*• ri UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
I
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
Ht»t»eiejuart»F$ Repository ...P 0 0 J00.
USEPA West Bldg AUG 2 2 1994
T301 Constitution Avenue N.W.
Room 3340
Washington, DC 20004
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Guidance on Accelerating CERCLA Environmental
Restoration at Federal/Facilities
FROM: Steven A. Hermaj
Assistant Administrator
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Elliott P. Laws
Assistant Administrate
Office of Solid Waste {4nH Emefrgehcy Response
TO: Waste Management Division Directors, Regions I-X
Federal Facilities Leadership Council, Regions I-X
Superfund Branch Chiefs, Regions I-X
Regional Counsels, Regions I-X
This memorandum transmits to you the Agency's "Guidance on
Accelerating Environmental Restoration at Federal Facilities."
The guidance is the result of a cooperative effort between EPA,
the Department of Energy (DOE) and the Department.of Defense
(DoD) to institutionalize accelerated cleanup approaches already
in place at federal facilities and to further encourage and
support efforts by federal agencies to develop streamlined
approaches to the cleanup of hazardous waste.
The guidance was developed by the Federal Facilities
Enforcement Office along with the Federal Facilities Leadership
Council, Headquarters and regional offices. DOE, DoD and
members of the Civilian Federal Agency Task Force also reviewed
and contributed to the formulation of this guidance. There have
been several drafts of this guidance and at each stage of the
review, we have incorporated comments that we believe will foster
a more efficient and effective environmental restoration process.
We thank you for your assistance.
Attachment
The Federal Facilities Leadership Council is comprised of
Branch Chief level staff from regional program offices as well as
representatives of the Office of Regional Counsel from all ten
regions.
Rtcycltd/Rtcycliblc
PrlniM wttti toy/canou ink en pip*r mil
contain* «)M*t $0% r»cyeHO flb«r
-------
cc: Mike Stahl
Scott Fulton
Bob Van Heuvelen
Bruce Diamond
Barry Breen
Tim Fields
Henry Longest
Walt Kovalick
Federal Facility Coordinators, Regions I-X
-------
AUG 22 1994
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
FROM:
Guidance on Accelerating CERCLA Environmental
Restoration at Federal. Facilities
Steven A. Herman_
Assistant Administrator
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Elliott P. Laws
Assistant Administrate
Office of Solid Waste
United States Environmental Pro
Thomas P. Grumbly /
Assistant Secretary for Ehvi
United States Departmorfc of E
Response
Ion Agency
TO:
PURPOSE
Sherri W. Goodman
Deputy Under Secre?a
United States Dep
See Addresees
ement
tment
Environmental
of Defense
Security
The purpose of this guidance is to encourage and support
efforts at federal facilities to accelerate and develop
streamlined approaches to the cleanup of hazardous waste.
BACKGROUND
On July 7, 1992, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA) Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response-(OSWER) issued
OSWER Directive No. 9203.1-03, "Guidance on Implementation of the
Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model (SACM) under CERCLA and the
NCP" to address accelerating cleanup of private Superfund sites.
The OSWER directive stated that separate guidance would be issued
for accelerating cleanup of federal facility sites. This
guidance is being issued as a supplement to the OSWER guidance.
Washington, D.C.
-------
In order to encourage and facilitate the acceleration of
hazardous waste cleanup at federal facilities, the EPA Federal
Facilities Enforcement Office (FFEO), the U.S. Department of
Defense (DoD), and the Department of Energy (DOE) met to consider
ways in which this goal could be achieved consistent with the
requirements of $120 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), the National
Contingency Plan (NCP) and Executive Order (E.O.) Number 12580,
3 C.F.R. 193 (1987) .
CERCLA $120 and E.O. 12580 establish certain unique
requirements with respect to federal facilities. In addition,
the potential for cooperative decision making between the lead
federal agencies, EPA and the states, in consultation with
community groups, offers opportunities for flexibility at federal
facility sites. To improve and accelerate cleanups at federal
facility sites, it will be necessary to identify available
opportunities, take creative approaches to managing uncertainty,
empower field managers to make decisions, be prepared to review
past conclusions when necessary and develop decisions th t
appropriately address the reduction of risk to human hea.th and
the environment as expeditiously as the law allows.
EPA also seeks to encourage accelerated cleanup at federaf
facilities through the use of innovative technologies, as
appropriate. (See OSWER Directive 9380.0-17). Although the tiae
constraints imposed by CERCLA 5120(e) to initiate the Remedial
Action (RA) within 15 months of remedy selection may discourage
the use of federal facilities for research and development of new
technologies, EPA is willing to explore, in appropriate
circumstances, a "decision-sharing1* approach in order to provide
incentives to develop innovative technologies for environmental
restoration. Where states are a party to the Interagency
Agreement/Federal Facilities Agreement (IA6/FFA), they need to be
a party to the decision making process. Where innovative
technology may offer accelerated cleanup at federal facilities,
EPA may allow for changes in scheduled activities, and provide
technical support to the federal agency. Such an approach should
be based on decisions acceptable to EPA, state environmental
regulatory agencies, the lead federal agency and the public.
