FEDERAL FACILITIES
MULTI-MEDIA ENVIRONMENTAL
COMPLIANCE CONFERENCE
MARCH 27 - 28,1990
ATLANTA, GEORGIA
SPONSORED BY:
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
-------
950R90021
FEDERAL FACILITIES
MULTI-MEDIA ENVIRONMENTAL
COMPLIANCE CONFERENCE
MARCH 27 - 28,1990
ATLANTA, GEORGIA
SPONSORED BY:
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
-------
federal facilities
MULTI-MEDIA
ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE CONFERENCE
HOLIDAY INN
ATLANTA, GEORGIA
MARCH 2 7 - 2 8, 1 9 9 0
ARTHUR G. LINTON
REG IONAL
FEDERAL FACILITIES COORDINATOR
-------
FEDERAL FAC I LIT IES
MULT I -MED I A
ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE CONFERENCE
CONFERENCE STAFF
DAVID F. HOLROYD
CONFERENCE COORD INATOR
LOR I SCOGG I NS
CONFERENCE REGISTRATION AND HOSTESS
-------
FEDERAL FACILITIES
MULTI-MEDIA
ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE CONFERENCE
PURPOSE OF CONFERENCE
TO COMJHICATE TO FEDERAL AGENCIES THEIR RESPONSIBILITY FOR COMPLIANCE
WITH PUBLIC LAWS, RULES AND RB5ULATIONS. TO PASS ON NEW DEVELOPMENTS
IN POLICY, NEW STRATEGIES, NEW INITIATIVES, AND UPDATE MEDIA PROGRAM
PRIORITIES. FEDERAL FACILITIES.ARE TARGET FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESULTS,
-------
AGENDA
FEDERAL FACILITIES MULTI-MEDIA
ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE CONFERENCE
ATLANTA, GEORGIA
MARCH 27-2 8,1990
TUESDAY MARCH 27, 1990
7:30 a.m.
8:15 a.m.
8:30 a.m.
9:00 a.m.
9:30 a.m.
10:00 a.m.
10:15 a.m.
11:15 a.m.
11:45 a.m.
1:00 p.m.
CONFERENCE MODERATOR/MANAGER ARTHUR G. LINTON
REGISTRATION LORI SOOGG INS/LENA SCOTT
INTRODUCTION - REGIONAL FEDERAL FACILITIES COORDINATOR ARTHUR G. LINTON
OPENING REMARKS - DEPUTY REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR
LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY and LIABILITIES OF FACILITIES
ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATOR - DEPUTY REGIONAL COUNSEL
FEDERAL FACILITIES COMPLIANCE STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION/
GOOO ENFORCEMENT POLICY - DEPUTY DIRECTOR FEDERAL
FACILITIES COMPLIANCE STAFF
2:30 p.m.
2:45 p.m.
3:30 p.m.
4:00 p.m.
BREAK
POLLUTION PREVENTION - EPA HQTRS
ENVIRONMENTAL AUDITING - EPA
LUNCH
ENVIRONMENTAL AUDITING CASE HISTORY AIR FORCE
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY - PROJECT MANAGER
CONSULTANT - LAW ENGINEERING
BREAK
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ENVIROMENTAL PROGRAMS
QUESTIONS, ANSWERS and GENERAL REMARKS
ADJOURN
LEE A. DeHIHNS
BOB GREEN RE1
JIM EDWARD WH1
BRIAN SYMMES BL1
JIM EDWARD AMI
BOBBY FICQUETTE YE1
MADONNA E. MARTIN GR1
HAMPTON PARKER PI1
LTC JOSEPH A. MARTONE GOl
ARTHUR G. LINTON
-------
7:45
8:00
8:15
a.m.
a.m.
a.m.
8:45
9:00
9:30
9:45
a.m.
a.m.
a.m.
a.m.
10:45 a.m.
11:30
12:30
1:30
2:00
2:15
3:30
AGENDA
FEDERAL FACILITIES MULTI-MEDIA
MVI RONMENENTAL COMPLIANCE CONFERENCE
ATLANTA, GEORGIA
MARCH 27-2 8,1990
WEDNESDAY MARCH 28, 1990
OPENING COMMENT, REGIONAL FEDERAL FACILITIES COORDINATOR ARTHUR G. LINTON
WASTEWATER PERMITTING - CHIEF, PERMIT SECTION, WASTMD JAMES PATRICK RE2
AIR PROGRAMS - WHATS NEW?
NEW CAA & AIR TOXICS, CHIEF, MOBILE SOURCE, APTMD
PM-10 & ACID DISPOSTION, CHIEF, STATIONARY SOURCE, APTMD
TOXICS and PCB's, CHIEF, TOXICS SECTION, APTMD
UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS - CHIEF, UGST SECTION, WMD
BREAK
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION - GENERAL, RCRA, and CERCLA
CHIEF, COMMUNITY RELATIONS - OPA PATRICIA ZWEIG YE2
COMMUNITY RELATIONS - HQTRS MELISSA F. SHAPIRO
TOM HANSEN WH2
DOUG NEELEY
BOB STRYKER BL2
DAVID ARIAIL AM2
a.m.
p.m.
p.m.
p.m.
p.m.
p.m.
RCRA - REGIONAL OVERVIEW - CHIEF, RCRA BRANCH,
WASTE MANAGEMENT DIVISION
PERMITTING - CHIEF, WASTE ENGINEERING SECTION
RCRA BRANCH, WASTMD
COMPLIANCE - CHIEF, WASTE COMPLIANCE SECTION
RCRA BRANCH, WASTMD
LUNCH
RCRA SUBTITLE D - MEDICAL & SOLID WASTE EXPERT, WASTMD
HRS II RANKING SYSTEM - PROJECT MANAGER, WASTMD
B R E A K
RCRA/CERCLA - REMEDIAL CORRECTIVE ACTION
CLOSING COMMENTS
JAMES H. SCARBROUGH GR2
DOUG McCURRY
JOHN LANK
BILL HOLLAND PI2
KATHARINE SIDERS G02
MICHAEL HARTNETT
-------
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Environmental Auditing in the United States:
Current Trends anq Future Directions in the 1990's
Becoming more of an Accepted 5 Expected Practice.
Majority of Large Firms audit -- Many Medium and Small ones.
No Systematic Effort by EPA to "Measure Success of Auditing or
Compare Compliance 3at?s with firms with no audit program.
Still inclined to keep auditing "voluntary" -- except for enforcement
settlements cr for Federal agencies. (Legislation + E.O's are for Feds
only).
Potential for increased attempts to gain access to audit reports
and papers due to new community 1 right-to-know laws, committees
and pub 1ic awareness.
Move from Level 1 "compliance snapshot" audits to more
sophisticated Level 2 "management audits." (Training is now more
"Developing Skills + Techniques," etc.)
More + More "specialized audits" -- waste min. audits; prevention
audits; "can be to grave' audits; property transfer audits, etc.
Audits being requested by different clients for SARA 120(h)
aquisition/prop-transfer audits -- banks, savings + loans, real
estate firms, mortagage co s. etc.
More of a perceived need for "uniform standards" +/or
"protocols."
Increasing "push" for certification/registration of Env. Auditors
(e.g., CA program) .
Professional organizations becoming more formal with charters etc.
- Likely merger of IEA, EAR, EAF.
Auditing coming under the "pollution prevention" umbrella
probably a good thing.
-------
EPA
ENVIRONMENTAL AUDITING
ACTIVITIES
Office of Federal Activities
Washington. D.C.
-------
federal register
Wednesday
July 9, 1986
Part IV
Environmental
Protection Agency
Environmental Auditing Policy Statement;
Notice
-------
What is EPA's Definition
of Environmental Auditing?
A REVIEW
Periodic
Systematic
Documented
Objective
Regulated
Entities
Facility
Operations
and
Practices
To Assure
Meeting
Environmental
Requirements
-------
Audits Can Accomplish
Any or All of the Following:
• Verify Environmental
Compliance
• Evaluate the effectiveness of
environmental management
system
• Assess risks from regulated and
unregulated practices
-------
What is the Purpose of the Policy?
• Encourage environmental auditing for
all regulated entities
• Ensure Consistent EPA Responses
• Clarify EPA's Policy on Requests for
Audit Reports, etc.
-------
What are the Environmental Auditing
Policy Statement's Key Provisions?
I. Definition
II. Encouragement
III. Requests for Reports
IV. Inspections and Enforcement
V. Federal Facilities
VI. State and Local Roles
VII Elements of Auditing
-------
Elements of Effective
Environmental Auditing
• Management Support
• Auditor Independence
• Staffing and Training
• Written Procedures
• Gathering Audit Evidence
• Written Reports
• Quality Assurance
-------
What Is EPA's Policy on
Requests for Audit Reports ?
"...EPA will not routinely request audit
reports."
"...exercised on a case-by case basis..."
"...and where the information needed
cannot be obtained from...data
otherwise available..."
-------
What Is EPA's Audit Policy for
Federal Agencies
• Encourages all Federal agencies to institute
environmental auditing programs
• Same policy as toward private firms
• EPA will provide technical assistance 10 design
programs
• Possible Interagency agreements
-------
What Is EPA's Audit Policy for
Federal Agencies
• EPA encourages Federal agencies's to submit
findings with action plans to EPA
• Report needed projects through the A-106
process
• EPA may coordinate with agencies on public
release of findings
• FOIA policies govern requests for audit
information
-------
EPA Assistance to Federal Agencies
1984:Environmental Auditing Conference
for Federal Agencies
1985:Workshop for U.S. Army
1987: Report on Federal Agency Auditing
Activities
1988:Second Environmental Auditing
Conference for Federal Agencies
1989: Audit Program Design Guidelines
and Generic Audit Protocols
-------
Summary of Federal Agency
Environmental Auditing Programs
No
Program
m
Partial Program
* Current as of end of FY 1987
Program Under
Development
Comprehensive
Program
36 AGENCIES
-------
Summary of Federal Agency
Environmental Auditing Programs
GS5V- , , ,
COM
Food & Drug Admin.
Bureau of the Mint
Bureau of Printing
& Engraving
19 agencies have no auditing program
TVA
DOE
NIH
EPA
NASA
U S. Army
U.S. Air Force
Defense Logistic.'
Agency
Partial Program
Under Development
Comprehensive
No Auditing Program
-------
OFFICE OF FEDERAL ACTIVITIES
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C.
Environmental Audit Program
Design Guidelines
for Federal Agencies
-------
What is the Purpose of
These Guidelines?
To provide Federal agencies
with written guidance to assist
them in establishing internal
audit programs.
-------
Unique Federal Facility
Auditing Issues
• Agency Mission vs. Environmental
Compliance
• Organizational Structure of Federal
Agencies
• Organization Levels
• Personnel Management
• Budgeting and Appropriations Activities
• A-106 Planning Process
• National Security
• Freedom of Information Act
-------
The Design Guidelines Include:
Chapter 1. Introduction
Chapter 2.
Chapter 3.
Chapter 4.
Chapter 5.
Chapter 6.
Chapter 7.
Unique Federal Facility Auditing Issues
Needs and Objectives for an Audit Program
Development of an Environmental Audit Program
Implementation of an Environmental Audit Program
Reporting Results of an Environmental Audit
Corrective Actions
Chapter 8. Evaluation of Audit Program Effectiveness
Appendices: EPA's Environmental Auditing Policy Statement
Sources of Information and Training
-------
OFFICE OF FEDERAL ACTIVITIES
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C.
Generic Protocol for
Environmental Audits
at Federal Facilities
-------
What is the Purpose
of these Protocols?
To provide Federal agencies with a set of
multi-media generic protocols which can
be used to:
• Conduct audits at their facilities, or;
* Provide guidance for development of
agency-specific protocols
-------
What Are
Audit Protocols?
• Provides detailed instructions for qualified
individuals to follow in conducting
environmental audits.
• Consists of step-by-step directions on:
- What records must be reviewed,
- What physical features to inspect,
- Who to interview,
- What questions to ask facility
personnel.
-------
The Generic Protocol Includes:
Chapter
1.
Introduction
2.
Audit Procedures
3.
Air
4.
Asbestos
5.
Drinking Water
6.
Water Pollution
7.
Non-Hazardous Solid Waste
8.
Hazardous Waste
9.
Past Disposal of Hazardous Material
io
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know
-------
The Generic Protocol Includes: (Cont.)
Chapter
11. PCB Management
12. Pesticides
13. Radioactive Materials
14. Underground Storage Tanks
15. Environmental Noise
16. Natural Resources
17. Cultural Resources
18. Environmental Impact Documentation
19. Environmental Management Results
-------
Schematic Overview of the
Audit Process
PRELIMINARY GATHERING EVALUATING AND
OVERVIEW AUDIT INFORMATION REPORTING
REVIEW
PRE AUDIT
QUESTIONNAIRE
DEVELOP
PRELIMINARY LIST
OF AUDIT FINDINGS
OUT-BRIEFING
WITH FACII.I IY
MANAGEMENT
FURTHER DISCI 1SSIONS
AND EXAMINATION
TO VERIFY FINDINGS
COMPLETE
LIST
OF audit
FINDINGS
IN URIEFING
REVISE TEAM
AUDIT
PI-AN AS
NECESSARY
FACILITY
I OUR
kvai.ua it: in"i>;knai,
MANACKMtm-
CONTROL
Review SOIN
Interview Facility
Maiia^rinriil
DErAILED REVIEW OF
FACILITY PRACTICES
liideplli Interviews
Ailtlll loiul Toui-s
Examine Records
-------
Subparts of Each Chapter
Description
Applicability
Regulatory Scope
State and Local Regulatory
Management Issues
Agency Policy
Reference
-------
Example: Auditor's Instruction
Activity: PCB Management
Records to Review:
• Inspection, storage, maintenance and disposal records for PCBs/PCB
items
• PCB equipment inventory and sampling results
• Correspondence with regulatory agencies concerning PCB
noncompliance situations
• Annual reports.
Physical Features to Inspect:
• PCB storage areas
• Equipment, iluids and other items used or stored at the facility that
contain PCBs.
People to Interview:
• Environmental Compliance Officer
• Facilities Manager.
-------
Example: Checklst
Activity: PCB Management Facility: Auditor— Date:
Regulatory
Citation
Auditor's Instructions
Comments
Finding
Number
40 cm
761.65
Slnragf of PTH IImik-
• Stored PCB items arc inspci led every 10 days
for leaks.
• PCB items arc stored in IXl'l' appiovetl contain-
ers.
• Moveable equipment unciI ui handle PCB items
is decontaminated prior to leaving storage area.
• Stored PClls and PCB items arc disposed of
within one year from date they wciu placed in
storage.
