, checks, audits, and corrective
actions used to ensure that field work and laboratory analysis during the investigation and cleanup of
Superfund sites meet established standards.
RA (Remedial Action): The actual construction or implementation phase that follows the remedial
design of the selected cleanup alternative at a site on the National Priorities List (NPL).
RAC (Response Action Contractor): Any person who agrees, by contract, to provide a removal or
remedial action at a facility listed on the NPL, or to provide evaluation, planning, engineering,
surveying and mapping, design, construction, equipment, or any ancillary services related to a
removal or remedial action.
RAS (Routine Analytical Services): RAS are routine laboratory analyses of samples by contract labs
as part of the Contract Lab Program (CLP). RAS activities are managed by the Analytical Operations
Branch of the Hazardous Site Evaluation Division (HSED), Office of Emergency and Remedial
Response (OERR).
RC (Remedial Construction): The actual construction that occurs during the remedial action (RA)
phase at a site on the National Priorities List (NPL).
G-7
-------
RCMS (Removal Cost Management System): An automated system used to track removal costs and
produce management reports on site costs and utilization of personnel, equipment, and materials.
RCMS can also be used to project the cost of a removal action and to assist the OSC in rapidly
reviewing contractor invoices.
RCRA (Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976): A Federal law that established a structure
to track and regulate hazardous wastes from the time of generation to disposal. The law requires
safe and secure procedures to be used in treating, transporting, storing, and disposing of hazardous
substances. RCRA is designed to prevent new, uncontrolled hazardous waste sites. The law also
regulates the disposal of solid waste that may not be 'considered hazardous.
RD (Remedial Design): An engineering phase that follows the Record of Decision (ROD) when
technical drawings and specifications are developed for the subsequent remedial action (RA) at a site
on the National Priorities List (NPL).
REM (Remedial Planning): A type of contract that is awarded on an east-west zone basis and used
to promote the continuity of contractor performance from RI/FS to construction management (or
remedial action), increase the level of competition for contract awards, and facilitate the delegation of
contract management to the Regions. The ARCS contracts will replace the REM contracts.
RFA (RCRA Facility Assessment): The first step in the RCRA corrective'action process, generally
equivalent to a PA/SI taken in Superfund.
RFI (RCRA Facility Investigation): The second step of a RCRA corrective action, generally equivalent
to the Rl portion of the Superfund process.
Rl (Remedial Investigation): A process undertaken by the lead agency to determine the nature and
extent of the problem presented by the release. The remedial investigation emphasizes data
collection and site characterization, and is generally performed concurrently and in an interactive
fashion with the feasibility study (FS). The remedial investigation includes sampling and monitoring,
as necessary, and includes the gathering of sufficient information to determine the necessity for
remedial action (RA) and to support the evaluation of remedial alternatives.
RI/FS (Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study): Two distinct but related studies. They are usually.
performed at the same time, and together referred to as the -RI/FS.' They are intended to (1) Gather
the data necessary to determine the type and extent of contamination at a Superfund site; (2)
Establish criteria for cleaning up the site; (3) Identify and screen cleanup alternatives for remedial
action; and (4) Analyze in detail the technology and costs of the alternatives.
ROD (Record of Decision): A legal document that explains which cleanup altemative(s} will be used
to cleanup Superfund remedial sites. The Record of Decision is based on information and technical
analysis generated during the remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) and consideration of
public comments and community concerns.
RP (Responsible Party): A party that admits to or that EPA or the DOJ prove was responsible for
contamination at a Superfund site.
RPM (Remedial Project Manager): The official designated by the lead agency to coordinate, monitor,
or direct remedial or other response activities.
G-e
-------
RQs (Reportable Quantities): Established under CERCLA section 102 as triggers for notification of the
Federal government when hazardous substances are released The release of a hazardous
substance that equals or exceeds its RQ must be reported immediately to the National Response
Center (NRC).
RRC (Regional Response Center): Provides facilities and personnel for communications, information
storage, and other requirements for coordinating response.
RRT (Regional Response Team): Representatives of Federal, State, and local agencies who may
assist in coordination of activities at the request of the On-Scene. Coordinator (OSC) or Remedial
Project Manager (RPM) before and during response actions.
RS (Responsiveness Summary): A summary of oral and/or written public comments received by EPA
during a comment period on key EPA documents, and EPA's responses to those comments. The
responsiveness summary is especially valuable during the Record of Decision (ROD) phase at a site
on the National Priorities List (NPL) when it highlights community concerns for EPA decision makers.
RTS (Removal Tracking System): Provides a comprehensive removal data base that includes start
date, location, lead agency, and NPL status.
Remedial Response: A long-term action that stops or substantially reduces a release or threatened
release of hazardous substances that is serious, and poses an immediate or future threat to public
health and/or the environment.
Removal Action: An immediate action taken over the short-term to address a release or threatened
release of hazardous substances.
Response Action: A CERCLA-authorized action at a Superfund site involving either a short-term
removal action or a long-term remedial response that may include, but is not limited to, the following
activities: (1) Removing hazardous materials from a site to an EPA approved, licensed hazardous
waste facility for treatment, containment, or destruction; (2) Containing the waste safely on-site to
eliminate further problems; (3) Destroying or treating the waste on-site using incineration or other
technologies; and (4) Identifying and removing.the source of groundwater contamination and halting
further movement of the contaminants.
Risk Assessment: An evaluation performed as part of the remedial investigation to assess conditions
at a Superfund site and determine the baseline risks posed to public health and/or the environment.
SARA (Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act): Modifications to CERCLA enacted on
October 17, 1986.
SAS (Special Analytical Services): Provide special laboratory analyses of samples as part of the
Contract Lab Program (CLP). SAS activities are managed by the Analytical Operations Branch of the
Hazardous Site Evaluation Division (HSED), Office of Emergency and Remedial Response (OERR),
which surveys labs, evaluates bids, and selects labs.