EPA is fully committed to improving the overall performance
of environmental restoration activities at all federal facilities
and to put into practice, in collaboration with federal agencies,
the states and the public, strategies that accelerate the cleanup
process. Potential areas for streamlining and accelerating the
cleanup process are: standardize technical and field
methodologies, use of removal actions to address imminent and
substantial endangerment, use of non-time-critical removals and
interim response actions, use of sampling data for both the Site
Investigation (SI) and the Remedial Investigation (RI), use of
focused Feasibility Studies (FS), use of presumptive remedies,
-------
concurrent document review, early Remedial Design (RD) starts,
plan, scope and use site assessment data for removal or remedial
determinations, develop common measures of performance
(e.g., risk reduction), delineate regulatory responsibilities
(e.g., Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), CERCLA) and
improve team work at sites amongst regulators and the facility.
EPA has recently begun working with DOE on a joint pilot
project to evaluate the effectiveness of a streamlining approach
developed by DOE. The Streamlined Approach for Environmental
Restoration (SAFER) is being implemented at four DOE facilities
and is being closely monitored and evaluated by EPA and DOE.
SAFER was developed by DOE to manage the uncertainty associated
with environmental restoration activities and to address
stakeholder concerns early in the process. DOE expects that this
approach will result in more efficient and effective waste
cleanups.
With respect to CERCLA, this memorandum focuses on
accelerating cleanup of those facilities which either are
"National Priorities List (NPL) caliber" (i.e., likely to be
listed on the NPL), proposed for or listed on the NPL, because
the scope of EPA involvement at federal facility Superfund sites
is defined in CERCLA §120 and E.O. 12580 as focused at NPL sites.
It is intended, however, that approaches to accelerated cleanup
will also be applicable to cleanups under RCRA and cleanups
undertaken in the context of military base closure. EPA's RCRA
program is currently developing guidance on the use of a
streamlined approach for the corrective action process.
EPA also is in the process of issuing guidance on future
land use and innovative technology. These documents may be
useful for implementing acceleration measures.
Site Assessment
Efforts should be made to simplify or consolidate site
assessments by planning and performing required studies and
collecting data in such a way that the studies and data collected
can be used to satisfy multiple purposes. Under current
practices, hazardous waste sites may receive numerous sequential
assessments prior to the inception of cleanup. Rather than
sequentially conducting a Removal Preliminary Assessment (PA),
Removal SI, Remedial PA and Remedial SI, where possible, the
studies should be consolidated in one site assessment and one
site report, provided the report includes findings required by
the NCP for moving from ona phase of site assessment to another.
A more flexible approach to site assessment will generally
require the agencies that either own or operate the facility to
improve the quality of the information collected in order for it
to be useful beyond the PA/SI stage. Improved levels of Quality
-------
Assessment/Quality Control (QA/QC), identification of background
levels and adequate sampling and analysis methods may facilitate
multiple use of the data. To facilitate the regulatory process
under CERCLA or RCRA, early consultation with EPA and states and
early involvement of the public will be essential. This approach
will also help in the determination of clean parcels based on
Community Environmental Response Facilitation Act (CERFA)
requirements.
Lead agencies are encouraged to adopt innovative approaches
to field sampling with the understanding that they will sample to
a level that will produce a defensible level of data that will
allow sound cleanup decisions to be made. (EPA and the Air Force
are currently piloting a field method of site characterization.)
In order to balance the uncertainty that may arise from less
detailed initial site assessment, it may be necessary to develop
contingent Records of Decision (ROOs) that will provide for
alternative remedies should additional data be uncovered that
makes the preferred remedy impracticable.
"Earlv Actions" v. "Long-Term Actions1*
Although federal facilities are encouraged to take early
actions at any facility where risk reduction can be accomplished
promptly, the response action chosen must be one that will
satisfy CERCLA and its implementing regulations. Early
interaction with EPA, the state and the public will help ensure
that removal actions are consistent with long-term actions and
that cleanup levels will be based on risk assessment and
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) that
will be sufficient to be the final action, whenever possible.