I.ong term storage facilities (between 10 days
and one year) meet die following rcqiiiicmcnts:
Hoof and walls nl the facility prevent
rainwater from teaching PCBs and l"CB
nenvs
Tl»c facility has continuous cmhing
(minimum 6 inches) ami Uieic are no
cracks in lloor
Hie floor and cmhing are made of con-
tinuously smooth ami uii|icrviiHis materi-
als sucli as Ponland ceiiu-nt oi steel
Coiitaiiimeoi volume of tin.- facility
equals or exceeds the volume equal to
twice the internal volume i>l the l.ugcsi
-------
Also Included in Protocol
• A survey to evaluate the environmental
management system in place at the facility
• Numerous Appendices
- List of state environmental agencies
- Waste streams that are landfill banned
- Suspended, cancelled, and restricted
pesticides
- PCB labels
-------
What are Major Components of
EPA's Audit Program?
• Laboratories
• Multi-Media
• 3-Year Cycle
• Audit Protocols
• Third-Party
• HQ Member on ail Audit Teams
• Overview of Agencywide
Non-Compliance Patterns/Problems
-------
EPA Reports & Papers
on Environmental Auditing
• Current Audit Practices
• Auditing Issues
• Guidance on Auditing Under Settlement
Agreements
• Protocols for Auditing Underground Tanks
• EPA Lab Audit Protocols
• Federal Agencies' Auditing Activities
• Bibliographies on:
- Environmental Auditing
- Environmental Management Programs
• Sources of Environmental Auditing Information
and Training
-------
February, 1990
Pollution Prevention
Research Branch
Current Projects
RISK REDUCTION ENGINE BRING RESEARCH LABORATORY
I ¦¦ i OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
I 71 9 U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
-------
POLLUTION PREVENTION RESEARCH BRANCH'S
CURRENT PROJECTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Pass
Introduction . l
Organization Chart 2
Personnel Information 3
PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS
Clean Products
1. Clean Products Background Information 4-1
2. Criteria for Environmentally Friendly Products . . 4-2
3. Clean Products Case Studies 4-3
4. Comparative Risk of Consumer Products for Pollution Prevention . . 4-4
Processes Research
1. Research Strategy Background Development 5-1
2. New Jersey/EPA Waste Minimization Assessment Program 5-2
3. Technical Support for the Waste Reduction Innovative Technologies
Evaluation Program (WRITE) 5-3
4. New Jersey/EPA Write Program 5-4
5. California/WRITE 5-5
6. Washington WRITE Program 5-6
7. Connectlcut/WRITE Program 5-7
8. Illinois/EPA WRITE Research Program . . . 5-8
9. Minnesota/EPA WRITE 5-9
10. Erie County/EPA WRITE Research Program . . 5-10
11. Waste Reduction Evaluations at Federal Sites (WREAFS) Program . . 5-11
12. Chemical Substitutes for TCE and Methanol in Manufacturing
Operations 5-12
13. Chromate Recovery by Adsorptlve Filtration 5-13
14. Pollution Prevention Prototype Systems 5-14
15. Industry-Specific Waste Minimization Manuals 5-15
16. Small Generator Waste Minimization Assessments 5-16
17. Waste Reduction from Chlorinated and Petroleum-based Degreasing
Operations 5-17
18. Pollution Prevention By and For Small Business .......... 5-18
19. Ohio Waste Minimization Assessments 5-19
20. Idaho Technical Exchange 5-20
-------
Page 2
Page
Technology Transfer
1. Pollution Prevention Information Clearinghouse (PPIC) 6-1
2. American Institute for Pollution Prevention 6-2
3. International Conference on Pollution Prevention 6-3
4. Waste Reduction Assessment and Technology Transfer Teleconference 6-4
5. Pollution Prevention Training for EPA Staff 6-5
6. EPA Research Project Case Studies 6-6
7. Special Edition on Waste Minimization for Journal of Hazardous
Materials 6-7
Recvcling
1. Reclaiming Fiber from Newsprint . . 7-1
2. Determination of Legitimate Hazardous Waste Recycling 7-2
3. Composites from Recycled Plastics, Wood, and Recycled Wood Fiber . 7-3
Socioeconomic
1. Pollution Prevention 1n Public Agencies 8-1
2. Model Community Pollution Prevention Case Study 8-2
3. Methodology for Measuring Pollution Prevention 8-3
-------
INTRODUCTION
This publication contains one page summaries of recently completed and
currently active projects sponsored by the Pollution Prevention Research
Branch at the U.S. EPA's Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory 1n Cincinnati.
The PPRB 1s responsible for supporting projects that develop and demonstrate
clean production technologies, clean products, and Innovative approaches to
reducing the generation of pollutants 1n all media. Hany of these projects
are carried out cooperatively with State agencies, universities, and other
environmental research organizations. The FY 90 budget for the Branch is
approximately $3.5 million.
It 1s our Intention to update this publication every six months to
reflect program additions or changes. The reader 1s encouraged to contact the
EPA Project Officer listed for more Information ?bout any of the projects
contained 1n the publication.
Harry H. Freeman
Chief
Pollution Prevention Research Branch
-------
Personnel Roster
POLLUTION PREVENTION RESEARCH BRANCH
Nailing Address: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
26 Vest Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
FAX - (513) 569-7276 Area Code: (513)
Bender, Rita A 569-7727
Bridges, James S 569-7683
Brown, Lisa M. 569-7634
Curran, Mary Ann 569-7837
Freeman, Harry M 569-7529
Harten, Teresa M. 569-7565
Howell, S. Garry 569-7756
Licis, Ivars J 569-7718
Ober, Deborah L. 569-7215
Randall, Paul M. 569-7673
Springer, Johnny 569-7542
Stephan, David 6 569-7896
Stone, Kenneth R 569-7474
Westfall, Brian A 569-7755
3
-------
POLLUTION PREVENTION RESEARCH BRANCH
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
26 W. Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
Harry M. Freeman, CHIEF
Deborah L. Ober, Secretary
David G. Stephan, Senior Science Advisor
PRODUCTS AND ASSESSMENTS SECTION
Bridges, James S.,
Curran, Mary Ann
Westfall, Brian A.
Stone, Kenneth R.
Howell, S. Garry
Acting Chief
PROCESS ENGINEERING SECTION
L1cis, Ivars J., Acting Chief
Bender, R1ta A., Secretary
Brown, Lisa M.
Randall, Paul M.
Harten, Teresa M.
Springer, Johnny
REGIONAL COORDINATOR
REGION I Paul H. Randall
REGION II Brian A. Westfall
REGION III S. Garry Howell
REGION IV David G. Stephan
REGION V Mary Ann Curran
REGION VI Johnny Springer
REGION VII Kenneth R. Stone
REGION VIII Lisa M. Brown
REGION IX Teresa M. Harten
REGION X Ivars J. L1c1s
Telephone (Comm)
FTS
(513) 569-7673
684-7673
569-7755
684-7755
569-7756
684-7756
569-7896
684-7896
569-7837
684-7837
569-7542
684-7542
569-7474
684-7474
569-7634
684-7634
569-7565
684-7565
569-7718
684-7718
2
-------
PROJECT TITLE:
CLEAN PRODUCTS BACKGROUND INFORMATION
EPA PROJECT OFFICER:
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR:
Mary Ann Curran (513) 569-7837
FTS 684-7837
Not yet selected
NUS Corporation
910 Clopper Road
Gaithersburg, Maryland 20878
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The objective of this project Is to Identify, collect and summarize
available Information on the subjects of clean products, methodologies for
comparative evaluations of products to determine "environmental friendliness,"
environmental labeling programs and methodologies for Hfe-cycle analyses
(both environmental Impacts and costs related thereto) of products.
Published and unpublished Information plus information from other
appropriate sources will be gathered and succinctly summarized. Its relative
quality 1s to be judged as may be possible. The result will be used as
background material for an 1n-house meeting on clean products research planned
of Spring, 1990.
TIME PERIOD:
12/15/89 - 3/15/90
PUBLICATIONS, PAPERS TO DATE: None
OUTPUTS/MILESTONES:
Develop detailed workplan
Produce draft report
Provide final report
12/31/89
1/31/90
2/28/90
RESOURCES:
FY 90 $30.OK
4-1
-------
PROJECT TITLE: CRITERIA FOR ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY PRODUCTS
EPA PROJECT OFFICER: Mary Ann Curran (513) 569-7837
FTS 684-7837
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: Gary Davis
University of Tennessee
Knoxville, TN 37996
(615) 974-4251
PROJECT DESCRIPTIONS:
This research effort will develop background Information and data to
contribute to the development of technical criteria that can serve as the
framework for a system of environmental labelling of consumer products. It
will develop technical evaluation criteria for Identifying environmentally
"safe" products based on product, packaging, and process. The project will
develop a sound methodology for evaluating products, then demonstrate the
approach by developing technical criteria for a few classes of consumer
products.
The Principal Investigator will plan and conduct a conference on
environmental labelling to promote coordination of similar efforts in the US
and allow for technical Information transfer.
TIME PERIOD: 2/5/90 - 1/31/92
PUBLICATIONS, PAPERS TO DATE: None
OUTPUTS/MILESTONES: Conference 10/90
Paper 12/90
Final Report 7/92
RESOURCES: FY 89 $0K, FY 90 J50K, FY 91 S50K
4-2
-------
PROJECT TITLE: CLEAN PRODUCTS CASE STUDIES
EPA PROJECT OFFICER:
Mary Ann turran
(513) 569-7837
FTS 684-7837
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR:
Joanna Underwood
INFORM
381 Park Avenue South
New York, NY 10016
(212) 689-4040
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
This three-year project 1s designed to produce several outputs to
document the experiences of various companies Involved 1n developing programs
to produce and market products that might be categorized as "clean products."
The first-year's studies will be devoted to products that are high profile
products within the municipal solid waste stream. The study team will visit
the sites of the companies selected and interview those Involved with the
subject programs. Eligible products for study will be chosen from those
available 1n the United States, Canada, and Europe. The European
Investigations will be carried out 1n cooperation with the Product Life
Institute 1n Geneva, Switzerland. Out-year projects will be devoted to more
in-depth analysis of the potential environmental Improvements possible through
the greater use of environmentally-friendly products. Explorations of using
environmental labelling schemes are to be Included in the group of projects.
TIME PERIOD: 4/90 - 3/92
PUBLICATIONS, PAPERS TO DATE: TBD
OUTPUTS/MILESTONES: Report, "Cas
RESOURCES: FY 89 $ 0,
Studies of Cleaner Products," 1/91
FY 90 S100K, FY 91 S100K
4-3
-------
PROJECT TITLE: COMPARATIVE RISK OF CONSUMER PROOUCTS FOR POLLUTION
PREVENTION
EPA PROJECT OFFICER: Mary Ann Curran (513) 569-7837
FTS 684-7837
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: Timothy Mohln
Office of A1r Quality Planning and Standards
Durham, NC 27711
(919) 541-5349
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
This project proposes to prevent pollution at the pre-production stage
by reducing market demand for consumer-products entailing "risk" to human
health and the environment. Every day, American consumers make purchasing
decisions, such as between plastic and paper bags, or between cloth diapers or
disposables. These decisions have direct and indirect impact and vary in the
cumulative risk they create through their production, transportation, use,
maintenance and disposal. Public awareness of the full cost of products can
result in behavioral changes and new purchasing patterns. This phenomenon has
been most obvious in recent public education campaigns on cancer and heart
disease leading to modified diets to Include high fiber and low cholesterol
foods.
This project will be a cooperative effort Involving several EPA Offices
(OAQPS, OSW, OW, OPTS, ORD), as well as other groups representing industry and
environmental interests. The initial study will focus on a group of consumer
goods selected by associated risks and effects on all media. Risks will be
estimated from raw material processing to final disposal and culminate in a
risk score to be used for product comparison. The final product will be a
guide for consumers and producers describing the product group, resultant
scores, and risks associated with alternative products.
TIME PERIOD: 2/90 - 1/92
PUBLICATIONS, PAPERS TO DATE: N/A
OUTPUTS/MILESTONES: Risk Analysis Results 5/91
Final Guidance Report 2/92
RESOURCES: FY 89 $ K, FY 90 i 250K, FY 91 S K
(The FY 91 and 92 funding for this project are to
supported by funds from the Agency's 2% Set-aside
be
exercise)
4-4
-------
TITLE: RESEARCH STRATEGY BACKGROUND DEVELOPMENT
EPA PROJECT OFFICER: Ivars J. L1cis {513) 569-7718
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: Dr. Herbert Skovronek (201) 599-0100
Science Applications International Corp
8400 Westpark Drive
McLean, Virginia 22102
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
This project is part of a technical support task funded In FY 89
with the objective of developing a basis for assigning research priorities to
work performed within the Process Engineering Section of the Pollution
Prevention Research Branch. The Process Engineering Section 1s partly
responsible for defining, establishing and carrying out a research program to
enhance and accelerate the implementation of new pollution prevention
technologies available at full- or pilot-scale and helping state and local
government programs In this area. It 1s also charged with speeding the
development of new technologies and participation 1n the identification of
future pollution problems and designing anticipatory research programs to
assist in the development of new technology that will help to avoid these
problems.
In order to best prioritize research efforts within a United budget, this
project 1s designed to gather information on the pollution problems in
existence, the new technologies available or being developed and the perceived
relative importance of both problems and opportunities in the area by a wide
spectrum of people involved. To this end, a prioritization activity was
performed using SIC as a basis and Involving members of the EPA, industry and
academia. The resulting list of 10 to 20 SIC areas will be investigated
further by consultation and workshops with the respective trade associations,
technical associations and Individual experts In the area. The result of this
effort will be a table presenting high priority pollution problems and
associated opportunities for research. The table will be used as background
information to establish a research strategy and prioritize funding of
research projects.
TIME PERIOD: 6/89 - 6/90
PUBLICATIONS, PAPERS TO DATE: NONE
OUTPUTS/MILESTONES:
6/90 - Final Report
RESOURCES: FY 89 -
5-1
-------
PROJECT TITLE: NEW JERSEY/EPA WASTE MINIMIZATION ASSESSMENT PROGRAM
EPA PROJECT OFFICER:
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR:
Mary Ann Curran (513) 569-7837
FTS 684-7837
Sanat Bhavsar
New Jersey Dept. of Env. Protection
Trenton, NJ 0862S
(609) 292-8341
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The project 1s designed to evaluate the use of waste minimization
assessments 1n thirty hazardous waste generating facilities (across ten
Industries) 1n New Jersey. The assessments are being conducted by the New
Jersey Institute of Technology (NJIT) personnel and will follow the EPA-
recommended procedure. Some of the participants are being targeted for long-
term studies to evaluate Implementation strategies. NJDEP refers to the
project as "Assessment of Recycling and Recovery Opportunities for Hazardous
Waste (ARROW)."