SCAP (Superfund Comprehensive Accomplishments Plan): The planning mechanism that provides
data on all response activities and drives the allocation of resources for remedial activities. With the
incorporation of SCAP into the CERCLJS management system, the Regions become responsible for
the planning and reporting that determine the adequacy of budgetary allotments and how Regional
accomplishments are reported.
G-9
-------
SERA (Superfund Emergency Response Actions): A three-volume compilation of Fund-financed
removal descriptions that ERD updates annually. Each description provides basic facts about the
site, the nature of the problem, and mitigative actions taken.
SI (Site Inspection): A technical phase that follows a Preliminary Assessment (PA) designed to collect
more extensive information on a hazardous waste site. The information is used to score the site with
the Hazard Ranking System (MRS) to determine whether response action is needed.
SITE (Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation): A program intended to accelerate the
development, demonstration, and use of new or innovative treatment technologies and to demonstrate
and evaluate new, innovative measurement and monitoring technologies.
SMCRA (Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act): An act that controls and regulates the
reclamation of coal and other ore mining areas.
SMOA (Superfund Memorandum of Agreement): A voluntary, non-binding agreement executed by an
EPA Regional Administrator and the head of a State agency establishing the nature and extent of
EPA and State interaction during the pre-remedial, remedial, and enforcement response process.
SMP (Site Management Plan): A site-specific schedule or action plan, usually prepared by the
Remedial Project Manager (RPM)
SOW (Statement of Work): A document that specifies the scope of work and procedures that will be
used to undertake a discrete step of a Superfund investigation or action.
SPCC (Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure): A program that establishes procedures to
prevent discharges of oil from non-transportation-related facilities into or upon the waters of the
United States or adjoining shorelines.
SPMS (Strategic Planning and Management System): An accountability system used in conjunction
with SCAP to identify projects that could slip or issues that could affect project schedules, such as
State cost assurances, site access, disposal capacity, or property acquisition.
SSC (Scientific Support Coordinator): Available at the request of the OSC to assist with responses to
releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants. The SSC also provides scientific
support for the development of Regional and local contingency plans,
SSC (Superfund State Contract): A contract signed between EPA and the State that provides a legal
obligation for the State to meet the assurances that are specified in Section 104 of CERCLA
Superfund: The common name used for the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act (CERCLA), also referred to as the Trust Fund.
TAGs (Technical Assistance Grants): Designed to provide funds to communities for the purpose of
hiring advisors to interpret technical information related to cleanup of Superfund sites listed on the
NPL
TAT (Technical Assistance Team): Serves as an adjunct to ERCS, providing initial site response
support, determinations of the size and nature of the site, and support for OSCs during actual
cleanup.
G-10
-------
TBC (To-Be-Considered): Guidance, advisories, or criteria that are not promulgated (and therefore
cannot be considered ARARs), but that may be used to establish protective Superfund remedies.
TES (Technical Enforcement Services): Contracts that provide EPA Headquarters or Regions with
assistance during enforcement-related activities, such as PRP searches or oversight of PRP-conducted
Investigations or actions.
TPQ (Threshold Planning Quantity): The amount of an Extremely Hazardous Substance (EHS) which,
if present at a facility, subjects that facility to the emergency planning requirements of SARA sections
302 and 303.
TSDF (Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facility): A facility regulated under RCRA that manages in
one of the ways mentioned RCRA hazardous wastes.
USCG (U.S. Coast Guard): An agency in the U.S. Department of Transportation that is the
predesigned OSC in the Coastal Zone and has the authority under CERCLA to respond to any
release or threatened release of hazardous substances involving the Coastal Zone, Great. Lakes
waters, ports, and harbors. The USCG shares with EPA responsibility foMhe emergency response
activities under the NCP.
WQC (Water Quality Criteria): A non-enforceable standard that EPA promulgates under the Clean
Water Act and is used as a basis for States to set enforceable water quality standards for surface
water bodies.
G-11
-------
•SEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Superfund
Selected
Technical
Guidance
for
Superfund
Projects
-------
A. SITE ASSESSMENT
Data Quality Objectives for Remedial Response
Activities: Development Process and Example
Scenario
EPA 540/G87-003 & 004
Design and Development of Hazardous Waste
Reactivity Testing Protocol
NT1SPB-84-158-807
Expanded Site Inspection Transitional
Guidance for FY-1988
OSWER Directive 9345 1-02
Guidance for Conducting Remedial
Investigations and Feasibility Studies Under
CERCLA (Interim Final)*
EPA 540/6-89/004
Handbook for Evaluating Remedial Action
Technology Plans
NTIS PB-84-118-249
Modeling Remedial Actions at Uncontrolled
Hazardous Waste Sites
OSWER Directive 9355 0-08
Preliminary Assessment Guidance
FY-1988
OSWER Directive 9345 0-01