The need to promptly address sources of contamination,
without compromising environmental requirements, at all federal
facility sites should be addressed by means of a removal,
operable unit RODs, and/or interim remedial actions, once a
federal facility has been listed on the MPL. Strong
consideration should be given to non-time-critical removals
(NTCRs) (i.e., where an estimated 6 month planning period is
required), that will achieve results comparable to a remedial
action, but which may be completed in less time. The NCP
provides that in selecting a NTCR action, the alternatives must
be evaluated in an engineering evaluation/cost assessment (EE/CA)
which must be provided to the public for no less than a thirty
When using removal authorities delegated by Executive
Order 12580, other federal agencies should consult-with EPA,
states and the public to ensure that the action is consistent
with overall facility restoration goals and will result in
cleanups consistent with the operable unit ROD and/or the final
installation-wide ROD to delete the site from the NPL.
-------
(30) day comment period prior to the selection of the action.
(See 40 CFR 300.415(b)(4) and (m)(4)).
Opportunities for accelerated cleanup nay be the greatest
for actions that fall between time critical removals and remedial
actions; i.e., for NTCR at which rapid risk reduction is
possible. All parties will benefit if the lead federal agency
provides EPA and the state with an adequate regulatory role in
the removal planning and decision process, including consultation
on the removal action decision and monitoring progress of the
action. Such an approach gains the regulatory assurances that
the removal actions will be consistent with the final remedy.
without this early participation, the federal agency, EPA and the
state may later be required to expend additional resources if
there is an inconsistency.
Careful consultation with EPA and the states will be
essential in the identification of ARARs in the removal or
remedial decision process. ARARs analysis remains a part of the
removal decision process since the NCP requires that in removals,
ARARS be met to the extent practicable. As noted in the OSWER
directive (OSWER Directive No.9203.1-03, July 7, 1992, at 7), it
should generally be practicable to meet ARARS in NTCR actions.
However, to the extent that the scope of those actions is
limited/ the issue of attaining ARARs may be deferred to later
remedial actions.
Presumptive Remedies
Historically, a substantial amount of time and money has
been expended in the remediation process to address similar or
recurring contamination problems. EPA and federal agencies have
received substantial criticism for studying sites too long and
not moving ahead with response actions. Federal agencies, with
the cooperation and concurrence of EPA and the states, should
focus on developing standardized solutions consistent with the
requirements of the NCP (i.e., 40 CFR 300.420(b)(iv)).
Standardized approaches offer the opportunity to streaaline the
investigation and cleanup process, provide consistency in dealing
with recurring problems and should result in significant saving
of resources at all agencies. EPA has developed presumptive
remedies for CERCLA municipal landfill sites (OSWER Directive
Number 9355.0-49FS) and CERCLA sites with Volatile Organic
Compounds (VOCs) in soils (OSWER Directive Number 9355.0-48FS).
EPA in consultation with other federal agencies will begin the
development of presumptive remedies more specifically relevant to
federal facilities such as remedies for jet fuel spills
(e.g.. Jet Propulsion 4 (JP4)>.
Presumptive remedies are expected to improve the focus of
data collection efforts during the site assessment, site
inspection and remedial investigation activities. Employing a
-------
presumptive remedy approach, data collection efforts should focus
on seeking information adequate to confirm the site type. If the
site type is one for which a presumptive remedy has been
developed, data collection should next be focused on
characterization needs for that particular type of site.
Following site characterization, a focused Feasibility Study (FS)
or Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis (EE/CA) may be sufficient
when employing the presumptive remedy approach.
These focused analyses may be streamlined using presumptive
remedies by limiting, as appropriate, the discussion of the
identification and screening of technologies and response action
alternatives. Similarly, the Proposed Plan and ROD or Action
Memorandum may be streamlined by focusing primarily on the
presumptive remedies being considered. Finally, the remedial
design may be streamlined by using the data collected earlier in
the process and drawing on the existing programmatic knowledge of
the design of the particular presumptive remedy.
The following are some initial steps which could lead to the
development of presumptive remedies at federal facilities:
• Identifying types of contamination for which such an
approach is feasible;
• Establishing a structure for getting
state/federal/local regulators and facility staff
together early in the process to decide on cleanup
methods, and Data Quality Objectives required; and
• Identifying pilot sites at which to test the
feasibility of the approach.
If studies at pilot sites validate the use of a presumptive
remedy, information on that remedy will be made available to
similar sites. Proposed presumptive remedies will be evaluated
and addressed consistent with OSWER Publication 9203 1-021,
Superfund Accelerated cleanup Bulletin\Presumptive Remedies.
Sites that have common contamination problems-that lend
themselves to presumptive, standardized approaches may also be
good candidates for innovative technology development.
Innovative technologies that are developed for a cluster of
similar sites could result in significant cost and time savings.
Public Participation
Accelerating cleanups may require employing new and
innovative strategies and processes that may be of concern to
affected stakeholders. Choosing removal and interim remedial
responses may raise policy and legal questions related to ARAR
compliance and the merits of early action. Affected public
-------
stakeholders should be given an early and meaningful opportunity
to participate in a comment and response process that results in
decision-making. Federal facilities should consider establishing
Site-Specific Advisory Boards (SSABs) or their equivalent, early
in the decision-making process for the purpose of sharing
technical and regulatory concerns and providing a forma for
dialogue on cleanup decision related issues.