Initial Industries to be studied Include: 1) Chemical Manufacturers, 2)
Pharmaceutical, 3) R&D Facilities, 4) Metal Finishing and Fabrication, 5)
Utilities, 6) Printing and Dying, and 7) Ory Cleaners. #8, 9, and 10 are to
be determined.
TIME PERIOD:
9/1/88 - 8/31/91
PUBLICATIONS, PAPERS TO DATE: Paper to be presented at the June 1990
Clean Products conference.
OUTPUTS/MILESTONES:
RESOURCES:
30 Project Summaries (assessments) 3/90 - 3/91
10 Research Briefs (Industries) 3/91
1 Final Report 2/92
FY 89 S100K, FY 90 S50K, FY 91 SOK
5-2
-------
PROJECT TITLE: TECHNICAL SUPPORT FOR THE WASTE REDUCTION INNOVATIVE
TECHNOLOGIES EVALUATION PROGRAM (WRITE)
EPA PROJECT OFFICER: Iyars J. Licis (513) 569-7718
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: To be determined (201) 599-0100
Science Applications International Corporation
8400 Westpark Drive
McLean, Virginia 22102
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
This project consists of a collection of technical support tasks
associated with the WRITE Program and with the research under the Process
Engineering Section of the Pollution Prevention Research Branch. The major
specific tasks include test plan design assistance, testing and analyses for
waste reduction technologies to be evaluated under the Write Program,
(primarily California) and providing expert technical reviews of proposals
received by the Section.
TIME PERIOO: The project 1s scheduled for the FY 90-91 time period. The
funding package 1s presently being drafted.
PUBLICATIONS TO DATE: None
OUTPUTS/MILESTONES:
A final report (Research Brief) 1s planned for each technology evaluated
in California. Approximately four technologies are to be evaluated during the
FY 90-91 period. The first of these 1s a research project with Hewlett-
Packard to evaluate reusable oil filters and extended oil use. There are no
formal report requirements for the remaining technical support tasks.
RESOURCES: FY 90 - S1S0K FY 91 - S150K
5-3
-------
PROJECT TITLE: HEW JERSEY/EPA WRITE PROGRAM
EPA PROJECT OFFICER: Johnny Springer, Jr. (513) 569-7542
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: Dr. Mohamed Elsaady (609) 292-8341
NJOEP
401 East State Street
5th Floor West CN-028
Trenton, New Jersey 08625
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Technical and economic evaluations will be conducted on manufacturing
and processing operations 1n which waste minimization technologies reduce
the volume and/or toxicity of wastes generated. The objectives of the
project are to: establish reliable performance and cost Information on
pollution prevention techniques by conducting evaluations/demonstrations,
encourage active participation of small and medium-sized companies 1n
evaluating and adopting pollution prevention concepts, encourage transfer
of knowledge and technology between large, medium, and small-sized firms
and provide solutions to Important chemical, waste stream and Industry-
specific pollution prevention research needs.
The first technology evaluation will examine the Zerpol "Zero
Discharge" electroplating wastewater recovery system. Other technology
evaluations will be performed 1n the areas of cleaning solvent
substitution, acid/base recovery/reuse, and electroplating metals
recovery. Negotiations are underway for a possible project 1n the area
of CFC reclamation.
TIME PERI00: 8/14/89 - 8/13/92
PUBLICATIONS, PAPERS TO DATE: None
OUTPUTS/MILESTONES:
9/1/89 Requests for technology evaluation proposals
11/15/89 Site visits and preliminary on-site reviews
12/1/89 - Detailed review of potential technologies
12/12/89 - Selection of technologies
1/5/90 - Negotiations for technology evaluation #1
1/31/90 • Development of QA Project Plan
RESOURCES: FY 89 - S75K R&D FY 90 - S125K R&D FY 91 - S100K RAD
5-4
-------
PROJECT TITLE: CALIFORNIA/WRITE
EPA PROJECT OFFICER: Lisa M. Srown (S13) 569-7634
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: Robert ludwig (916) 324-2659
California Department of Health
Services
Toxic Substances Control Program
Alternative Technology Division
400 P Street
Sacramento, California 94234-7320
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The main objective of this project is to Identify, develop, and evaluate
innovative pollution prevention techniques through the cooperative efforts of
California OHS and EPA. Through this program we are exploring methodologies
that through engineering and economic assessments have the potential of
reducing the quantity and/or the toxicity of waste produced at the source of
generation, or to achieve practicable on-site reuse or recycling of these
waste materials. California DHS under a Memorandum of Understanding with EPA
will identify at least five techniques for evaluation during this three year
project.
TIME PERI00: 6/30/89 - 6/30/92
PROGRESS TO DATE:
Five technologies were evaluated at General Dynamics Pomona Division.
The report from this study is being revised. Two additional projects have
been Identified: one involves reverse osmosis, and the other reusable
filters.
PUBLICATIONS, PAPERS TO OATE: None
OUTPUTS/MILESTONES:
4/1/90
11/1/90
5/1/91
11/1/92
5/1/92
6/30/92
Interim Technology Report
Interim Technology Report
Interim Technology Report
Inttrlm Technology Report
Interim Technology Report
Ftn«l Report
RESOURCES: SAIC support contract
5-5
-------
PROJECT TITLE;
WASHINGTON WRITE PROGRAM
EPA PROJECT OFFICER: Wars J. Licis (513) 569-7718
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: Robert Burmark (206) 438-7370
Washington State Department of Ecology
Office of Waste Reduction and Recycling MS PV-11
Olympla, Washington 98504
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
This project will evaluate five waste minimization technologies that are
either implemented at full-scale at the present time or have been developed
through relatively large scale and are to be implemented within the time frame
of the study. The five technologies will be evaluated during a three-year
project period. At the present only one technology has been Identified for
which companies have been found willing to participate 1n evaluation. This
technology involves the recycling of acetone still bottoas and the
substitution of water-based cleaners for acetone with the objective of
eliminating these RCRA wastes. Wastes of this type are generated by a large
number of relatively small fiberglass fabrication shops 1n the State of
Washington and also across the country. The State of Washington 1s in the
process of implementing a regulation that Includes the prohibition of
landfilling these still bottoms.
The Washington Department of Ecology (WA-DOE) has arranged a technology
evaluation that Involves the participation of a builder of fiberglass boats
and a company that makes bathtubs, spas and shower stalls to obtain data on
the environmental and economic effects on recycling the still bottoms, drying,
grinding and reformulating the product Into a resin filler putty that was
previously purchased and made from virgin material. The major benefit to
companies is that they can eliminate the creation of RCRA waste. Q/A and test
plans are being prepared at this time.
Specific plans for the other technologies have not been completed.
Candidate technologies Include: cement kiln uses for sand blasting grit;
recycling/reuse of baghouse dust from electric arc furnaces; wastewater
elimination in auto engine rebuilding (engine bake out and ball-peening
substituted for engine bollout); coating technology Improvements such as dry
powder applications vs. paint, paint curing, Improvements 1n curing ovens; and
reduction/recycling of pot liner waste in alualnun Industry. Candidate
participants art being sought via Pollution Prevention Workshops sponsored by
the WA-DOE, DOC publications ("Ecology Today' and "Baseline") and site visits
to state regloiMi offices and their associated industry contacts.
TIME PERIOD: 6/16/89 - 6/15/92
PUBLICATIONS, PAPERS TO OATE: None
OUTPUTS/MILESTONES: One report 1s being planned per technology evaluated.
The first Research Brief Is planned for 5/90.
RESOURCES: FY 89 - S100K FY 90 - S100K FY 91 - S100K
3-6
-------
PROJECT TITLE: CONNECTICUT/WRITE PROGRAM
EPA PROJECT OFFICER: Lisa M. Brown (513) 569-7634
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: Frederic W. Kaeser (203) 244-2007
Connecticut Hazardous Waste Management Service
900 Asylom Avenue - Suite 360
Hartford, Connecticut 06105-1904
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The main objective of this cooperative agreement 1s to Identify,
develop, and evaluate Innovative pollution prevention techniques through the
cooperative efforts of CHWMS and EPA. Specifically, this cooperative program
will explore methodologies that through engineering and econoalc assessments
have the potential of reducing the quantity and/or the toxicity of waste
produced at the source of generation, or to achieve practicable on-site reuse
or recycling of these waste materials. CHUMS 1n coordination with Its state
grant program will Identify at least five techniques for evaluation during
this three-year project.
PROGRESS TO DATE: CHWMS has gone through the procurement process to hire a
contractor.
TIME PER100: 10/1/89 - 9/30/92
PUBLICATIONS, PAPERS TO DATE: None
OUTPUTS/MILESTONES:
9/1/90 - Interim Technology Report
2/1/91 - Interim Technology Report
9/1/91 - Interim Technology Report
2/1/92 - Interim Technology Report
9/1/92- Interim Technology Report
9/30/92- Final Report
RESOURCES: FY 89 - 1Z5K FY 90 - S12SK FY 91 - S100K
5-7
-------
PROJECT TITLE: ILLINOIS/EPA WRITE RESEARCH PROGRAM
EPA PROJECT OFFICER: Paul M. Randall (513) 569-7673
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: Dr. Gary Miller (217) 333-8942
Hazardous Waste Research and Information Center
1808 Woodfleld Drive
Savoy, Illinois 61874
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
In June of 1989, HWRIC/EPA began a three-year research program as part of
the Waste Reduction Innovative Technology Evaluation (WRITE) Program. In the
Program, HWRIC 1s working with Industry 1n Illinois to demonstrate and
evaluate at least five Innovative source reduction and recycling options. The
scope of the technology evaluations will Include both engineering
effectiveness and economic pay-back. The primary objective 1s to establish
reliable performance and cost Information on promising pollution prevention
techniques and technologies.
Six projects have been tentatively selected out of over 40 companies,
trade associations, equipment vendors, and consultants. Technologies or
techniques under consideration Include substituting water based Inks for
solvent based inks in flexographlc printing, evaluating soybean oil Inks,
using zinc hydroxide in place of zinc cyanide for zinc electroplating,
substituting citrus cleaners for chlorinated solvents 1n metal fabricating and
printing, and recovery of metals and zircon sand 1n Investment foundries.
Also, a method to determine the degree of toxicity reduction will be expanded
and applied to the waste streams.
Effort has focused on developing detailed project schedules and work
plans for projects. A detailed draft of a QA Project Plan was completed to
evaluate water based ink technology 1n a flexographlc printing process.
Sampling, analysis, and other data collection will begin in the next quarter.
Also, a cooperative agreement with the University of Illinois Office of
Printing Services was signed to evaluate soybean Inks In printing operations.
A QA Project Plan will be drafted on this technology.
TIME PERIOD: 6/19/89 - 6/18/92
PUBLICATIONS, PAPERS TO DATE: None to date.
OUTPUTS/MILESTONES:
06/90 - Technical paper at the ICPP in Washington, D.C.
12/90 - Research paper
06/91 - Research paper
12/91 - Research paper
06/92 - Project final report and summary
RESOURCES: FY 89 - TOOK. FY 90 S100K. FY 91 - S100K
5-8
-------
PROJECT TITLE: MINNESOTA/EPA WRITE,(WASTE REOUGTION INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY
EVALUATION)
EPA PROJECT OFFICER: Teresa M. Harten (513) 569-7565
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: Cindy McComas (612) 625-49*9
Minnesota Technical Assistance Program
420 Del aware St; S.E.
University of Minnesota
Minneapolis, MN 55455
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The objective of this project, which is funded by a cooperative
agreement between EPA and the University of Minnesota, 1s to identify,
implement, and evaluate innovative waste reduction technologies. The
Minnesota Technical Assistance Program (MnTAP) 1s the state organization
responsible for carrying out the evaluations for this project. MnTAP's WRITE
Program focuses on evaluating innovative rinsing technologies in the plating,
metal finishing, and circuit board manufacturing industries; both economic and
engineering evaluations will be performed. Five or six technology evaluations
at operating manufacturing facilities are planned'-for the three-year
cooperative agreement project period.
During the first six months of the project, MnTAP publicized the WRITE
Program within the target Industrial community, performed site visits at
candidate industries and selected one Industry for conducting the first
evaluation. MICOM, Inc., a printed circuit board manufacturer in the
Minneapolis area, Is the subject of the Initial evaluation. Specifically,
waste reducing modifications of rinsing equipment following an etchant bath
and an electroless copper plating bath will be assessed. A Quality Assurance
Project Plan has been prepared for this evaluation and base line sampling is
scheduled to begin at MICOM 1n January 1990.
MnTAP is continuing Its efforts to locate and finalize remaining
industrial sites for the project and has tentatively decided on sites for the
second and third evaluations, which are scheduled to be carried out during mid
and late 1990.
TIME PERIOD: 7/1/89 - 6/30/92
PUBLICATIONS, PAPERS TO DATE: N/A
OUTPUTS/MILESTONES:
6/1/90 - First technology report, Paper
9/15/90 - Second technology report, Paper
1/15/90 - Third technology report, Paper
5/15/91 - Fourth technology report, Paper
9/15/91 - Fifth technology report, Paper
6/30/92 - Final project report
RESOURCES: FY 89 - S100K. FY 90 - S100K. FY 91 - S100K
5-9
-------
PROJECT TITLE: ERIE COUNTY/EPA WRITE RESEARCH PROGRAM
PROJECT OFFICER: Paul M. Randall (513) 569-7673
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: Mr. Paul B. Kranz, P.E. (716) 858-6370
Erie County Department of Environment and Planning
Division of Environmental Compliance
95 Franklin Street
Buffalo, New York 14202
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The Erie County Division of Environmental Compliance Services, Department
of Environment and Planning, 1s proposing to develop and evaluate pollution
prevention technologies for small- medium-sized businesses 1n western New York
state. The program will be a cooperative effort utilizing the resources of
the New York State Center for Hazardous Waste Management and RECRA
Environmental Inc., which 1s a private chemical analysis, prevention, and
control firm located 1n Erie County.
The Erie County proposal 1s being reviewed by Grants Administration 1n
Washington D.C., and within the Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory. In
Erie County, over 2500 companies are small- to medium-sized businesses such as
electroplating, motor vehicle servicing, dry cleaning, printing, and
photography. The solicitation of proposals from Industry will be facilitated
by the New York State Center for Hazardous Waste Management. The New York
State Center has developed a round table on source reduction which consists of
representatives from western New York Industries and state and local
government officials concerned with waste minimization. Approximately five
technologies will be evaluated over a three year program period.
TIME PERIOD: 3/1/90 - 2/28/93
PUBLICATIONS, PAPERS TO DATE: None to date.