Test Methods for Evaluation of Solid Waste:
Physical/Chemical Methods, 3rd Edition
OPO 955-001-00000-1
RI/FS Improvements, Phase II, Streamlining
Recommendations*
OSWER Directive 9355 3-06
B. FATE AND TRANSPORT
Modeling Remedial Actions at Uncontrolled
Hazardous Waste Sites
NTIS PB-85-211-357
C. MONITORING, SAMPLING, AND ANALYSIS
Compendium of Superfund Field Operations
Methods
NT1SPB-88-181-557
-------
Field Screening Methods Catalog -
User's Guide
EPA 540/2-88/005
Geophysical Methods for Locating Abandoned
Wells
NTISPB-84-212-711
Geophysical Techniques for Sensing Buried
Wastes and Waste Migration
NTISPB-84-198-449
Practical Guide for Ground-Water Sampling
NTISPB-86-137-304
RCRA Ground-Water Monitoring Technical
Enforcement Guidance Document
NTISPB-87-107-751
Sediment Sampling Quality Assurance User's
Guide
NTIS PB-85-233-542
Soil Sampling Quality Assurance User's Guide
NTIS PB-84-198-621
User's Guide to the Contract Laboratory Program
OSWER Directive 9240 0-1
D. ALTERNATIVE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
Assessment of International Technologies for
Superfund Applications - Technology Review
and Trip Report Results
EPA 540/2-88/003
Compendium of Technologies Used in the
Treatment of Hazardous Wastes
EPA 625/8-87-014
Directory of Commercial Hazardous Waste
Treatment and Recycling Facilities
NTISPB-86-178-431
Advancing the Use of Treatment Technologies
for SPFD Remedies*
OSWER Directive 9355 0-26
if Publication listed for first time
-------
Guidance Document for Cleanup of Surface
Tank and Drum Sites
NTISPB-87-110-672
Handbook for Stabilization/Solidification of
Hazardous Waste
EPA 540/2-86/001
Handbook, Remedial Action at Waste Disposal
Sites, Revised
EPA 625/6-85-006
Management of Hazardous Waste Leachate
NTISPB-81-189-359
Mobile Treatment Technologies for Superfund
Waste
EPA 540/2-86-003F
Practical Guide - Trial Burns for Hazardous
Waste Incinerators: Project Summary
NTISPB-86-190-246/AS
Review of In-Place Treatment Techniques for
Contaminated Surface Soils,
Volume 1 Technical Evaluation
NTISPB-85-124-881
Volume 2 Background Information for
In Situ Treatment
NTISPB-85-124-889
Technological Approaches to the Cleanup of
Radiologiciilly Contaminated Superfund Sites
EPA 540/2-88/002
Technology Screening Guide for Treatment of
CERCLA Soils and Sludges
EPA 540/2-88/004
E. LAND DISPOSAL/STORAGE
Prohibition on the Placement of Bulk Liquid
Hazardous Waste in Landfills -
Statutory Interpretive Guidance
NTISPB 86-212-271
Policy for Superfund Compliance with RCRA Land
Disposal Restrictions
Policy for Superfund Compliance with RCRA
Land Disposal Restrictions
OSWER Directive 9347 1-02
-------
Systems to Accelerate In Situ Stabilization of
Waste Deposits
KPA 540/2-86-002
F. GROUND-WATER REMEDIATION
Guidance on Remedial Actions for
Contaminated Ground Water at
Superfund Sites (Interim Final)*
KPA 540/G-88/003
Leachate Plume Management
NTISPB-86-122-330
G. RISK/ENDANGERMENT ASSESSMENT
Health Effects Assessment Documents (58
Chemical Profiles)
NTISPB-86-134-111/AS
Superfund Exposure Assessment
Manual
KPA 540/1-88/001
Superfund Public Health Evaluation Manual
KPA 540/1-86/060
Superfund Risk Assessment and Information
Directory
KPA 540/1-86/061
Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund -
Environmental Evaluation Manual (Interim
Final)*
EPA540/1-89/001A
H. PERSONNEL PROTECTION
Occupational Safety and Health: Guidance
Manual for Hazardous Waste Site Activities
GPO(NIOSH PUB) 85-115
Protecting Health and Safety at Hazardous
Waste Sites: An Overview
KPA 625/9-85/006
Publication listed for first time
-------
Standard Operating Safety Guides
OSWER Directive 9285.1-01B
I. CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUES AND
PROCEDURES
Decontamination Techniques for Mobile
Response Equipment Used at Waste Sites (State-
of-the-Art Survey): Final Report
NTIS PB-85-247-021/XA
Drum Handling Practices at Hazardous Waste
Sites
NTISPB-86-165-362
Dust Control at Hazardous Waste Sites
EPA 540/2-85-003
Emergency Response Procedures for Control of
Hazardous Substance Releases
NTIS PB-84-128-719
Guidance Manual for Minimizing Pollution From
Waste Disposal Sites
NTISPB-286-905
Guide for Decontaminating Buildings, Structures,
and Equipment at Superfund Sites
NTISPB-85-201-234/AS
Slurry Trench Construction for Pollution
Migration Control
NTISPB-84-177-831
Superfund Remedial Design and Remedial Action
Guidance
NTIS PB 88-107529
Superfund Removal Procedure
Revision #3
OSWER Directive 9360.0-03B
Technical Guidance Document: Construction
Quality Assurance for Hazardous Waste Land
Disposal Facilities
EPA530/SW-86-031
J. PROGRAM GUIDANCE
CERCLA Compliance With Other Environmental
Statutes
OSWER Directive 9234.0-01
-------
Procedures for Completion and Deletion off NPL
Sites*
EPA7G-89/002
Superfund Community Relations Program. A
Guide to Effective Presentations with Visual
Aids*
EPA 540/G-89/001
Community Relations in Superfund: A Handbook
(Interim Version)
EPA 540/6-88/002
Guidance Document for Cleanup of Surface
Impoundment Sites
NTISPB-87-110-664
Guidance Document for Providing Alternate
Water Supplies
EPA 540/6-87/006
Guidance Manual for Research, Development,
and Demonstration Permits Under 40 CFR,
Section 270.65
NTISPB-86-229-192
Guidance on Preparing Superfund Decision
Documents (Draft)
OSWER Directive 9355.3-02
Interim Guidance on Administrative Records for
Selection of CERCLA Response Actions
OSWER Directive 9833.3A
Petitions to Dellst Hazardous Wastes: A
Guidance Manual
EPA 530/SW-85/003
Superfund Federal-Lead Remedial Project
Management Handbook
EPA 540/G-87/001
Superfund State-Lead Remedial Project
Management Handbook
EPA 540/G-87/002
* Publication listed for first time.
