&EPA
United States Office of Publication 9319.0-01 FS
Environmental Protection Solid Waste and
Agency Emergency Response February 1990
The Final National Contingency Plan:
New Directions For Superfund
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
Office of Program Management OS-240 Quick Reference Fact Sheet
Today EPAis issuing the final revisions to the National Contingency Plan (NCP), the regulatory blueprint forimplement-
ing the Superfund law. The Superfund program - the nation's effort to clean up abandoned toxic waste sites - has evolved
significantly since its start nearly ten years ago. In 1986, Congress amended the Superfund law, adding major new
authorities and responsibilities to the program. Last year, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) undertook a
thorough self-appraisal, the Superfund "Management Review," which includes a series of recommendations on how the
program could be improved. EPA believes that together the final NCP and the Management Review provide a firm basis
for progress in cleaning up the nation's worst toxic waste problems.
The NCP embodies the essential points of the Management Review of Superfund conducted last year. The Management
Review establishes a management framework for Superfund. With the promulgation of the NCP, EPA has revised its
policy andregulatory framework for Superfund. Both documents describe what the: program realistically can accomplish
and emphasize the need for taking action at sites — rather than prolonged investigation and analysis. The documents
also recognize the importance of increased state participation and public involvement in the Superfund program.
While the Management Review focuses on EPA's internal management, the NCP sets forth the legal requirements for
how all federal agencies, states and private parties respond to toxic releases and oil spills. The NCP provides for a national
system to respond to hazards caused by toxic waste and oil spills, a process for investigating and cleaning up toxic waste
sites, environmental standards for cleanup, and a structured analytical process to promote consistency in deciding on
cleanups across the country.
Assuring long-term protection.
The NCP confirms EPA's commitment to seek long-term solutions to toxic wastes problems near Superfund sites.
Consistent with the Superfund law, the NCP emphasizes using treatment to eliminate or reduce to safe levels the threat
posed by highly toxic waste. Treatment is given preference over covering up highly toxic waste or moving it to another
location. Another important emphasis is on restoring contaminated resources — such as ground water which may be
a source of drinking water — so that such valuable resources can be used safely.
Taking action quickly.
The Management Review recognizes the importance of making sites safer in the near-term by controlling acute threats
Immediately. The NCP provides the framework for taking early action at sites. Early actions are encouraged to stabilize
or reduce the high-risk threats at a site. Longer-term investigations and analyses can then proceed. These investigations
and analyses will still, however, be tailored to the scope and complexity of the site so that the ultimate action(s) that
provide long-term protection will be taken as quickly as possible.
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
Setting realistic expectations for Superfund.
The Management Review points out the need to have a clear statement of EPA’s expectations about what cleanup or
remedy to implement at a site. The NCP includes a new program goal and lays out a series of expectations to guide the
process of deciding on remedies.
The NCP’s program goal is to select remedies that protect human health and the environment, that maintain protection
over time and that minimize untreated waste. EPA believes that treating waste is the best method to achieve long-term
protection. Detailed expectations are intended to inform the public of the types of remedies that EPA has selected, and
anticipates selecting, for certain types of sites, for example:
• Waste that poses a high level of risk, i.e., highly toxic or mobile waste, will be treated to reduce its toxicity or
mobility.
• Waste left on-site after the Superfund action, i.e., waste that poses a relatively low long-term threat, will be
controlled, generally by preventing further releases and capping the site.
• Many sites will use a combination of treatment and containment.
• Ground water that is an actual or potential source of drinking water will be restored to levels safe for drinking,
where practical.
• Soil will be restored to levels appropriate for current and reasonably potential uses.
Emphasizing treatment technologies.
A major thrust of the Superfund law is to require more use of hazardous waste treatment technologies. The Manage-
ment Review points out the need to remove regulatory and policy barriers to the use of treatment technologies. The NCP
repeatedly emphasizes treatment. Treatment is the centerpiece of the program goal and expectations described above.
The NCP requires that preference be given to remedies that use treatment over remedies that do not. Additionally, the
NCP promotes use of Innovative technologies in order to bolster the development of new methods to provide long-term
protection.
Defining Cleanup standards.
The NCP, as directed by the Superfund law, requires that standards of protection under other federal and state environ-
mental laws be attained at Superfund sites. For example, standards for drinking water under the Safe Drinking Water Act
will be used as the cleanup level for water that is or may be used for drinking at a Superfund site. When standards of
protection under other laws axe not available, e.g., for a particular type of waste, the program will make a site-specific
determination on an appropriate cleanup level. For waste that may cause cancer, the risk posed by the waste generally
will be reduced to fall within an acceptable risk range — l0 to l0 — A range of l0 to l0 is shorthand for a range
of 1 in 10,000 to 1 in 1,000,000 with a presumption that cleanup targets should be set at the more protective end of the
range or 10 .
increasing public participation.
From the inception of the Superfund program, EPA has recognized that the community affected by a Superfund site should
participate in Agency decision-making and should be informed of the status of action at the site. The Management Review
recommends that EPA involve citizens even more extensively in the process of making decisions about cleanups at
Superfund sites.
The NCP ensures public involvement in decision-making by providing opportunities for the public to Inform EPA of
concerns about a site, to participate in the investigation and analysis of a site and to review and comment on documents
used in deciding on cleanups. The NCP requires that the public be allowed at least 30 days, which will be extended to
60 days on request, to complete its review and submit comments before EPA will decide on a cleanup. To facilitate public
understanding about the site further, a direct reference to the Technical Assistance Grants (TAG) program is made in the
2
-------
NCP. These grants allow communities to obtain the necessary technical expertise to review and comment on decision
documents. Chher public involvement requirements ensure that the community is kept informed on the status ofaction
at the site. In addition to the minimum requirements, the NCP provides many suggestions for pubhc ™olvement
activities that should be considered for implementation at individual sites, including informing the pubhc of the nature
of discussions with potentially responsible parties.
Strengthening state Involvement.
The NCP provides opportunities for states to work with EPA to address the nation's worst toxic waste site problems. All
states are strongly encouraged to participate with EPA in deciding on cleanups. F^^^P6^^^^^^^
the NCP authorizes the states to conduct Investigations, analyze alternatives and recommend the selection.^ a remedy
to EPA. EPA retains the ultimate authority to decide on cleanup remedies that use federal funds. States may also supervise
design and construction of a remedy.
Ensuring sites remain safe.
The Management Review points out the need to monitor and maintain sites over the long-term. The NCP rcquiresi"eview
of a site where waste is left behind at least once every five years to ensure that the site remains safe. No site will be deleted
from the National Priorities List (NPL) after completion of the cleanup until at least one five-year review has been
conducted.
Measuring success.
The Management Review notes that deletions of sites from the NPL are not the only measure of progress for Superfund.
Major initiatives are underway within EPA to provide new measures of success. The NCP provides that sites where the
remedy is complete will be described as "construction complete" sites to distinguish them from sites where action is either
underway or about to start.
Encouraging Private party cleanups.
One emphasis of the Management Review is on maximizing the number of private party cleanups. Because the
requirements of the NCP apply to both government and private party cleanups, EPA believes that private party cleanups
conducted under the NCP will not compromise environmental goals and will protect pubhc health. EPA will provide
oversight of private party cleanups conducted under the NCP.
Conclusion.
EPA believes that the Superfund program is now making significant and meaningful progress in reducing the hazards
posed by the nation's worst toxic waste sites. The Management Review and the final NCP provide the comprehensive
management and regulatory tools needed to accomplish the program's difficult objectives.
------- |