ESTIMATED OUTPUTS/MILESTONES:
3/91 - Research paper
9/91 - Research paper
3/92 - Research paper
9/92 - Research paper
3/93 - Project final report and summary
RESOURCES: FY 90 - S100K FY 91 - S100K FY 92 - S100K
5-10
-------
PROJECT TITLE: WASTE REDUCTION EVALUATIONS AT FEDERAL SITES (WREAFS) PROGRAM
EPA PROJECT OFFICER: James S. Bridges (513) 569-7683
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: Barry Langer (201) 599-0100
SAIC
1 Sears Drive
Paramus, New Jersey 07652
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The WREAFS Program 1s a series of assessment and demonstration projects for
pollution prevention and waste reduction conducted cooperatively by EPA and
various parts of the DOD, DOE, and other Federal agencies. The objectives of the
WREAFS Program include: 1) performing waste minimization opportunity
assessments, 2) demonstrating pollution prevention techniques or technologies at
Federal facilities, 3) conducting pollution prevention workshops within the
Federal sector, and 4) enhancing pollution prevention benefits within the Federal
community.
Waste minimization opportunity assessments have been conducted at the
Philadelphia Navy Shipyard, Ft. Riley (Kansas) Anny Forces Command, Naval
Undersea Warfare Engineering Station (Washington), and the Veterans Medical
Center (Cincinnati). Assessments are on-going with the Coast Guard (Governor's
Island, NY) and EPA's Andrew W. Breidenbach Environmental Research Center in
Cincinnati. Planned assessments and demonstrations are with NASA in New Orleans,
with the DOE, and others. A cooperative information transfer effort is being
planned for Region 10 in early 1990. In addition, a joint USAF RD&D project
seeking to obtain Information for its chlorinated solvents recycling program is
underway with Auburn University. The DOD and DOE work is focused on a wide range
of industrial and military operations including: metal cleaning, solvent
degreasing, spray painting, vehicle and battery repair, ship bilge cleaning, and
equipment overhaul. The other Federal activities more often concentrate on
commercial services specific to their activity such as source reduction and
recycling opportunities of hospital wastes at a Veteran's Hospital. The
resultant pollution prevention recommendations are applicable to both the private
and public sectors.
TIME PERIOD: Jun 1, 1988 -
PUBLICATIONS, PAPERS TO OATE: "Summary of Cooperative Hazardous Waste
Minimization with DOD"
OUTPUTS/MILESTONES:
1/15/90
1/30/90
2/15/90
3/1/90
3/31/90
4/3/90
4/15/90
5/15/90
6/10/90
RESOURCE
WM0A Report and Project Summary - Philadelphia Naval Shipyard
WMOA Report and Project Summary - Ft. Riley, Kansas
Cincinnati Veteran's Medical Center Case Study Report
WMOA Report and Project Summary - Keyport, Washington
AWBERC WMOA Report and Project Summary
WMOA at Selected DOD Facilities • 16th Annual RREL Conference
Region 10 Federal Facilities Pollution Prevention Workshop
Coast Guard WMOA Report and Project Summary • Governor's Island
Three Paper Session at the ICPP in Washington, O.C.
FY 89 - S300.9K R&D FY 90 - S250K R&D FY 91 - S500K R&D
5-11
-------
PROJECT TITLE: CHEMICAL SUBSTITUTES FOR TCE AND METHANOL IN
MANUFACTURING OPERATIONS
EPA PROJECT OFFICER: LISA BROWN (513) 569-7634
JOHNNY SPRINGER, JR. (513) 569-7542
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: IN-HOUSE PROJECT IN COLLABORATION WITH
Matthew Bower (513) 278-6547
APS Materials, Inc.
153 Walbrook
Dayton, Ohio
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Hike Szabo (513) 782-4829
PEI Associates, Inc.
11499 Chester Road
Cincinnati, Ohio 45246
A technical evaluation has been conducted at a snail metal finishing
company to determine the waste reduction/pollution prevention that can be
achieved by substituting a dilute terpene-based cleaning solution for TCE
and methanol 1n the cleaning of orthopedic Implants. The tests have been
completed and the final report Is currently being drafted. The water
based solvent performs adequately as a substitute for TCE and methanol 1n
degreasing operations.
TIME PERIOO: 3/1/89 - 9/30/89
PUBLICATIONS, PAPERS TO DATE: None
OUTPUTS/MILEStONES:
4/3/89 - Paper to be presented at ORD Symposium
RESOURCES: FY 89 - S10K RAD
5-12
-------
PROJECT TITLE: CHROMATE RECOVERY BY ADSORPTIVE FILTRATION
EPA PROJECT OFFICER: Lisa M. Brown (513) 569-7634
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: Hark M. Benjamin (206) 543-7645
University of Washington
Department of Civil Engineering - FX-10
Seattle, Washington 98195
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The objective of this project is to evaluate the performance of packed
beds of granular media coated with iron oxide and other adsorbents for
recovering chromate from industrial waste solutions. The Initial testing will
be conducted using synthetic wastes. Following that, tests will be conducted
using batches of real waste. A small recovery unit will be Installed on-site
at an Industry near the University at the culmination of the project for
pilot-scale evaluation.
The experimental tasks have been divided Into three phases: 1. Optimi-
zation of the process for coating the media with £n adsorbent surface;
II. Optimizing collection and recovery of chromate from relatively dilute
synthetic waste solutions; and, III. Testing the process with real Industrial
wastes both at bench-scale and on-line at an Industrial site.
PROGRESS TO DATE: The University has submitted a work plan and QAPP for
review.
TIME PERIOD: 10/1/89 - 4/30/92
PUBLICATIONS, PAPERS TO DATE: None
OUTPUTS/MILESTONES: Final Report April 30, 1992
RESOURCES: FY 89 - S120K FY 90 - 1S2K
5-13
-------
PROJECT TITLE: POLLUTION PREVENTION PROTOTYPE SYSTEMS
EPA PROJECT OFFICER: Paul M. Randall (513) 569-7673
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: Mr. Sanat Bhavsar (609) 292-8341
State of New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection
401 E. State Street - 5th Floor CN-028
Trenton, New Jersey 08625-0402
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
In September 1989, the USEPA and NJDEP entered Into an agreement to
investigate pollution prevention prototype systems. This cooperative
agreement has a unique approach to evaluating source reduction and on-site
reuse/recycling technologies to reduce waste generated. Ha1n results of this
study and current progress are as follows:
1. Measurement of waste minimization efforts by New Jersey industries.
A detailed analysis of a waste minimization data base compiled through New
Jersey waste minimization reports will be provided. This first phase has been
completed and the contractor has issued a draft for review.
2. Develop and Implement prototype systeas 1n the vehicle maintenance
and repair Industry. Phase two studies pollution prevention technologies such
as: antifreeze recycling units, freon recapture devices, ultrasonic and
environmentally-safe degreasing methods, raw material substitutes, and low VOC
paint application systems. A New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT)
facility was selected for this study. A detailed project schedule has been
completed and the QA Project Plan 1s being developed. Detailed engineering
analysis will include studying the effectiveness of the procedures and
proposed vendors equipment to reduce and/or eliminate wastes and verify its
economic efficiency. A base line evaluation of the current waste management
techniques, raw materials, and types and volumes of waste generated at the
NJDOT 1s 1n progress and will be compared to implementing equipment, material
substitutions, and Innovative techniques. Prototypes will be tested at the
NJDOT facility. Results will be used as a model and guide for the vehicle
maintenance and repair Industry.
TIME PERI00: 9/1/89 - 8/31/91
PUBLICATIONS, PAPERS TO DATE: None to date.
ESTIMATED OUTPUTS/MILESTONES:
6/90 - Technical paper in Washington D.C.
9/90 - Research paper
2/91 - Research paper
9/91 - Project final report and summary
RESOURCES: FY 89 - IfilK, FY 90 - S62.5K
•5-14
-------
PROJECT TITLE: INDUSTRY-SPECIFIC WASTE MINIMIZATION MANUALS
EPA PROJECT OFFICER: Teresa M. Harten (513) 569-7565
(Work Assignment Manager)
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: Carl Fronn (818) 449-2171
Jacobs Engineering
251 South Lake Avenue
Pasadena, California 91101-3063
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Under this project the Pollution Prevention Research Branch 1s
publishing a series of Industry-specific waste minimization guidance manuals.
Existing manuals already developed by the State of California Department of
Health Services for targeted Industries are modified and augmented so that
they are comprehensive, nationally applicable guidance documents. In January
1990, seven manuals were cleared for the industrial categories designated in
the titles provided below, making up the first set of manuals 1n the series,
to be published in FY 90. A second set of eleven manuals are scheduled for
publication throughout 1990 and early 1991; industrial categories that will be
addressed and the publication schedule are listed-below.
TIME PERIOD: 11/30/88 - 3/1/91
OUTPUTS/MILESTONES: First set of manuals - (to be published in FY 90)
"Guide to Waste Minimization 1n the Paint Manufacturing Industry"
"Guide to Waste Minimization 1n the Pesticide Formulating Industry"
"Guide to Waste Minimization 1n the Commercial Printing Industry"
"Guide to Waste Minimization 1n the Fabricated Metal Industry"
"Guide to Waste Minimization 1n Selected Hospital Waste Streams"
"Guide to Waste Minimization 1n Research and Educational Institutions"
"Guide to Waste Minimization in the Printed Circuit Board Manufacturing
Industry'
Publish second set of Industry-Specific Waste Minimization Manuals
10/31/90 - Photographic Labs
Fiberglass Reinforced and Composite Plastics
Marine Maintenance and Repair
12/31/90 - Pharmaceutical Preparation
Auto Body Repair
Automotive Shops and Repair
1/31/91 - Thermal Metal Working
Building Construction and Trade
Non-Agricultural Pesticide Use
3/31/91 - Precious Metal Products
Mechanical Equipment Repair
RESOURCES: FY 89 • S25K
FY 90 - IfiZ
5-15
-------
PROJECT TITLE: SHALL GENERATOR WASTE MINIMIZATION ASSESSMENTS
EPA PROJECT OFFICER: Brian A. Westfall (513) 569-7755
FTS 684-7755
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: Dr. F. Will 1am Klrsch (215) 387-2255
Industrial Technology and Energy Mgmt. 01 v.
University City Science Center
3624 Market Street
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Technical assistance to small and medium-sized businesses which lack in-
house capability for Initiating waste minimization programs 1s provided through a
cooperative agreement with the University City Science Center. Assessment teams
composed of faculty and students have been established at the University of
Tennessee (Knoxville), Colorado State University (Fort Collins), and the
University of Louisville (Kentucky). The assessment teams apply and adapt the
procedures 1n EPA's Waste Minimization Opportunity Assessment Manual to candidate
facilities at no cost to the site owner. Waste minimization alternatives are
Identified and accompanied with estimated Implementation costs and projected
savings. All aspects of Implementation are the responsibility of the host
facility. A follow-up visit within one year documents the actual costs and
savings generated by any of the recommendations which are implemented.
A broad spectrum of businesses have been Included among the sites visited,
as reflected 1n the following partial 11st:
* Metal Can Production
* Plastic Sign Manufacturing
' Automobile Bumper Refurbishing
* Glass Products
* Logging
TIME PERIOD: June 20, 1988 - March 19, 1991
PUBLICATIONS, PAPERS TO DATE: None
OUTPUTS/MILESTONES: Paper at EPA Hazardous Waste Symposium 4/90
Paper at Clean Technology Conference 6/90
Twenty-four Case Study Project Reports and
Summaries 8/90
RESOURCES: FY 89 FY 90 S200K FY 91 S245K
* Railroad Car Refurbishing
* Printed Circuit Boards
* Paint Production
* Commercial Printing
* HVAC Equipment Production
5-16
-------
PROJECT TITLE: WASTE REDUCTION FROM CHLORINATED AND PETROLEUM-BASED
DEGREASING OPERATIONS
EPA PROJECT OFFICER: Mary Ann Curran (513) 569-7837
FTS 684-7837
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: Dr. Ray Tarer
Auburn University
Auburn, Alabama 36849
(205) 826-4827
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
In support of the Department of Defense waste minimization program, the
A1r Force 1s seeking to obtain the best available technology for Its
chlorinated solvents program. The major chlorinated degreasing solvent in use
is 1,1,1,- trlchloroethane (TCA). Concerns about the hazards associated with
solvent recycling, as well as the handling of common chlorinated solvent
inhibitors, have motivated the Air Force to Investigate solvent use and
recycling. In this joint effort with EPA, Auburn University will ascertain
what 1s required to make state-of-the-art solvent recycling technology
available and 2) minimize the risks to operators,..11 ability, and damage to
parts being cleaned. Under this charge, Auburn University has proposed a
research effort 1n cooperation with a major solvent manufacturer. Initially,
a risk assessment will be performed for the ongoing solvent recycling program
at Tinker A1r Force Base. The results will be used In formulating a model
technology service program.
TIME PERIOD: 10/10/89 - 10/9/90
PUBLICATIONS, PAPERS TO DATE: None to date
OUTPUTS/MILESTONES: Final Report 4/91
RESOURCES: EPA: FY 89 S20K, FY 90 $1OK, FY 91 $0K
DOD: S100K $ OK $0K
5-17
-------
PROJECT' TITLE: POLLUTION PREVENTION BY AND FOR SMALL BUSINESS
EPA PROJECT OFFICER: Kenneth R. Stone (513) 569-7474
RREL, FTS 684-7474
Karen V. Brown (202) 557-2027
Office of Small FTS 557-2027
and Disadvantaged Business
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: TBD
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
This program will support the Implementation and demonstration of
promising pollution prevention techniques and technologies by small businesses
and to transmit the results of those demonstrations to others 1n the same, or
similar Industries. Small businesses will be solicited for demonstration
proposals. A selection committee will choose the best proposals for award.
Award selection will also Involve the relevant association to assist the
awardee with the demonstration. Results of the demonstrations will be
evaluated, published and transferred throughout the relevant Industries
through a variety of methods.
This project will provide awards of $25,000 each to small businesses
that will demonstrate Innovative approaches to pollution prevention. The
demonstrations will be conducted on-site by the small business awardee. The
EPA, along with supporting trade associations, will monitor the demonstration,
analyze the results and disseminate the conclusions among small businesses,
relevant trade associations and interested parties.
Fifteen trade associations have agreed to participate 1n this program
and provide assistance to small businesses 1n the areas of technology and
information transfer. Presentations of demonstration results will be
sponsored at annual conferences and regional workshops as appropriate.