-------
K. CASE STUDIES
Case Studies 1-23: Remedial Responses at
Hazardous Waste Sites
NTISPB-85-121-739
Summary Report: Remedial Response at
Hazardous Waste Sites
NTISPB-86-121-721
L. COSTS
Costs of Remedial Response Actions at
Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites
NTISPB-83-164-830
Remedial Action Costing Procedures Manual
NTISPB-88-113-691
Removal Cost Management Manual
OSWER Directive 9360 0.02B
These reports can be obtained from:
EPA - CERI Cincinnati, OH 45268
(513) 569-7562
GPO Washington, DC 20402
(202) 783-3238
OSWER 401 M St. S.W., OS-245
Washington, DC 20460
Attn Superfund Directives
(202)382-6940
NTIS 5285 Port Royal Rd
Springfield, VA 22161
(703)487-4650
There is no charge for single copies of EPA reports.
The Government Printing Office (GPO) and
National Technical Information Service (NTIS)
charge for reports.
Catalogue of Superfund Program
Directives
OSWER Directive 9200.7-01
and Current Supplement
This catalog contains a listing with
abstracts and ordering information for
all current OERR directives.
EPA/540/8-89/004
5/89
-------
NOTICE
The location of the May 30-31 CERCLA ORIENTATION TRAIN-I-NG-has
been changed from the EPA Conference Center toQhe Westin
Tabor Center - 1672 Lawrence Street. Training is scheduled to
begin at 9:00 a.m.
-------
CERCLA ORIENTATION COURSE
AGENDA
Nay 30-31. 1990
WESTIN HOTEL—TABOR CENTER
Day 1
9:00 - 10:15 UNIT 1: Introduction to Superfund
10:15 - 10:30 Break
10:30 - 11:30 UNIT 2: Discovering Sites and Performing Initial
Evaluations
11:30 - 12:30 UNIT 3: The Removal Program
12:30 - 1:30 Lunch
1:30 - 2:15 The Whodunnit site: a removal case study
2:15 - 2:30 Break
2:30 - 4:30 UNIT 4: The Remedial Investigation and
Feasibility Study
Day 2
9:00-9:45 UNIT 5: ARARs 1n Superfund
9:45 - 10:30 UNIT 6: State Roles in Superfund
10:30 - 10:45 Break
10:45 - 12:00 BAG Hill Fan: A remedial case study
12:00 - 1:00 Lunch
1:00 - 2:00 UNIT 7: Enforcement and cost recovery
1:30 - 2:30 UNIT 8: Remedial design and construction
2:30 - 2:45 Break
2:45 - 3:30 Knox-us: an enforcement case study
3:30 - 4:00 UNIT 9: CERCLA and RCRA
4:00 - 4:15 Course wrap-up
-------
DIRECTIONS TO PARTICIPANTS
KNOX-US SITE
ENFORCEMENT CASE STUDY
Please take ten minutes to read the BACKGROUND section of the Knox-US Case Study.
After reading the information, meet with your enforcement team to devise an enforcement strategy.
Use the worksheet included in this package to write down your strategy and prepare a short
presentation of your strategy to the other teams.
You enter the scene after the RI/FS has been conducted at the site and responses to a
second round of notice letters (for the RD/RA) have been received. Based on the information
presented, your goals in this case study are to:
• Identify who should be targetted when for enforcement actions; and
• Identify what enforcement vehicles you should use to target these parties.
-------
BACKGROUND
The Knox-US site is an abandoned hazardous waste storage facility. It was owned and
operated by TASTY TOXICS, INC., which is still in business, but no longer offers hazardous waste
management services. TASTY TOXICS closed the Knox-US site in 1980 so that it would not
become subject to regulation under RCRA. In 1981, TASTY TOXICS sold the site to A. HOLD Co.,
which used the land as a storage site for non-hazardous products. In 1983, during destruction of
some site buildings and excavation operations to install a sewer system on the property, a drum
burial site was located. The State and EPA investigated the site, and, because of perceived
immediate threats to ground water and the concerns of the nearby community, conducted a removal
action to remove the drums in 1984 at a cost of $755,000. The site was listed on the NPL in 1985
because of the remaining subsurface contamination and further threats to ground water not
addressed during the removal action.
Records (e.g., labels, miscellaneous files) obtained during the removal action showed the
drums had come from six companies, each of whom apparently sent wastes to the site for storage.
Piecing together the records, enforcement counsel hypothesized a breakdown of the approximate
shares of the wastes received from each company. Exhibit 1 (on the next page) shows the six
companies, their current operating and financial status, and the estimated shares of the wastes
discovered.
EPA subsequently conducted a Fund-lead RI/FS because of the unwillingness of A. HOLD
Co. or TASTY TOXICS to agree with EPA on who was responsible for the site contamination. A.
HOLD Co. denied responsibility for any of the contamination; TASTY TOXICS accepted limited
responsiblity, offerred to pay for the removal action and 5 percent of the remedial response in return
for immunity from further liability. TASTY TOXICS also refused to provide business records of other
companies that may have sent wastes to the site. They claimed that after the removal, the site
poses little risk, and that naming other companies who may have sent wastes to the site (but whose
drums may not have been buried) would, in the words of the company's general counsel 'only
cause EPA to conduct a gold-plated investigation and choose the most expensive remedy for the
site because more potential responsible parties would be available to pay for the action.1 The six
other parties identified as PRPs refused to participate in the investigation without Tasty Toxics
and/or A. Hold.
The RI/FS discovered additional buried drums and extensive subsurface soil contamination
as a result of spills from the drum disposal areas. The study, which cost EPA approximately
$900,000, found that a nearby aquifer, although not yet contaminated, was threatened by the
migration of the wastes. The ROD was signed in 1989 and recommended extensive excavation of
contaminated wastes, treatment and disposal of excavated wastes, and the installation of barriers to
prevent further migration of wastes. The estimated present worth capital and O&M costs of the
remedy was $14.6 million.