Effect on Existing Federal Facility Interaaencv Agreements
Federal facilities listed on the NPL are subject to lAGs
under CERCLA $120(e)(2) which provide for enforceable schedules
for the conduct of RI/FS work and for the implementation of
selected remedies, including interim remedial actions. The
implementation of the lAGs is also subject to the public
participation requirements of CERCLA §117. Most lAGs do not
provide enforceable schedules for removal actions.
lAGs provide for the opportunity to change or modify
milestones. To the extent that acceleration efforts affect
milestones, the parties to the IAG should review the schedules
and modify as appropriate. The statutory mandate for lAGs must
be considered in the evaluation of the restoration strategy at
federal facilities. CERCLA §120(e)(2) provides that lAGs be
entered into at or about the time of remedy selection. No
explicit role is defined for EPA in CERCLA §120 relative to
removal actions. However, in consideration of the Congressional
mandate for EPA involvement in the remedy selection process, the
federal facility must exercise its removal authority with
prudence. That is to say that not all response actions should be
categorized as removals, thereby obviating regulatory
involvement.
Decision Teams
Under the SACM model, OSWER views Regional Decision Teams
(RDTs) as the key to the successful implementation of accelerated
The role of Site Specific Advisory Boards is discussed
more fully in the Interim Report of the Federal Facilities
Environmental Restoration Dialogue Committee. February 1993. The
Report recommends that SSABs include individual resident* of
communities where the site is located, representatives of
citizen, environmental and public interest groups in communities
where the site is located, workers or representatives of workers
involved in site cleanup and representatives of Indian Nations
and other indigenous people with rights affected by cleanup
activities at the site. A Technical Review Committee (TRC) or
Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) with sufficiently broad
membership and involvement at a site may provide the mechanism
for this purpose.
-------
cleanup at private sites. While it is suggested that the make-up
of the RDTs may vary from region to region, the general
assumption is that a team would include an EPA Branch Chief,
On-scene Coordinator (OSC), Remedial Project Manager (RPM),
Office of Regional Counsel and site assessment representative.
The purpose of the RDTs is to provide continuity throughout a
project and to centralize and expedite decision maJcing.
Under Executive Order No. 12580 and CERCLA §120, federal
agencies, other than EPA, have jurisdiction for carrying out most
response actions at federal facility sites. As EPA is not the
lead agency at such sites, its role is different from that at
other Superfund sites.
To achieve the purpose intended for RDTs at a federal
facility, the lead agency could create an empowered site-specific
team to perform a number of the RDT functions, such as
establishing a site-wide sampling strategy, deciding whether to
use early or long term actions, making recommendations for
approval of the Action Memorandum and screening proposed remedial
actions. A team including representatives of EPA, the state,
the community and the federal agency could accomplish the over-
all goal of accelerating cleanup by improved coordination and
simplification. This cooperative model is currently being
employed in the base closure program.
Improved planning and cooperative decision maJcing between
lead agencies, EPA and the states will be necessary because of
fixed and often limited resources. A decision to proceed with a
removal may result in delaying other activities at the site. A
site-specific team should consider the implications of available
alternatives and seek buy-in from affected stakeholders early in
the decision-making process.
CONCLUSION
As described above, there are significant opportunities for
the acceleration of environmental restoration at federal facility
sites on the NPL. EPA is supportive of coordinated efforts
between agencies on th« development and initiation of projects
that accelerate the cleanup process. EPA views the focus on
accelerated cleanup of hazardous waste sites as an opportunity to
work cooperatively with other federal agencies in order to more
effectively achieve our joint goal: protecting human health and
the environment.
PURPOSE AND USE OF THIS GUIDANCE
This policy and any internal procedures adopted for its
implementation are intended exclusively as guidance for employees
of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. This guidance does
not constitute rulemaking by the Agency and may not be relied
8
-------
upon to create a right or benefit, substantive or procedural,
enforceable at law or in equity, by any person. The Agency may
take action at variance with this guidance or its internal
implementing procedures.
Addressees:
United States Environmental protection Agency
Waste Management Division Directors, Regions T-x
Federal Facility Leadership Council, Regions I-x
Office of Regional Counsel, Regions I-X
United States Department of Energy
Environmental Restoration Office Directors
Assistant Managers for Environmental Management,
DOE Operations Offices
United States Department of Defense
Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Environment, Safety and Occupational Health
Deputy Assistant Secretary, of the Navy for
Environment and Safety
Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for
Environment, Safety and Occupational Health
Director, Defense Logistics Agency (DLA-CAAE)
------- |