TIME PERIOD: October, 1990 - September, 1992
PUBLICATIONS, PAPERS TO DATE: None
OUTPUTS/MILESTONES:
RESOURCES:
R&D (avail;
R&D (RREL)
S&E (RREL)
Publish Demo Reports
from 1990 Pilot Program
11/90
Publish Demo Reports
from 1991 Active Program
9/91
Publish Demo Reports
from 1992 Active
Program
9/92
FY 9Q
FY 91
FY n
2% set-aside) $ 50K
S400K
S400K
$ 50K
S 50K
$ OK
S 10K
$ 20K
$ 25K
5-18
-------
PROJECT TITLE: OHIO WASTE MINIMIZATION ASSESSMENTS
EPA PROJECT OFFICER: Mary Ann Curran (513) 569-7837
FTS 684-7837
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: Barry Langer
SAIC
Paramus, NJ 07652
(201) 599-0100
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
This project is to carry out waste minimization assessments 1n several
types of generating facilities In the lamediate vicinity of the Risk Reduction
Engineering Laboratory In Cincinnati. Assessments are carried out in
accordance with the EPA Waste Minimization Opportunity Assessment Manual. To
date, assessments have been carried out in a truck assembly facility, a mini
photo lab, and a large church. Each of these assessments are to produce a
report outlining findings and recommendations for waste reduction. From two
to four more assessments are planned. Additional sites are being sought.
TIME PERIOD: 4/39 - 9/90
PUBLICATIONS, PAPERS TO DATE: None
OUTPUTS/MILESTONES: Assessment Report - Mini Photo Lab 2/90
Assessment Report • Church 4/90
Assessment Report - Truck Assembly S/90
RESOURCES: FY 89 S75K
5-19
-------
PROJECT TITLE: IDAHO TECHNICAL EXCHANGE
EPA PROJECT OFFICER: Teresa M. Harten (513) 569-7565
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: Roger Korus, PhD. (208) 885-6793
Department of Chemical Engineering
308 Buchanan Engineering Laboratory
University of Idaho
Moscow, Idaho 83843
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
This cooperative agreement has been undertaken by the Chemical
Engineering Department of the University of Idaho (UI) and EPA to support
development of pollution prevention envlronnental and chemical engineering
curricula and to support collaborative pollution prevention research efforts
among UI, DOE, and other organizations.
Research projects planned to be addressed under this cooperative
agreement include efforts to:
o incorporate process design modifications to reduce
emissions of sulfur oxides during combustion of fossil
fuels,
o Investigate recycling of agricultural wastes via secondary
reaction schemes,
o elucidate a blotechnologlcal kinetic model for the
microbiological degradation of sulfurous inorganic
materials in coal,
o develop process systems to blosorb heavy metals and transuranides,
o improve KBES and AI techniques to monitor and control process
streams to tlnimize production of environmental contaminants from
pulp and paper manufacturing facilities.
TIME PERIOD: 8/1/89 - 7/31/92
PUBLICATIONS, PAPERS TO DATE: N/A
OUTPUTS/MILESTORES:
RESOURCES: FY 89 - UOK FY 90 - $27K
5-20
-------
PROJECT TITLE: POLLUTION PREVENTION INFORMATION CLEARINGHOUSE (PPIC)
EPA PROJECT OFFICER: Hyles Horse (202) 382-5747
FTS 382-5747
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: Chris Messner (703) 821-4800
Science Applications International Corp.
8400 Westpark Drive
Mclean, Virginia 22102
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The objective of this project Is to establish and operate a national
Information clearinghouse on the subject of pollution prevention. The
clearinghouse provides a wide range of information services related to
pollution prevention and Is meant to serve the needs of Federal, State and
local government agencies (Including EPA Itself), large and small businesses,
trade associations and others needing Information on this subject.
PPIC contains abstracted and Indexed technical Information regarding
pollution prevention techniques applicable to different industries, different
manufacturing processes and different types of wastes. It also contains
Information concerning Federal and state assistance programs, legislative and
policy matters, lists of knowledgeable contacts, a schedule of pertinent
meetings, conferences and training sessions and even information on
International activities on pollution prevention.
PPIC can be accessed by toll-free telephone "hotline" or by computer.
Information packets containing general and industry-specific materials are
available either by mail or through computer downloading. In add1tion> PPIC
allows a user to order pertinent EPA reports directly from the National
Technical Information Service or PPIC supplies the necessary ordering
information for reports from other sources.
TIME PERIQQ: 7/1/88 - N/A
PUBLICATIONS, PAPERS TO DATE: N/A
OUTPUTS/MILESTONES: Transfer Clearinghouse from OSV to ORD 7/1/88
Conduct planning workshop 12/31/88
Define Clearinghouse specifications 2/28/89
Initiate pilot test of computer system 3/31/89
Arrange for and train hotline staff 9/30/89
Complete pilot test of computer system 12/31/89
Place PPIC in full operation 1/15/90
Produce annual progress report 2/15/90
Produce annual progress report 2/15/91
RESOURCES: FY 89 $200.OK, FY90 $200.OK, FY91 $200.OK
(plus approx $200K per year from PPO)
6-1
-------
PROJECT TITLE: AMERICAN INSTITUTE FOR POLLUTION PREVENTION
EPA PROJECT OFFICER: David 6. Stephan (513) 569-7896
FTS 684-7896
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: Thomas R. Hauser (513) 556-3693
Dept. of Civil & Environmental Engineering
University of Cincinnati
Cincinnati, Ohio 45221
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The objective of this project 1s to establish and support an Institute
that can provide a new liaison channel between EPA and potential Implementors
of pollution prevention techniques, primarily In Industry, that can assist the
EPA 1n improving the quality and cost-effectiveness of Its programs in the
pollution prevention area and that can help generate both private and public
sector support for pollution prevention concepts.
Some 20 Individuals with records of accomplishment in pollution
prevention have been appointed to Institute membership. Dr. Joseph T. Ling
has been elected Institute Chairman and Dr. Thomas L. Hurst has been elected
as Vice-Chairman. The Institute's Executive Director 1s Dr. Thomas R. Hauser
of the University of Cincinnati. Four Councils representing areas of special
concern (Economics, Education, Implementation and Technology) have been
established and a set of specific ]• to 2-year objectives have been developed,
including promoting/sponsoring several meetings on pollution prevention,
assisting EPA on several of its "2% set-aside" projects, developing a plan for
development/dissemination of pollution prevention curricula materials,
examining pollution prevention economic models and other economic materials
for effectiveness, defining various pollution prevention barriers/Incentives,
developing a measurement tool for pollution prevention progress and
participating in several pollution prevention demonstration projects.
TIME PERIOD: 10/1/88 - N/A
PUBLICATIONS, PAPERS TO DATE: None
OUTPUTS/MILESTONES: Solicit member nominations 12/15/88
Appoint members 3/31/89
Hold Inaugural meeting 6/30/89
Establish initial objectives 10/31/89
Produce annual progress report 6/30/90
Produce annual progress report 6/30/91
RESOURCES: FY 88 $50.OK, FY89 $50.OK, FY90 S105K, FY91 S115K
(plus approx. $25K per year from PPO)
6-2
-------
PROJECT TITLE: INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON POLLUTION PREVENTION
EPA PROJECT OFFICER:
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR:
Kenneth R. Stone (513) 569-7474
FTS 684-7474
Mary Bourassa (703) 734-3198
SAIC
8400 Westpark Drive
McLean, Virginia 22102
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
On June 10-13, 1990, this three-day conference will be held at the Omni
Shoreham Hotel 1n Washington, D. C. Co-organized by this Laboratory, the
Pollution Prevention Office (PPO, Oeborah Hani on) and the International
Association for Clean Technology (IACT), this conference will explore the
Innovative technologies and socio-economic Issues arising In the field of
pollution prevention. Our expected attendance 1f 1000.
This conference 1s also a demonstration project on how to run such a
large meeting as a clean product. Every effort will be made to examine
options that will minimize the volume of waste generated. Costs/savings from
Implementing these options will be recorded and presented 1n an enclosure for
the registration package. This enclosure will describe how the conference
organizers balanced cost with pollution prevention Interests and Include a
questionnaire, requesting the attendee's assessment of this decision-making
process. All of this data will, be Incorporated Into a final report.
TIME PERIOD:
June 10-13, 1990
PUBLICATIONS, PAPERS TO DATE:
First Announcement • Call for Papers
Second Announcement - Call for Papers
CEM Message: "EPA Plans Conference as a
Clean Product"
Registration Brochure
OUTPUTS/MILESTONES:
International Conference on Pollution Prevention
Conference Proceedings
Report on the Conference as a Clean Product
6/10-13/90
8/90
9/90
RESOURCES:
FY 99
FY 90
R&D
(RREL)
% 50K
$ 20K
R&D
(PPO)
$ OK
$ 50K
R&O
(DOD)
$ OK
$ 20K
R&D
(DOE)
% OK
$ 20K
6-3
-------
PROJECT TITLE: WASTE REDUCTION ASSESSMENT AND TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER
TELECONFERENCE
EPA PROJECT OFFICER: Kenneth R. Stone (513) 569-7474
FTS 684-7474
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: Cam Hetcalf (615)242-2456
University of Tennessee
Center for Industrial Services
226 Capitol Boulevard Building
Nashville, Tennessee 37219-1804
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
On March 19-21, 1990, there will be a three-day teleconference on Waste
Reduction Assessment and Technology Transfer, organized by the University of
Tennessee. Reaching attendees 1n at least eighteen states, this
teleconference is designed to provide pollution prevention technical
assistance to selected participants by generating a forum for technology
transfer and contacts for future cooperative efforts.
TIME PERIOD: Harch 19-21, 1990
PUBLICATIONS, PAPERS TO DATE: None
OUTPUTS/MILESTONES:
Waste Reduction Assessment and Technology Transfer Teleconference 3/19-21/90
RESOURCES: FY 89 FY 90
R&D (RREL) S OK $20K
6.-4
-------
PROJECT TITLE: POLLUTION PREVENTION TRAINING FOR EPA STAFF
EPA PROJECT OFFICER: Mary Ann Curran (513) 569-7837
FTS 684-7837
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: Terry Foecke
Minnesota Technical Assistance Program
Box 197 Mayo
University of Minnesota
Minneapolis, MN 55455
(612) 625-4949
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
MnTAP has proposed a program for EPA personnel which will present
instruction and practice 1n techniques and Information useful for the
promotion, persuasion, and encouragement of Industrial pollution prevention.
The goal of the training 1s to teach an understanding of Industrial pollution
prevention and identify the Important factors to successful discovery and
Implementation, recognizing that promoting change requires good communication
skills. The two-day training course 1s being developed for regulatory
personnel, policy makers, researchers and managers within the Agency and can
be applied to State and local government personnel. Sessions are expected to
be held 1n Washington, O.C., Cincinnati, and each Regional office for a total
of twelve.
TIME PERI00: 3/1/90 - 10/31/91
PUBLICATIONS, PAPERS TO DATE: Training Program
OUTPUTS/MILESTONES: Develop Training Program
Conduct Training
Program Materials
RESOURCES: FY 89 $ OK, FY 90 $ 40K, FY
w/ Curricul
91 S OK
m 9/91
1/91
4/91 - 9/91
10/91
6-5
-------
PROJECT TITLE: EPA RESEARCH PROJECT CASE STUDIES
EPA PROJECT OFFICER: Johnny Springer, Jr. (513) 569-7542
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: IN-HOUSE PROJECT
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
To prepare a compilation of summaries of waste minimization
demonstrations, assessments and research projects for publication as an
EPA publication. This publication will contain all waste minimization
activities conducted In the Waste Minimization Branch. The publication
will contain an Introduction and a subject Index. All case studies will
be represented according to a common format. A format for the
publication Is being developed at this time.
TIME PERI00: Annual
PUBLICATIONS, PAPERS TO DATE: None
OUTPUTS/MILESTONES:
1 volume to be produced annually
RESOURCES:
6-6
-------
PROJECT TITLE: SPECIAL EDITION ON WASTE MINIMIZATION FOR JOURNAL OF
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: S. Garry Howell (513) 569-7756
FTS 684 7756
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
A special edition on waste minimization for the Journal of Hazardous
Materials Is being prepared. After consulting with the editor of the regular
edition of the Journal, Gary Bennett of the University of Toledo, 1t was decided
that authors with diverse viewpoints (EPA, academla, and Industry) would be
solicited for papers. If more than 10 or 12 acceptable papers are received, the
excess would be considered for another special edition, or they might be
submitted to another journal. Since the Journal of Hazardous Material is peer
reviewed, most authors would prefer to publish In It.
To date we have seven outside authors giving oral commitments, and one
tentative. The Waste Minimization Branch will contribute another nine or ten, so
even with a 50* rate of participation, there should be enough to fill one
edition.
TIME PERIOD: 11/1/89 - 12/1/90
PUBLICATIONS, PAPERS TO DATE: None
OUTPUTS/MILESTONES: Submit Titles
Submit Abstracts
Submit Manuscripts
Finish Reviews & Corrections
Write Guest Editorial
RESOURCES: None Required.
12/1/89
1/15/90
3/1/90
1/2/91
1/2/91
6-7
-------
PROJECT TITLE: RECLAIMING FIBER FROM NEWSPRINT
EPA PROJECT OFFICER: Teresa M. Harten (513) 569-7565
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: Dennis Gunderson (608) 231-9200
Forest Products Laboratory
One Glfford Plnchot Drive
Madison, Wisconsin 53705-2398
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
This project, which 1s funded under an Interagency Agreement with USDA's
Forest Products Laboratory In Madison, Wisconsin, 1s designed to Investigate
the potential for reclalnlng newsprint by Mans of a dry f1ber1z1ng process.
It Is part of a larger research program at FPL that will explore dry and/or
semi-dry paper making processes; the American Newsprint Publishing Association
(ANPA), FPL, and EPA are co-funding the total program. For the dry flberlzing
portion of the program, FPL 1s looking at three methods for disintegrating
newsprint that achieve the goals of flberlzlng: -effective separation of
fibers with minimal damage to or shortening of these fibers. The three
methods are hammermllling, ballmllUng, and single disk refining.
During the first six months of the project, FPL has acquired needed
equipment, conducted familiarization and check-out trials with the new
equipment, and designed and constructed a laboratory device for separating the
dry flberlzed material. In addition, FPL drafted a Quality Assurance Project
Plan which has received EPA approval. In December 1989, flberlzlng and
sampling were begun 1n earnest and preliminary results appear to Indicate that
fiber damage Is sensitive to controllable variables.