Following the signing of the ROD, EPA sent a second round of notice letters to the six
companies known to have disposed of wastes, as well as to Tasty Toxics and A. Hold Co. A
summary of the responses received as a result of the second round of notice letters are shown in
the fourth column of Exhibit 1.
-------
EXHIBIT 1
SUMMARY OP COMPANIES. STATUS. SHAKE OF HASTE ADD RESPONSE TO ROIICE LETTERS
OGHPAHY
STATUS
ESTIMATED
OF HASTES
SUMMARY OF RESPONSE
TO SEOUN1) ROTICE LETTER
Tasty Toxics
A Bold Co.
Big Bucks
Site owner until 1981; large diversified company
with plants throughout country; net income has
increased annually an average of 5 percent to $250
million. Ho longer involved in any hazardous waste
activities
Purchased the site in 1981; never operated any
hazardous waste or hazardous substances business on
site.
Sent wastes to facility for storage; subsidiary of a
large multi-national corporation with seven plants
in U.S. and total annual net income of $110 million.
(from corporate counsel): "Tasty Toxics
was encouraged by EPA and State end local
officials to operate the disposal site.
We operated under the State laws in
effect at the time. He propose to
reimburse the government for no more than
5 percent of the total remedial action
cost, as well as the cost for the removal
action. Of course, we would require a
waiver for any additional liability."
(from corporate counsel): "He appreciate
EPA's concern and prompt attention to the
Knox-US site, but must wonder at your
motives in naming us a PRP. You have
publicly acknowledged that our operations
have contributed in no way to the
problems. Should you continue naming us a
a PRP, we will have to use as a defense f
, which exempts from liability
Landowners who did not know about
contamination on their property."
"The company denies categorically any
knowledge of, or responsibility for
activities at the Knox-US site."
Mixed Chem
Hazardous
Electroplating
Junk Chemicals
Flowery Manufacturing
Fortune 492
Sent wastes to facility for storage; medium-sized
company with current net Income of $27 million.
Company is heavily leveraged, with current short-
term liabilities of more than $150 million.
Sent wastes to the site for storage; a medium-sized
company whose sales have fallen dramatically and who
has been in the red for the last two years.
15
40
Sent wastes to the site for storage;
Recently filed for bankruptcy.
A small, family-owned company that sent wastes to
the site for storage. Detailed financial
information is not available.
Sent wastes to the facility for storage; a very
large and growing conglomerate that owns mills,
shipping facilities, and transportation equipment.
Success of the company is evidenced by annual sales
of more than $4.5 billion.
10
15
15
(from counsel): "Without acknowledging
any liability, we will enter into a hold-
harmless agreement at this time. We will
pay our share of the remedy corresponding
to our proven percent of wastes. He
dispute the current estimate of 15
percent of wastes. If you cannot
demonstrate our share, see you in court."
(from facility manager): "Why does the
government always pick on the little guy?
He sent wastes, properly packaged, to an
approved facility, that facility caused
this problem end you blame us? He've
been in business more than 40 years,
employing 200 people annually for most of
that time. Go ahead and bill us. He'll
pay you right after the phone company!"
"He are out of business, so good luck!"
No response received.
(from corporate counsel): "Me request
copies of all documents on which you base
your estimate of a 15 percent share of
the wastes. To show our good faith, we
will negotiate to pay for the cost to
remove IS percent of the wastes from the
site, but deny any responsibility for the
ground-water problems.
-------
WORKSHEET
KNOX-US SITE ENFORCEMENT OPTIONS
Directions: Select the action(s) you would use to pursue cleanup based on the circumstances at
the Knox-Us site. For each option you select, answer the questions provided. Some actions you
select (i.e., those used against only a few parties) may require you to select other actions. If you
choose more than one action, indicate the order in which you would take the actions.
1. Encourage PRPs to take lead for Implementing RD/RA
a. Which party would you approach to take the action?_
b. What arguments would you use with the PRPs to encourage this approach?
Issue unilateral order to certain party(les) to take actions (this action does not
stop negotiation of different arrangements with other parties)
a. Against which party(ies)?
b. What would you require under the order?_
3. Identify certain party(les) to hold fully accountable for the costs of the
Investigation and cleanup (enforce Joint and several liability)
a. Which parties?
b. What actions would you take against this party(ies)?_
4. Reach a de mlnlmls settlement (this activity also may require other actions
against parties not Included In the settlement)
a. With which party(ies)?
b. For what percentage share of total cost of action?_
5. Negotiate a mixed-funding agreement (this activity also may require other actions
against parties not Included In the agreement)
a. With which party(ies)?
b. What percent would you demand the PRPs contribute?_
6. Take a fund-lead action and cost recover EPA and State costs after action Is
complete
a. From what party(ies) would you seek cost recovery?
b. How much would you seek to cost recover from each party?_
-------
PARTICIPANT ROLES AND DIRECTIONS
INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE REMEDIAL CASE STUDY/ROLE PLAY
BAC SITE
For the next forty-five minutes or so, you will be assuming one of the following roles in order
to participate in a mock ROD meeting:
• Regional Administrator (RA) - selects the remedial action to be taken at each site.
• Remedial Project Manager (RPM) at the BAC She - advises the RA on the technical
and environmental considerations for each alternative and makes a recommendation.
• Congressional Liaison - advises the RA on any Congressional interest that has been
shown regarding the site or the remedial action selection.
• Community Relations Coordinator - represents the concerns of the community.
• EPA Regional Counsel - reports on the status of enforcement actions at the site and
advises how the remedial actions may affect enforcement negotiations.
Please take 10 minutes to leam your role from the appropriate role sheet and to review the
site description.
At the end of this time, the Regional Administrator will convene your meeting. You will be
asked to introduce yourself to the rest of the group by giving your name and identifying your role.
Each staff member at your meeting will have an opportunity to make a brief presentation and
recommend one of the alternative actions (see your 'Role Sheer for the position you will take). Try
to 'put yourself in the shoes' of the staff member you are playing to make your argument as
convincing as possible. Following each presentation, your group will hold a discussion to select an
appropriate action. If possible, the alternative chosen should be reached by a consensus decision.