TIME PER100: 6/15/89 - 9/30/92
PUBLICATIONS, PAPERS TO DATE: N/A
OUTPUTS/MILESTONES:
6/1/90 - Paper
9/1/90 - Interim Report
6/15/91 - Paper
9/1/91 - Interim Report
6/15/92 - Paper
9/1/92 - Final Report
RESOURCES: FY 89 - JAfiK FY 90 - iSQK FY 91 -
7-1
-------
PROJECT TITLE: DETERMINATION OF LEGITIMATE HAZARDOUS WASTE RECYCLING
EPA PROJECT OFFICER: Brian A. Westfall (513) 569-7755
FTS 684-7755
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: Barbara L. Cormier (513) 252-1222
PEER Consultants
4134 Linden Avenue, Suite 202
Dayton, Ohio 45432
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), as well as EPA's waste
management hierarchy, places a high priority on recycling waste rather than using
conventional treatment and disposal methods. An incentive for recycling
hazardous waste Is the exemption of recycling operations from the RCRA permit
requirements for hazardous waste treatment, storage or disposal facilities. The
regulatory requirements for treatment facilities are detailed and specific, but
the requirements for recyclers are very general and little guidance has been
developed to apply the requirements to a proposed recycling operation.
The Ohio EPA and U.S. EPA's Region 5 are reviewing the claims of a company
proposing to recycle hazardous electroplating sludges (RCRA Waste Code F006) by
producing a material with uses 1n the abrasives Industry or 1n ceramic building
materials and fixtures. Technical assistance to determine whether or not the
process meets the regulatory requirements as legitimate recycling 1s being
provided by the project officer and contracted consultants. Technical criteria
for legitimate recycling Include the following:
* The hazardous constltuent(s) of the waste must be an essential
Ingredient of the end product.
* The product must be marketable.
* The recycler must have equipment capable of producing material which
meets market specifications.
The proposed process has been evaluated at bench-scale and 1n a brief test
of a full-scale unit. Monitoring of a six-week period of full-scale operation
will complete the assistance on this hazardous waste recycling determination.
TIME PERIOD: January 20, 1989 - March 31, 1990
PUBLICATIONS, PAPERS TO DATE: None
OUTPUTS/MILESTONES: Internal Report - March, 1990
RESOURCES: FY 89 Lfi FY 90 O FY 91 (S20 K from 0SW)
7-2
-------
PROJECT TITLE: COMPOSITES FROH RECYCLED PLASTICS, WOOD, AND RECYCLED
WOOD FIBER
EPA PROJECT OFFICER: Teresa Harten (513) 569-7565
FTS 684-7565
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: To be determined
Forest Products Laboratory
One Gifford Pinchot Drive
Madison, Wisconsin 53705-2398
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
This research project will Involve lab and pilot-scale work to develop
commercially viable thermoformable composite products using recycled high
density polyethylene (HOPE), wood flour, recycled wood fiber, and reclaimed
polyester fiber. Proof of concept research performed at USDA's Forest
Products Laboratory (FPL) In Madison, Wisconsin has produced promising
results. This project will be an Interagency agreement with FPL and will
build on existing research to develop a variety of composite products; the
most promising would be scaled-up to pilot-scale.
A three-year interagency agreement will be njade between the FPL and EPA
to Investigate and develop wood/plastic composites. The program will examine
the application of conventional equipment for thermomechanlcal production of
wood fiber to the simultaneous formation of wood fibers and ground plastic
from wood chips and plastic bottles. It will also investigate forming
operations such as extrusion, injection molding and nonwoven web technology.
TIME PERIOD: 7/90 - 6/93
PUBLICATIONS, PAPERS TO DATE: None
OUTPUTS/MILESTONES: Award Interagency agreement to USDA-FPL
Setup test, start test program using
bench-scale apparatus
Complete test and provide report
regarding results of concept
If favorable, setup pi lot-scale and
start testing
Complete parametric testing of system
Write report, evaluate economics at
pilot-scale, project economics at
full-scale
RESOURCES: FY 90 S150K FY 91 S100K FY 92 S100K
0-6 months
6-10 months
10-13 months
13-24 months
24-32 months
32-36 months
7.- 3
-------
PROJECT TITLE: POLLUTION PREVENTION IN PUBLIC AGENCIES
EPA PROJECT OFFICER: Brian A. Westfall (513) 569-7755
FTS 684-7755
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: Gordon R. Garner (502) 587-0591
Executive Director, Louis and Jefferson County
Metropolitan Sewer District
400 South Sixth Street
Louisville, Kentucky 40202
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The Louisville and Jefferson County Metropolitan Sewer 01 strict (MSD) has
proposed a project to develop and Implement a comprehensive pollution prevention
assessment process for public agencies and institutions located 1n the Louisville
Metropolitan area. Under a cooperative agreement with EPA, the MSD will evaluate
the current status of pollution prevention awareness and activities at a number
of State, local and Federal government organizations, including municipal
governments, public schools, the water utility, the regional airport, State
offices, the University of Louisville and MSD itself. A pollution prevention
assessment process specifically for public agencies will be developed and then
tested at MSD and one or two additional agencies. The process will be modified
as necessary and then used at all facilities which will participate. The
widespread use of a uniform procedure will enhance the transfer of information
among facilities having common waste management problems and similar waste
reduction opportunities.
TIME PERIOD: May 1, 1990 - October 31, 1991
PUBLICATIONS, PAPERS TO DATE: None
OUTPUTS/MILESTONES: Phase I - Evaluate current pollution prevention
activities, Interim Report - August, 1990
Phase II - Develop and test assessment process,
Interim Report - April, 1991
Phase III - Assessments at remaining agencies, Final
Report - October, 1991
RESOURCES: FY 89 O FY 90 S 50K FY 91 O
8-1
-------
PROJECT TITLE: MODEL COMMUNITY POLLUTION PREVENTION CASE STUDY
EPA PROJECT OFFICER: Kenneth R. Stone (513) 569-7474
FTS 684-7474
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: Not yet selected
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
This project is to establish a model environmental risk reduction program
on a military base to demonstrate how pollution prevention techniques can be
combined into a community through all the everyday community institutions,
business and services. This model plan will address community organization,
facilities and services, energy, transportation and education.
This 1s to be a cooperative project between the RREL, the Pollution
Prevention Office, and the Department of Defense. A pollution prevention task
force, staffed to represent significant segments of the selected community, is
to be established to facilitate cross-media coordination between community
agencies, facilities, services and consumers. EPA will provide technical
assistance 1n selecting the pollution prevention alternatives and monitoring
their Implementation. A workshop is to be conducted to discuss successes and
failures 1n existing community programs to familiarize the task force members.
A second workshop will review the program and Include officers from other
military bases. A final conference will provide the opportunity to
disseminate results to public communities.
TIME PERIOO: 4/90 - 3/93
PUBLICATIONS, PAPERS TO DATE: None
OUTPUTS/MILESTONES: Workshop on Community Programs to 7/90
Brief the Task Force Members
Workshop to Review 1990 Efforts and 7/91
Successes, and to Brief Other Bases
Conference on Community Programs for 7/92
Base Officers and Public Community
Leaders
RESOURCES: FY 90 - 15QK FY 91 - S200K FY 92 - S100K
8-2
-------
PROJECT TITLE: METHODOLOGY FOR MEASURING POLLUTION PREVENTION
EPA PROJECT OFFICER: James Bridges (513) 569-7683
FTS 684-7683
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR: To be determined
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
To adequately reflect the progress of waste reduction and determine the
success of pollution prevention, it Is necessary to utilize an appropriate
measurement methodology that is acceptable to the private and public sectors.
The objective of this initiative is to develop a single methodology which
integrates mass-based pollution prevention. The final report will be a
decision-makers guide for calculating the progess of pollution prevention
goals and present technical Information on how to set reasonable pollution
prevention goals. The report should include a series of worksheets that can
be used to guide industry and government through the methodology.
In cooperation with a yet to be determined research center, the project
will develop a measurement methodology for hazardous and nonhazardous multi-
media pollution prevention. Necessary input will be required through
coordination with professional or trade associations, State governments, DOD,
OOE, EPA and others who set pollution prevention goals. EPA will present a
unified approach with the assistance of representatives of PPO, OSW and OEETD.
TIME PERIOD: 7/90 - 6/91
PUBLICATIONS, PAPERS TO DATE: None
OUTPUTS/MILESTONES: Planning research and funds transfer 0-2 months
Approved work plan and coordination 2-4 months
within EPA
Draft methodology 4-6 months
Consensus approval of methodology 6-8 months
(public and private sectors)
Decision-makers guide and methodology 8-10 months
report
Demonstrate guide with methodology 10-12 months
RESOURCES: FY 90 *?00K FY 91 S100K
8-3
-------
EPA ENFORCEMENT AT
GOCO* FACILITIES
* Govemment-Owned/Contractor-Operated Facilities
Office of Federal Activities
Washington, D.C.
-------
IDENTIFICATION OF THE GOCO UNIVERSE
5
DOE
ARMY
NAVY
DLA
AIR FORCE
NASA
11
KNOWN UNIVERSE"
130 GOCO Facilities identified
by Federal Agencies
-------
TYPES OF GOCO FACILITIES
• USAF Industrial Plants (Aircraft,
Missile, Space Shuttle, Bombing System
Production)
• Army Ammunition Plants
• Army Aircraft, Engine and Tank Plants
• Naval Industrial Ordnance Plants
• Naval Weapons Plants
• Naval Ship Repair Facilities
• Defense Fuel Supply Centers (DLA)
-------
TYPES OF GOCO FACILITIES
(Continued)
• DOE National Research Laboratories
• DOE Weapons Testing Support
Facilities
• DOE Atomic Power and Nuclear
Reactor Facilities
• DOE Strategic Petroleum Reserves
• NASA Assembly Facilities and
Industrial Plants
• NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratories
-------
DEFINITION(S) OF GOCO FACILITIES
EPA Federal Facilities Compliance
Strategy:
GOCO = "Government Facility owned by a
Federal Agency, but all or portions of it
are operated by private contractor(s)."
-------
FEDERAL FACILITIES WITH PRIVATE
ARRANGEMENTS
GOGO
VS.
vs.
vs.
vs.
vs.
vs.
GOCO
COCO
COCO(E)
POGO
GOPO
JOCO
Federal Lands
vs.
vs.
vs.
vs.
vs.
vs.
Leasee
Grantee
Claimant
Patent Holder
Permittee
Withdrawal
-------
HISTORY OF FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT GOCO POLICY
October 1983 • DOJ - Response Letter to Rep. John Dingell:
". . . is prepared to sue GOCO facilities when the
contractor is the responsible party and it is
otherwise appropriate ..."
April 1987 • DOJ - Written Testimony at Oversight Hearing:
. . ready to utilize the full panalopy of its judicial
enforcement tools against GOCO violators ... on
Federal facilities."
-------
HISTORY OF EPA GOCO POLICY
1983-85 • OAR
1985-88 • OSWER
1988 • EPA Administrator
- 2 Memos on GOCO
Enforcement to EPA
Regions
- 5 Memos to EPA Regions
on GOCO Enforcement,
Permit Issues and
Operator Determinations
- Letter to Other Agencies
clarifying full applicability
of SARA Title III to
contractors at GOCOs
-------
EPA GOCO ENFORCEMENT STRATEGY
Schedule and Milestones:
August 1988
Formation of EPA GOCO
Enforcement Workgroup
October 1988
December 1988
March 1989
September 1989
Colloquium on EPA Enforcement at
GOCO Facilities
Colloquim Proceedings Completed
Draft Strategy (review/comment)
Final Strategy
-------
COLLOQUIUM ON EPA ENFORCEMENT
AT GOCO FACILITIES
• Sponsored by EPA Office of Federal Activities (October 1988)
• "Springboard" for development of an EPA GOCO Enforcement
Strategy
• Forum for exchange of viewpoints among all affected parties:
- EPA HQ and Regions
- Federal Agencies
- Government Contractors
- State Agencies
- Environmental'and Public Policy Groups
- Private Law Firms
• Intended Outcome:
- Identification of key issues for EPA GOCO Strategy
-------
EPA GOCO POLICY IN THE FEDERAL
FACILITIES COMPLIANCE STRATEGY
EPA committment "to develop an Agencywide GOCO
Enforcement Strategy"
To provide:
. . more detailed criteria and factors to be considered
in determining which party to pursue
enforcement action against."
-------
EPA GOCO POLICY IN THE FEDERAL
FACILITIES COMPLIANCE STRATEGY
Contractor Listing Program (CAA, CWA):
Results in ineligibility to receive government
contracts
Clarifies applicability to GOCO contractors
Congress has introduced legislation to
expand to include RCRA
-------
EPA GOCO POLICY IN THE FEDERAL
FACILITIES COMPLIANCE STRATEGY
Notification Procedures for Actions at GOCO Facilities:
• EPA Enforcement vs. Contractor:
- Copy (cc) of notice seitf to Federal agency
- Plus a Letter to agency:
—Emphasizing importance of responsibilities to
oversee contractor
—Request agency's cooperation in returning facility
to compliance quickly
• EPA Enforcement vs. Federal Agency:
- Enforcement Action sent directly to agency officials
- Copy of notice sent to involved contractor
-------
GOCO ENFORCEMENT RESPONSE
CPA INITIAL ENFORCEMENT RESPONSE
TO VIOLATION* AT FACILITIES WITH FEDERAL INVOLVEMENT
A«r«nym/
T*r»
lioipttM m
OllMr QMMMAl
initial IfttefpiWWi
rnoM Hiauo
• fwxrrt owafCMnMi lo ua«
y«ar«, undaili* ftOtd LaoO
if MmMtwino lend* «vh«i tfM
FEDERAL
FACILITY
aooo; QajamiiLaa
JOCO;
0000(01:
OAANTHi
CLAIMANTI
PATINT
ilOlONR:
HOLOIM;
ly le pwnitf by • r*o«noy but
«*tMr« * ponton la o«m*d by *m
BpiUBr fw anil* (wUry
fit Federal eQ—uij1 «ntf mm lot km awr u
Bawpi dnwwtf Dy tbiiui* M otm teotori.
AeSeo iney eieo be egem»i btt»i pw»e»
| It • tacMty wewfe fw 0w«nm«x h«* i
0 tof M opwrton and p*oM.
$£SN9tS9l9SSS9B^^9?a
«iw» — OOOO.
M a iwn-9»»«nntmM oonM. pHnuMy
¦Mow s • FH»m aeanoy unMi aoni
M potulon an»M mnl Itnb* paid by •<
f«Mnl MV »D» MfMM ««ul|acmg, aenouau»alana
fwiM le^m • flrani lor paimanani autftorticlon K> uw govwrinwii land di Qivan
rigM a* «*W- QMM uaua% tMki a (kigl* niMm tor M urn) or aanatw at land um rtgha.
and malmalnad minjng atlm an ata puMla
r»T>a»Hla» (ai< »o)ra>a apaaaaaaory Dgm againei Via U.S. ana
A nMn| cMlmara a*»o t«aa mat «a uaWM) faiiulramam* e> on itn mming law ana tiaa
My iMtaM «t» has f i a Mi'lrf a ip>aa uaa auOtorUaaon (for n uaa el Nulgna Pafaai
Of non-Padatai para—.