The final determination, however, will be made by the RA.
You will have 35-40 minutes to conduct the meeting and try to select a remedial action. After
this time, the RA will have five minutes to record his or her final decision and the reasons for it.
When the RA welcomes the group to begin the meeting, assume your role.
-------
BAG SITE: REMEDIAL CASE STUDY
The Record of Decision (ROD)
This remedial case study is the subject of an exercise tomorrow. Please familiarize yourself
with the case prior to the exercise. (Do not be concerned if you do not understand all of the
technical aspects of the case; the trainers will provide the necessary technical information and will
answer any questions that you may have.). The purpose of this exercise, a ROD meeting, is to select
a remedy for a hazardous waste site. Several alternatives have been presented for the Regional
Administrator's (RA) consideration. To reach a decision, technical, enforcement, community relations,
and other considerations will be weighed.
At the beginning of the exercise you will be given a specific role to assume during the
exercise. You will also receive additional information concerning the case and what you are expected
to do. Therefore, the only preparation necessary for this exercise is to read and become familiar with
the BAG Site Case Study.
SUMMARY OF BAG WOOD PRESERVING SITE, FLORIDA
SITE DESCRIPTION (See Figure 1)
• Active 11-acre wood preserving facility which uses pentachlorophenol (PCP) as a
wood preservative.
• Located in Uptown, Duval County, Florida.
• Site comprised of two distinct areas: (1) an active wood treating facility located on the
western portion of the property and, (2) a landfill area used for the disposal of wood
chips and other facility wastes on the eastern portion of the property.
• Surface features include two unlined disposal pits and the active, wood treating
facility, which consists of a large pressure chamber, several tanks used for storage of
the preservative fluids, a sand filter system and several 'storage sheds.
• Site is relatively flat, with less than 10 feet of relief over the entire site.
• The site drains into a ditch which eventually enters into a swampy area to the south,
and then into Clancy Creek.
• Land use within a 1-mile radius of the site is primarily residential and light
commercial/industrial.
• Outside the 1-mile radius is primarily undeveloped rural land.
• Approximately 1,000 nearby residents rely on ground water for their drinking water
source.
• Local area surface waters in Duval County are used for sport fishing and recreation.
• There are two underlying aquifers: (1) the surficial aquifer and, (2) the Floridan aquifer.
-------
BAG
HOOD PRESERVING
CO.
SCALE IN FEET
APPROXIMATE
PIT AREA
SYSTEM DISCHARGE
TO CLANCY CREEK
Figure 1. BAG Wood Preserving Company Site Location Map.
-------
SITE HISTORY
Operational History
Since 1954, BAG has produced preserved wood products impregnated with PCP-
dissolved in #2 diesel fuel.
Prior to 1970, process effluent was precipitated with caustic soda and aluminum
sulfate, passed through a sand filter, and discharged into an on-site drainage ditch.
Recovered sludge was deposited into the two unlined pits on-site. The pits were
approximately 50' x 100' and extended to unknown depths.
In 1970, BAG began storing sludge in storage tanks located adjacent to the pits. At
the same time, the company engaged an engineering firm to design a waste water
treatment system.
In 1980, the City of Jacksonville Bio-Environmental Services Division (BES) confirmed
the presence of ground water contamination on site.
Permit And Regulatory History
• In 1972, BAG received an Industrial Operation Permit from the State of Florida
Department of Air and Water Pollution Control. The permit was for design and
operation of a 2,500 gallon per day (gpd) industrial waste treatment system and for
discharge to Clancy Creek via the on-site drainage ditch. A renewal permit was
issued in 1977 and expired in 1980.
• A National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit was issued to BAC
in 1975. The permit was formally inactivated by EPA in 1982 after completion of the
closed-loop treatment system.
• In 1981, a Florida Department of Environmental Resources (FDER) inspection found
that BAC was in violation of RCRA hazardous waste reporting, planning, and safety
requirements. FDER issued a consent order in December 1981 requiring BAC to
implement a plan for sampling, analysis, and reporting the generation of its K001
wood preserving waste. Instead, BAC installed a closed-loop treatment system and
changed its production process to no longer produce a RCRA hazardous waste.
• FDER attempted to negotiate with BAC to voluntarily remediate several unlined pits in
which wood preserving wastes had been placed for treatment. BAC declined to take
any action. FDER filed a lawsuit against BAC for failure to protect human health and
the environment. FDER withdrew its lawsuit when the site was finalized on the NPL
• In October 1981, BAC was proposed for inclusion on the National Priorities List (NPL).
The site was finalized in March 1983.
ACTIVITIES CONDUCTED TO DATE/CURRENT SITE STATUS
4
-------
• In September 1984, EPA used its authority under CERCLA Section 104 to conduct an
investigation and obligated funds for a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS).
However, BAG denied EPA access to the site. As a result, EPA and DOJ filed a
motion in Federal Court to obtain access to conduct the RI/FS. EPA was granted
access and began field operations in June 1985.
• In June and July of 1985, EPA conducted an Immediate Removal Action to excavate
and dispose of the contents of the two unlined pits. The pits were then backfilled and
french drains were installed.
• The Rl report was completed in April 1986 and the draft FS was released to the
public on July 21, 1986.
• Because the site is currently active and continues to generate hazardous substances,
FDER is continuing to monitor for any infractions and to determine whether BAC's
current waste streams should be regulated under RCRA.
CONTAMINATION PROBLEM
• PCP is the primary contaminant of concern at the BAC site in disposal pits. PCP
concentrations in soil ranged from 11 parts per million (ppm) at the southern edge of
the disposal pits to 1,490 ppm at the northern edge of the pits.
• Additional organic contaminants detected at BAC include, but are not limited to
naphthalene, and a variety of alkanes and xylenes, all of which are believed to be
associated with the fuel oil. PCBs were found in one sample at 30,000 micrograms
per liter (mg/l). This is believed to be an isolated spill, and there is no evidence of
extensive contamination.
• PCP was detected in the surficial (upper) aquifer in concentrations ranging from 12
mg/l to 4,900 mg/l.
• Surface water samples (Clancy Creek) indicated PCP concentrations ranging from 10
mg/l upgradient of the site to 1,760 mg/l downgradient of the site.
• Current potential exposure pathways are ingestion of contaminated soils, ground
water, and surface water.
COMMUNITY RELATIONS
• Community Relations efforts were initiated in late 1984 when EPA personnel visited the
site along with the community relations contractor.
• Neighborhood response initially ranged from general disinterest to strongly negative
sentiment toward the site from a few citizens. Citizen interest grew, however, as the
extent of the contamination problem became clearer. Citizens applied for, and
received, a technical assistance grant (TAG) and hired a technical advisor to evaluate
the investigation and keep them informed of site activities.
-------
• During the RI/FS process, several citizens expressed concern that if wastes remained
on-site, local property values would decrease. They inquired as to EPA's position on
reimbursing citizens for decreased property values.
• Only sporadic press interest was generated.
• At the completion, of the RI/FS, EPA published and mailed a fact sheet to interested
parties as identified in the March 1985 Community Relations Plan.
• A public meeting was held in August of 1986 to discuss the findings of the RI/FS and
to initiate a three-week public comment period. The public meeting was very well
attended.
• Public commentors generally expressed their desire to have all of the waste from the
inactive units that are contributing to ground-water contamination removed from the
site, and to have the ground water pumped and treated before further migration of the
plume can occur. The citizens also said they believe that the entire site be shut down
because they fear no matter what actions are taken now, further contamination will
inevitably result if the plant keeps operating.
ENFORCEMENT ANALYSIS
As noted previously, the BAC Wood Preserving Company has been involved in litigation with
both the State of Florida and U.S. EPA.
• In September 1984, Florida filed suit against BAC seeking relief which would require
the company to perform both short-term and long-term remedial actions at the site.
That suit is ongoing and has recently been amended to include charges of violation of
RCRA requirements.
• In October 1984, EPA issued an administrative order pursuant to Section 106 of
CERCLA, requiring BAC to conduct sampling and perform immediate removal
activities. BAC refused to comply with the order, and denied EPA access to the site
to perform the response activities.
• Therefore, in March 1985, EPA filed a motion in Federal Court, seeking an order which
would permit EPA to enter the site and conduct response activities. That motion was
granted and EPA conducted an immediate removal action in June 1985.
• During the public comment period which followed the release of the RI/FS, BAC
submitted a proposal for remedial action at the site. That proposal suggested the
installation of a surface cap and more extensive ground-water monitoring, actions that
BAC contended would result in the long term protection of human health and the
environment.
• EPA is currently in its third month of negotiating with BAC for cost recovery of RI/FS
expenditures and to determine who will conduct the remedy once it is selected. If the
company does not formally commit to perform the remedy, and provide assurances
that adequate funding is available to complete the remedy in a timely manner, EPA
will proceed with a Fund-financed Remedial Design/Remedial Action.
6
-------
ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION
Public Health and Environmental Objectives
Health. The potential health threats posed by the BAG site are considered to be significant.
Potential exposure pathways include: contact with the contaminated soils, sawdust, and surface
waters, inhalation of airborne particulates, and the potential for ingestion of contaminated ground
water. The baseline human health risk assessment found that the site could pose a significant health
threat based on the levels of contamination identified in the Remedial Investigation.
Environmental Concerns. The surface water levels of POP investigation indicated that the site
could pose a threat to aquatic species. Unless the POP runoff into the drainage ditch and ultimately
into Clancy Creek is prevented, there is significant potential for adverse environmental impact.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
Several alternatives were considered for remediating the BAC site. The alternatives were
presented in groups targeted at remediating a single aspect of the site. Table 1 shows the
technologies identified for remediation of the ground water contamination (Group A alternatives) and
technologies considered for remediation of soil contamination (Group B alternatives).
TABLE 1
TECHNOLOGIES CONSIDERED FOR REMEDIATION OF THE BAC SITE
Group A. Ground-Water Remediation Technologies
1. Treatment Technologies
a Flocculation, Sedimentation, and Filtration
b. Activated Carbon Adsorption
2. Natural attenuation
Group B. Soil Remediation Technologies
1. Treatment Technologies
a Solidification and Stabilization
b. On-site Incineration
c. Low Temperature Thermal Stripping
d. Solvent Extraction
e. Land Treatment (in a newly constructed land treatment unit)
f. In-situ biological treatment (enhanced biodegradation)
g. Off-site treatment and disposal
2. Containment Technologies
a Surface capping
b. Encapsulation and containment
-------
SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVES
After developing the technologies and alternatives, each was screened against the factors of
effectiveness, implementability, and cost to determine which should be fully evaluated as potential
remedies for the BAG site.
Two of the ground-water alternatives were eliminated at this point. Natural attenuation was
eliminated because of the locally high water table (and thus risks of continued contamination from the
site) and the long timeframes required for the ground water to be flushed of the contaminants.
Flocculation. sedimentation, and filtration was eliminated because of the risks to workers at the site.
The carbon adsorption alternative proves to be as effective without the short-term risks.
Several of the soil alternatives also were eliminated from further consideration. For example,
solidification and stabilization was eliminated because it would not destroy the organic contaminants
and the technology is not proven to prevent the leaching of organics from the stabilized mass,
thereby protecting of human health and the environment. Surface capping also was eliminated
because it did not involve any treatment, immobilization, or encapsulation of organic contaminants.
Low temperature thermal treatment, an innovative technology, was retained for screening because it
had the potential to be an effective treatment. At this site, however, a treatability study of this
technology showed that it would not be effective at removing contaminants. Therefore, it was
eliminated from further consideration. Finally, the land treatment alternative was eliminated because it
would require extensive regulatory variances under the RCRA land disposal restrictions. It was
determined that this variance process would increase the costs and add significant delays to the
project.
TECHNOLOGIES RETAINED FOR DETAILED ANALYSIS
Table 2 shows the technologies retained for a detailed evaluation after the completion of the
screening stage. Table 3 lists the construction and operation and maintenance (O&M) costs for each
of the alternatives retained, as well as the time that it would take to completely achieve the remedial
action goal to protect human health and the environment. In addition to the costs shown in the table
for the soil alternatives, estimates have placed the total present worth cost of ground-water recovery
and treatment at $1.8 million.
All of the soil alternatives retained for evaluation will be protective of human health and the
environment and will attain ARARs (the two threshold criteria). Table 4 provide an evaluation of each
of the alternatives against the five balancing criteria (long-term effectiveness; treatment to reduce the
toxicity, mobility, or volume of wastes; short-term effectiveness; implementability; and cost-
effectiveness). The two modifying criteria, State and community acceptance, will be evaluated during
the course of the case study.
-------
TABLE 2
TECHNOLOGIES RETAINED AFTER SCREENING
Group A. Ground-Water Remediation Technologies
1. Treatment Technologies
b. Activated Carbon Adsorption
Group B. Soil Remediation Technologies
1. Treatment Technologies
b. On-site Incineration
d. Solvent Extraction
f. In-situ biological treatment (biodegradation)
g. Off-site treatment and disposal
2. Containment Technologies
b. Encapsulation and containment
9
-------
TABLES
COST AND TIME ESTIMATES OF RETAINED SOIL REMEDIAL TECHNOLOGIES
Alternative
No
Action
On-site
Incineration
Solvent
Extraction
In-situ
biological
treatment
(biodegrad-
ation)
Off-site
treatment
and disposal
Encapsulation
and contain-
ment
Present Worth
Construction
Cost
$0
$22,157,097
$14,200,825
$9,334,345
$25,500,000
$3,825,000
Present Worth
O&M Cost
$0
$0
$160,203
$402,104
$0
$1,275,000
Total Present
Worth Cost
$0
$22,157,097
$14,361,028
$9,736,449
$25,500,000
$5,100,000
Time to
Complete
„
3 years
4 years
8 years
1.5 years
1 year*
* Wastes will remain on-srte indefinitely following the completion of the remedy.
NOTE: Costs are for soil technologies only. Estimated present worth costs of ground-water recovery
and treatment system are an additional $1.2 million of construction cost and $600,000
operation and maintenance annually, for a total present worth cost of $1.8 million. It is
estimated that 10 years will be required to treat the ground water to levels attaining the
cleanup objectives.
10
-------
TAPT.lt 4
SDMURY OF EVALUATION OF BALANCING CRITERIA - SOIL ALTERNATIVES
Alternative
Long-Tain
Effectiveness
Permanence, Red.
of THV Through
Treatment
Short-Term
Effectiveness
Implenentability
Cost/Time
Effectiveness
1. On-Slte
Incineration
2. Solvent
Extraction
3. In-situ
biological
treatment
(biodegradation)
4. Off-site
incineration and
disposal
S. Encapsulation
containment
6. No Action
Process will
destroy PCP and
other contaminants
and significantly
reduce risks,
although will
produce residues
requiring land
disposal on site.
PCP-contamlnated
soils will be
excavated,
contaminants
extracted end
environmental
risks mitigated.
Treatment process
will reduce risks
to all potential
receptors. Will
leave some res-
idues, but these
are expected to be
below levels of
concern.
Same as
alternative 1, but
residues would not
remain on-site.
Potentially
effective if liner
is not breeched or
material
disturbed.
High possibility
of waste migration
through identified
exposure pathways.
Permanent remedy.
Hill reduce
toxicity and
volume of
contaminated soil
by destroying
contamination.
Permanent remedy.
Results in
reduction of
toxicity and
volume of
contaminants.
Permanent remedy,
resulting in
reduction of
toxicity of PCP
wastes.
Same as
alternative 1
Not permanent.
Does not result in
reduction of
toxleity or volume
of wastes, but is
expected to reduce
mobility.
Not permanent.
Does not reduce
toxicity,
mobility, or
volume of wastes.
High short-term
risks due to
potential for air
emissions, and
because of
excavation.
Effective controls
will mitigate
major risks.
Risk exposure to
workers is high
during excavation
of soils. Choice
of solvent will
greatly influence
the amount of
these risks.
Some risks to
workers and nearby
population from
air emissions.
No on-site air
emissions will
occur, but there
are risks from
dust during
excavation.
Short-term risks
to workers in
excavating and
encapsulating
wastes, installing
containment
devices.
Immediate risks
exist to workers
through pathways
of ingestion,
dermal contact,
and inhalation.
Common equipment
and procedures can
be used for
excavation.
Incineration is a
proven technology.
Specialized
equipment and
personnel are
needed for solvent
extraction.
Hill require
specialized
workers. Some
problems may occur
in introducing
biological agents
uniformly through
soil, and in
obtaining desired
treatment levels.
Conventional
methods needed for
excavation.
Protection against
dust emissions
will be required
during movement.
Conventional
methods available
for excavation.
Specialized
knowledge will be
required to
install liner.
Incineration has
total present
worth costs of
approximately $22
million, and time
to implement is 3
years.
Present worth
costs are
approximately $14
million, and time
to implement is 4
years.
Present worth
costs of
approximately $9
million, and time
to implement is 8
years.
Present worth
costs are
approximately $25
million and time
to implement is
1.5 years.
Present worth
costs are
approximately $5
million, high OSM
costs to State.
Time Is approx-
imately 1 year.
------- |