Or nan-FadaraJ parM*.
federal
FACILITY
on
PRIVATE
PARTY
PRIVATE
PARTY
-------
EPA GOCO POLICY IN THE FEDERAL
FACILITIES COMPLIANCE STRATEGY
Initial Enforcement Response influenced by:
Statutory language re: owner/operator;
Party or parses holding permit;
Contractural arrangements;
Nature and type of violatlon(s);
Other factors.
Focus is on EPA's "Initial" Enforcement Response
Additional information may affect which
party any further action should be taken
against.
-------
EPA GOCO POLICY IN THE FEDERAL
FACILITIES COMPLIANCE STRATEGY
. . pursue full range of its enforcement
authorities vs. contractor operators of
government owned facilities. . ."
AND
". . . also may take enforcement actions
against Federal agencies ..."
OR
. .it may pursue enforcement action
against both. . . "
-------
FEDERAL FACILITIES
MULTl - MEDIA ENVIRONMENTAL
COMPLIANCE CONFERENCE
MARCH 27-28, 1990
ATLANTA, GEORGIA
w
inMiraa«
-------
'SS^'
uuukSfana-n
ECAMP
ENVIRONMENTAL
COMPLIANCE
ASSESSMENT
AND
MANAGEMENT
PROGRAM
-------
y
jouinraH
HISTORY OF THE
AIR FORCE ECAMP
Feb 1984 HQ AFESC awarded a contract to Weston Inc. to
develop a guidance package.
Sep - Nov 1984 Test Audits conducted at six bases with Air Force
and Weston personnel.
May 1985 Weston developed a draft guidance package and held
a training course for selected Air Force personnel.
Jun - Aug 1985 Weston and Air Force personnel tested guidance
manual at eight bases.
Nov 8 1985 EPA Environmental Auditing Policy Statement
(Federal Registar).
Jan 1986 DOD Policy Guidance / Air Force Tiger Team.
Nov 1987 Draft ECAMP Policy coordinated Air Force Wide.
Training Classes were scheduled for all Air Force
environmental personnel.
Jun 141988 AF ECAMP Policy issued requiring all major and minor
installations to complete audit by 31 Jan 90.
-------
AIR FORCE ECAMP POLICY
juuMDraHa-n ======================^==^=—===—==^==
Evaluation Frequency
Each major and minor installation has an
External ECAMP once every three years.
Each major installation has an Internal ECAMP
every year except the year of the external ECAMP.
-------
AIR FORCE ECAMP POLICY
Public Release of ECAMP Documents
All ECAMP materials are internal working documents
"For Official Use Only"
until the Final Environmental Report is released.
As a matter of policy, Final Environmental Report will
be made available for public release,
upon request, as soon as it is executed.
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Requests will be
considered on a case-by-case basis under the
rules of Air Force Regulation 12*30.
-------
ECAMP TEAM COMPOSITION
Typical External Evaluation Team:
1 Team Chief MAJCOM
2 to 4 Team Members MAJCOM, Other bases
AFRCE, OEHL
2 to 4 Team Members Contractor
5 to 9 Total
Air Force members can come from DE, SG, JA, MA, LES, & LGT
-------
AIR FORCE ECAMP POLICY
MAJCOM OPTIONS
Major Commands are responsible for insuring
ECAMPs are completed at each of their installations.
Options for External Audits:
All consultants.
Combination Air Force and consultant team.
All Air Force team.
MAJCOMs can do external ECAMPs more often.
-------
PRE-EVALUATION ACTIVITIES
HunnnH
Pre-visit Questionnaire.
Define Evaluation Scope and Team.
Review Relevant Regulations.
Review Evaluation Protocols.
Develop Evaluation Schedule.
-------
AIR FORCE ECAMP POLICY
MLMdKhM =^===—=—————-
ECAMP PROTOCOLS
Air Emissions
Wastewater Discharges
Solid Waste Management
Hazardous Waste Management
Pesticides Management
Polychlorinated Biphenyls
Drinking Water
Fuels, Oils, & Lubricants
Hazardous Materials
Natural Resources
Noise
Underground Storage Tanks
-------
ECAMP REPORT FORMAT
«u>n3Byaa<» -j™
Executive Summary
Background and Scope
Environmental Compliance Status
Observations and Comments
Action Plan
Distribution
-------
COMPLIANCE SUMMARY
SYSTEM
Blue No deficiencies.
Green Minor deficiencies.
Yellow Major and minor deficiencies.
Red At least one significant deficiency.
Definitions:
Significant Deficiencies - Immediate threat to humans
or the environment or the mission.
Maior Deficiencies - Requires action but not immediate.
Minor Deficiencies - Mostly Administrative in nature.
-------
ECAMP COSTS
Contractor ECAMPs - $35,000 to $60,000 per base
Combined Air Force and Contractor Teams -
$30,000 per base
All Air Force Team - $10,000
The above data represents compiled information from
five MAJCOMs representing about 40 ECAMPs.
-------
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
ENVIRONMENTAL AUDITING PROGRAM
Presented by
Madonna E. Martin, Project Manager/Lead Auditor
-------
HISTORY
O 1981 - TVA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY POLICY ISSUED
0 1981 - FIRST AUDIT CONDUCTED
O 1985 - FORMAL AUDIT PROGRAM ESTABLISHED
o 1988 - AUDIT DEPARTMENT ESTABLISHED
-------
OB.IFr.TIVF
FACILITY COMPLIANCE PROGRAMS ADEQUATE AND MEET REGULATORY
REQUIREMENTS
APPROPRIATE RECORDS PREPARED AND AVAILABLE
PERSONNEL TRAINED AND QUALIFIED
QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAMS AND CONTROLS IN PLACE
-------
FOCUS
o FACILITIES WHERE THERE IS RISK FOR:
- SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
- DANGER TO PUBLIC HEALTH
- CIVIL OR FINANCIAL PENALTY
- ADVERSE IMPACT TO TVA'S IMAGE WITH PUBLIC
AND/OR RELATIONS WITH REGULATORS
-------
sroPF
MAJOR AND MINOR FACILITIES
30 FACILITIES PER YEAR
MULTI MEDIA
MANAGEMENT AUDITS
SERVICE
-------
STAFFING
o DEPARTMENT HEAD, 3 FULL-TIME LEAD AUDITORS,
1 PART-TIME AUDITOR, SECRETARY
o AUDITORS ASSIGNED MEDIA SPECIALTIES
o CROSS-TRAINING
O USE OF OTHER TVA/EXTERNAL STAFF
o $350,000 ANNUAL BUDGET
-------
AUDIT PHASF.S
PRE-AUDIT
- SCHEDULE & NOTIFY FACILITY
- DETERMINE SCOPE
- SELECT AUDIT TEAM
- DETAILED PREPARATION
ONSITE AUDIT
- ENTRANCE MEETING
- SITE ORIENTATION TOUR
- DOCUMENT REVIEW
- FACILITY/OPERATIONS INSPECTION
- INTERVIEW STAFF
- ORGANIZE AUDIT RESULTS
- F.XIT MEETING
-------
AUDIT PHASES (CONT'D)
AUDIT REPORT
STATUS OF OVERALL COMPLIANCE SUMMARY
FINDINGS AND OBSERVATIONS
SENT TO CORPORATE AND FACILITY MANAGEMENT
ISSUED IN 30 WORKING DAYS
FOLLOWUP
RESPONSE INDICATES CORRECTIVE ACTIONS TAKEN/
SCHEDULED ON NONCONFORMANCES
RESPONSE IN 30 WORKING DAYS
CORRECTIVE ACTIONS TRACKED BY COMPLIANCE
DEPARTMENT UNTIL CLOSURE
FINDINGS/OBSERVATIONS CLOSED WITH AUDITOR
CONCURRENCE
-------
1 DOD ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM
STATUS. . . AND CHALLENGES
-------
OVERVIEW
• ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE
• POLICY
• OPERATIONS
• THE CHALLENGE
• PROGRAMS
• FUNDING
• SUMMARY
-------
ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE
INSTALLATIONS
SECRETARY
OF
DEFENSE
NAVY
ARMY
AIR FORCE
DEFENSE LOGISTICS
AGENCY
DEPUTY ASSISTANT
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
ENVIRONMENT
INSTALLATION COMMANDERS HAVE COMPLIANCE RESPONSIBILITY
-------
DOD POLICY
• COMPLY WITH ENVIRONMENTAL LAW & REGULATIONS
• ANALYZE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF PROPOSED
ACTIONS
• ACCOMPLISH THE MISSION IN A MANNER WHICH
MINIMIZES ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
• BE GOOD STEWARDS OF HISTORICAL & NATIONAL
RESOURCES
• COOPERATE WITH ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATORY
AGENCIES
-------
DOD OPERATIONS
• 5,000,000 PEOPLE
• 1,200 WORLDWIDE INSTALLATIONS
• 27 MILLION ACRES
• 435,000 BUILDINGS ENCLOSING 2.7 BILLION SQUARE FEET
• INSTALLATIONS ARE SMALL CITIES
— AIRPORTS & SEAPORTS
— INDUSTRIAL & MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES
— ADMINISTRATIVE & MEDICAL FACILITIES
— SHOPPING & RECREATIONAL FACILITIES
— FAMILY HOUSING
-------
-------
THE COMPLIANCE CHALLENGE
• VARIETY & SCOPE OF OUR OPERATIONS
• VARIETY & SCOPE OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAW
— STATESIDE & OVERSEAS
— SOMETIMES DUPLICATIVE & OVERLAPPING
• GROWTH OF REGULATIONS
• NATIONAL IMPLEMENTATION & ENFORCEMENT STRATEGY
• DOD CONSTRAINTS
— FEDERAL BUDGETING: LIMITS & PROCESS
— OUR INSTALLATIONS ARE DIFFERENT . . .
• INCREASING PUBLIC CONCERN & ANXIETY
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL LAW
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT
CLEAN WATER ACT
CLEAN AIR ACT
SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT
COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE COMPENSATION AND
LIABILITY ACT (CERCLA) W/SUPERFUND AMENDMENTS AND
REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1986 (SARA) — SUPERFUND
RESOURCE CONSERVATION & RECOVERY ACT (RCRA) — HAZARDOUS
WASTE MANAGEMENT
TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL ACT
NOISE CONTROL ACT
ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT
FEDERAL INSECTICIDE, FUNGICIDE & RODENTICIDE ACT
PLUS OVER 25 OTHERS
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS
CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS
THOUSANDS OF PAGES
72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87
CALENDAR YEAR
-------
W-'J DOD ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS
• HAZARDOUS MATERIAL & WASTES
— MANAGEMENT OF CURRENT ACTIVITES
— CLEANUP OF "PAST CONTAMINATION" SITES
• POLLUTION ABATEMENT
• ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
• NATURAL & HISTORICAL RESOURCES
• SPECIAL PROGRAMS
-------
SPECIAL PROGRAMS
'/
• CHESAPEAKE BAY & OTHER ESTUARIES
• RADON
• CFC & HALON USE REDUCTION
• ARMED FORCES PEST MANAGEMENT BOARD
• RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT
• WEAPONS REDUCTION
-------
NATURAL & HISTORICAL RESOURCES
• 2.3 MILLION ACRES OF FORESTS ON 200 INSTALLATIONS
— 40% OF PROFITS GO TO STATES
• 194 BASES MANAGE ENDANGERED SPECIES HABITAT
• 200 BASES PROTECT HISTORIC FACILITIES & ARCHEOLOGIC
SITES
• OVER 200 BASES WITH WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT PLANS
« APPROXIMATELY $40 MILLION ANNUAL PROTECTION &
ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
•J
• DRIVEN BY NEPA
• BROAD APPLICABILITY
— DEVELOPMENT/DEPLOYMENT OF NEW WEAPONS
SYSTEMS
— REALIGNMENTS/OPERATIONAL CHANGES TO EXISTING
FORCE STRUCTURE
— BASE CLOSURES
— TRAINING ACTIVITIES
• CURRENT/LONG-TERM CONCERNS: OPERATIONAL NOISE
— LOW LEVEL FLIGHT TRAINING (EUROPE & STATESIDE)
— TRAINING RANGES (ARTILLERY & AIR DELIVERED
ORDNANCE
-------
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS & WASTES
• TODAY'S BIGGEST ENVIRONMENTAL CHALLENGE
• MANAGEMENT OF CURRENT ACTIVITIES
— RCRA 1'CRADLE TO GRAVE" APPROACH
MANAGEMENT INTENSIVE; COMPLICATED RULES
— WASTE MINIMIZATION IS THE KEY
DRMS REUSE & RECYCLING SINCE 1980
MAINTENANCE DEPOTS & WEAPONS PRODUCTION
FACILITIES ARE MAJOR PLAYERS
EMPHASIZING R&D/TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER
TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT IN SYSTEMS
ACQUISITION
— BASE LEVEL RCRA REGULATORY COMPLIANCE NEEDS
IMPROVEMENT
FEDERAL FACILITY COMPLIANCE AGREEMENTS
-------
POLLUTION ABATEMENT PROGRAMS
• CLEAN AIR — CURRENT CONCERNS
— INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITIES IN METROPOLITAN AREAS
— MILITARY SPECIFICATIONS & ENVIRONMENTAL
REQUIREMENTS
— FUELS/ENERGY RELATIONSHIP
— IMPACTS OF PENDING LEGISLATION
• CLEAN WATER & SAFE DRINKING WATER ISSUES
— RECENT AMENDMENTS, NEW REQUIREMENTS
— MORE SAMPLING & MONITORING
— STORMWATER DISCHARGE PERMITS
— PRE-TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS (TOXICS)
— LEAD BAN IN DRINKING WATER
• UNDERGROUND TANKS
— MONITORING/MODIFICATION/REPLACEMENT
• ASBESTOS — HIGHER FACILITY REPAIR COSTS
-------
DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL
RESTORATION PROGRAM
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS & WASTE
• CLEANS UP OLD SITES
• INITIATED LATE 70'S BY MILITARY SERVICES
• CERCLA (SUPERFUND) ENACTED 1980
• DERA (FY 84) — CENTRALIZED FUNDING
• SARA (1986) — ESTABLISHED DERP
• DERP SCOPE
— ACTIVE INSTALLATIONS
— FORMERLY USED/OWNED PROPERTY
— "THIRD PARTY" SITES
— SITE TYPES BROADER THAN EPA PROGRAM
-------
DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL
RESTORATION PROGRAM
PROGRAM ELEMENTS
• INSTALLATION RESTORATION PROGRAM
• OTHER HAZARDOUS WASTE OPERATIONS
• BUILDING DEMOLITION/DEBRIS REMOVAL
-------
DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL
RESTORATION PROGRAM
NPL SITE CLEANUP PROCEDURE
FEDERAL V
.FACILITIES^
) AGREEMENT
DoD
DPM
EPA
HRS
OPERATION
AND
IAINTENANCE
PA/SI
DISCOVERY
AND
NOTIFICATION
REMOVAL ACTION (IF NECESSARY)
NPL - NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST
DPM » DEFENSE PRIORITY MODEL
PA/51 - PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT/SITE INVESTIGATION
RI/FS - REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONfFEASIBILITY STUDY
RD/RA - REMEDIAL DESIGN/REMEDIAL ACTION
-------
DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL
RESTORATION PROGRAM
DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION PROGRAM
PROGRAM STATUS: SEPTEMBER 1988
897 INSTALLATIONS (49 ON OR PROPOSED FOR NPL)
8139 SITES
7711 PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENTS/SITE INSPECTIONS
1485 REMEDIAL INVESTIGATIONS/FEASIBILITY STUDIES
216 REMEDIAL ACTIONS
-------
DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL
RESTORATION PROGRAM
FORMERLY USED PROPERTIES - COE EXECUTIVE AGENT FOR DOD
— POTENTIAL PROPERTIES 7118
— SCREENING SURVEYS INITIATED 2815
— SURVEYS COMPLETED 849
— PROJECTS COMPLETED OR UNDERWAY:
IRP 76
BD/DR 94
UXO 4
-------
DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL
RESTORATION PROGRAM
CURRENT PROGRAM STATUS
• ALL MAJOR INSTALLATIONS ASSESSED TO IDENTIFY SITES
• MOST SITES UNDERGOING STUDY
• EXPECT REMEDIAL ACTIONS TO PEAK IN MID-1990'S
-------
DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL
RESTORATION PROGRAM
CURRENT EMPHASIS & CONCERNS
• INTERAGENCY AGREEMENTS (lAGs)
— EPA & STATES FOR NPL SITES
• DOD-STATE MEMORANDUMS OF AGREEMENT
• PRIORITIZATION OF CLEANUPS
— "WORST FIRST"
» REGULATORY GRIDLOCK
— RCRA/CERCLA CONFUSION
— STATE/FEDERAL JURISDICTION
• PERCEPTION OF RECALCITRANCE
-------
DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL
RESTORATION PROGRAM
500
400
$M 300
?P0
100
TOTAL PROGRAM ESTIMATE: $10-15 BILLION THROUGH 2010
FUNDING PROFILE
IRP 6UBELEMENT
1
I
I
FY84 FY85 FY86 FY87 FY88 FY89 FY90
-------
FUNDING ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS
• REQUIREMENTS CUT ACROSS ALL APPROPRIATIONS
• MAJOR COMPLIANCE FUND SOURCES
— MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
— OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE (REAL PROPERTY
MAINTENANCE ACCOUNT)
— DERA
• CURRENT ANNUAL INVESTMENTS — OVER $1 BILLION
DERA
MILCON
O&M FACILITY PROJECTS
R&D
NATURAL RESOURCES
ENVIRONMENTAL PERSONNEL SALARIES
HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL
$500M
$100M
$11OM
$ 30M
$ 35M
$200M
S100M
• INSTALLATION COMMANDERS NEED FLEXIBILITY OF O&M
FUNDING
— ENVIRONMENTAL PORTION NEEDS MORE VISIBILITY
-------
SUMMARY
• PROGRAM GETTING BIGGER & MORE COMPLEX
• INCREASING EMPHASIS & VISIBILITY
• REQUIRING MORE RESOURCES & MANAGEMENT EFFORT
• MISSION IMPACTS
— REGULATORS CAN SHUTDOWN OPERATIONS
— PUBLIC SUPPORT AT RISK
— TRAINING OPERATIONS & WEAPONS SYSTEMS BED-
DOWNS (GROWING CONCERN IN EUROPE TOO)
• OUR STRATEGY
— COMMUNICATE & COORDINATE
— BE SMART ON THE REQUIREMENTS AND BE SMART
MANAGERS
— INTEGRATE ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS INTO ALL
ASPECTS OF OUR ACTIVITIES
— PROVIDE FLEXIBILITY TO OUR FIELD COMMANDERS
-------
X-14
ACID DEPOSITION CONTROL
O EXISTING UNITS ALLOWANCE PROGRAM
1) ALLOWANCE IS A FEDERAL AUTHORIZATION TO EMIT A TON OF S02 OR NOx IN A YEAR
2) COVERED FACILITIES ARE PROHIBITED FROM EMITTING S02 OR NOx UNLESS
THE FACILITY HOLDS AN EQUIVALENT NUMBER OF ALLOWANCES
O PHASE I ALLOWANCES
1) CAN BE TRANSFERRED WITHIN A STATE
2) OR WITHIN AN INTERSTATE UTILITY COMPANY
O PHASE II ALLOWANCES
1) CAN BE TRANSFERRED AMONG SOURCES WITHIN TWO MULTISTATE REGIONS
2) NEW UNITS CAN TRADE WITH ANY ALLOWANCE HOLDER
O ALLOWANCES MAY BE TRANSFERRED AND BANKED IN BOTH PHASES
o NOx MAY BE TRADED FOR S02 AND VICE VERSA {EXCHANGE RATE 1.5 IDs NOx FOR 1 lb S02)
O SHUTDOWN - CAN TRANSFER ALLOWANCES
-------
X-12
TITLE IV—PERMITS
o EACH SOURCE WILL HAVE A COMPREHENSIVE PERMIT INDICATING ITS EMISSION LIMITS,AND
OTHER REQUIREMENTS
O PROVIDES FOR STATES OR INTERSTATE AGENCIES TO SUBMIT TO ADMINISTRATOR A
COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAM UNDER STATE LAW OR INTERSTATE COMPACT TO APPLY TO:
1) STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REQUIREMENTS
2} NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
3) EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
4) PSD AND NON-ATTAINMENT NEW SOURCE REVIEW
5) ACID DEPOSITION
O PATTERNED AFTER CLEAN WATER ACT NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
(NPDES) PERMIT PROGRAM
O EPA PROMULGATES REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE PROGRAM INCLUDING PERMIT FEES, PERMIT
APPLICATIONS, EMISSIONS AND COMPLIANCE MONITORING REPORTS AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
o PERMIT FEES TO COVER PROGRAM COSTS
O STATE REQUIRED TO SUBMIT APPROVABLE PROGRAM NOT LATER THAN 3 YEARS AFTER ENACTMENT
O EPA TO ACT ON PROGRAM THROUGH THE SIP PROCESS
O IF STATE DOES NOT SUBMIT AN APPROVABLE PROGRAM - ADMINISTRATOR MAY APPLY SANCTIONS
OR PROMULGATE FEDERAL PROGRAM
O PROVIDES FOR PARTIAL APPROVAL OR INTERIM APPROVAL (NOT TO EXCEED 2 YEARS)
O PROVIDES FOR GENERAL PERMITS WITHIN GEOGRAPHICAL AREA.
-------
X-13
TITLE V ACID DEPOSITION CONTROL
O GOAL OF 10 MILLION TONS SO2 AND 2 MILLION TONS NOX BY YEAR 2000
O A WORKABLE TRADING PROGRAM TO REDUCE COSTS AND ALLOW ECONOMIC GROWTH
WHILE MAINTAINING THE EMISSION REDUCTIONS ACHIEVED
O S02-PHASE I
1) LISTED SOURCES MUST MEET ANNUAL LIMIT AFTER DECEMBER 31, 1995
2) EXISTING UNITS - 100 MWE LIMITED TO TONNAGE EQUIVALENT OF 2.5 lbs/MMBTU EMISSION
RATE ON AN ANNUAL AVERAGE - DECEMBER 31, 1995
3) COMPLIANCE PLANS DUE 27 MONTHS AFTER ENACTMENT
4) 5 MILLION TONS
O S02-PHASE II
1) LISTED SOURCES MUST MEET PHASE II ANNUAL TONNAGE AFTER DECEMBER 31, 2000
2) UNITS - 75 MWE WITH EMISSION RATES - 1.2 lbs/MMBTU - RECEIVE ALLOWANCES EQUAL TO
THE PRODUCT OF 1.2 lbs/MMBTU TIMES ANNUAL AVERAGE FUEL CONSUMPTION
3) UNITS - 1.2 lbs/MMBTU, 7 5MWE REQUIRED TO EMIT AT RATE NO HIGHER THAN l'J85 ACTHA'.
4) COMPLIANCE PLANS DUE JANUARY 1, 1995
5) AN ADDITIONAL 5 MILLION TON REDUCTION
6) TOTAL EMISSION REDUCTIONS ACHIEVED ARE MAINTAINED
o NOx
1) ADMINISTRATOR WILL ESTABLISH EMISSION STANDARD SUFFICIENT TO REDUCE NOx
EMISSIONS BY 2 MILLION TONS BELOW PROJECTED YEAR 2000 EMISSIONS
O CLEAN COAL TECHNOLOGY
1) EXTENSION TO DECEMBER 31, 2003
O EXCESS EMISSIONS REPORT
1) EXCESS EMISSIONS FEE OF $2,000 PER EXCESS TON
2) CONTINUOUS EMISSION MONITORS (CEM) REQUIRED
3) EACH EXCESS TON A VIOLATION
-------
lEiBilFOllMi MS
llMsl
ALL T2ANSF0BMBES SISKIN SO HSTS2S OF COMKE2C1&1
BUILDINGS MUST MEET MB CERTAIN CBITSBSA
OB BE BEMOTED FBOM SEBTICS 3? OCT. 1, 1980.
NETWORK PCB THAN SFOBMEBS
WITH KIGHEB SECONDABY YOLATAGE9
4S@®/SW ?©!LEi)
hi wma usi @
-------
MMlfc IP01 EMlfilF©!:
B3U072D BY OCT, 1, 1930, 01 1QU2PPID
WITH FAULT FB0T2CTI0N D27ZC2S TO DSBN2BG3Z2
TH2 TB&NSF0BM2B CAUS2D BY HIGH CUBB2NT FAULTS
EAD1AL FOB TBAMSF0BM2BS WITH >4iO/2?? 70LTS ALSO
B2QUIB3 PB0T2CTI0N TO MOID SUSTAINED LOW
CUBB1NT FAULTS
-------
Wffil
L i©DS
TBAMSIOBIOBS MOT PB0TSCT3D MUST B3 B3GI5T3B2D WITH
THB 2P4 B2G10HAL AD10H13TBAT0B 51 OCT. 1,1990s i.a.
1. SPECIFIC L0CAT20M
2. ADDB2SS 07 BUI1DIMG AMD PHYSICAL LOCATION
8, TBAMSF0BM2B S2BIAL MUMBSB PB0TIB1D
-------
Mnwoiis p©i mimmmmmBm
Mwif B1 HM©fHIE) IPB©M §11W!
BY OCTOBER 1,1990
-------
PCB MANIFESTING &
NOTIFICATION BULE
MH? WEB
All PC8S SHIPPSD FOB DISPOSAL BSQUIBB MANZ7SSTS
DiClUSM WASTB < SO PPM AS A BBSUIT 0? DILUTION
ONI ran SHIPPBBS, OB SHIPPSBS without PCB stobagb
IACILITIIS MA? USX "40 C7B PA2T 7S1" IN
LOU 07 A PCS ID NUMBSB
(Ipei I® MilMll® "STSMk s 1@IM © TOEffiSSl MSSS 7IMT2S3 303S)
N0TI7I CATION 70BM fflt-M MUST B3 SUBMITTED FOB INITIAL
NUMBSB, OB TSBI7ICATI0N 0? BUSTING BCBA NUMB1B BT
1PMIL 4 li©©
-------
MANIFEST FOBMS AVAILABLE
FBOM STATE AGENCIES
fr>\ p. innvfr3 ""cl;'Zl •755Cu3f?if\in3 ipSrS ^"vTTS! ("^¦•^'"V'Hi '3 irfVj,rSi?3}¦'Si livLiny/Tvi
iy&i citiCS) Lr^isJSo iT^iS tfei35iia^ii2i»!©g. irWJy J.ciiL&iSJg J= 3
§I1WI©I0 1?M€JMB) MTO 3WIMME W EM !^S9
WMMET (EW) OW W
-------
COPIES OF THE M&MIF1ST
MUST BE GIVEN TO:
= ©©IP!
= ^M3£§IP©1S11
= f mmitoisi
= ©^ll/©ilMf©l ©f & if©!MS
MCTffilo ©1
©Ml &!!MfH©M!L @@>WI f © 11 llf'OMI1 f© SKI ©S
ra©sa hkii wm^ gf ©imh ifmhiliisi ©i M^iF©iii
-------
THE GENEBATOB MUST CONFIBM
BECE1PT OF PCB WASTE BY
CLOSE OF BUSINESS THE DAY
AFTEB HE BECE1VES THE SXONED
BITUBNED MANIFEST FBOM
THE DISPOSES
-------
& MMMlif Si If©f ®S©mlIlD) f ©1
w
<£i$ iFIPH (pM® &§ & HiyM ©f
SIHH IP5©! TOUSl HH HUM ff © I if ©M©! ©!
m^ip©^m MCnmRfs ©mip ©i ©pimsi© ii fm ©imiims©!
©B
SH$SI1S95 Off FOB ffiBSSM ASSD ISSiSSSf SfIS W SHTOC1
MA3N7SST DI8CBSPANC2S8 MUST BS BZ70S73S TO SPA
Bf COXXIBCIAL ST0111S AND SI8P08ZS8
-------
(g©S0Mii(gSMi iTOlllii M®P©gIli3 lull ll^iUJalllE)
TO SUBMIT ANNUAL DOCUMENT INFOBMATION TO TH3
BSGIOMAL ADMINI3TBATOB
if©lll^i Mif IPllMEfi S^UIDO®
©MOTESl IPMM f BlgP©Mg[[®IiIkSf 1 %/[I 2J© MI §
©f f US! MFFI©f II¥1 EMS ©f fill irai
HAUL2B8 MUST MIST THS SAMS BSQUIBSMSNTS AS STOBSBS
W PCBs ABS HSLD AT TBAN SPOBT ATION POINTS
OTSB 10 DATS
-------
FACTSHEET
FINAL NOTIFICATION AND MANIFESTING RULE FOR PCB WASTES
BACKGROUND
There has been increasing concern on the part of
Congressional oversight committees about certain aspects of EPA's
disposal program for polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) wastes. In
particular, the most frequently cited concerns are: (1) the lack
of an effective tracking system that would track PCB wastes in a
"cradle-to-grave" fashion; and (2) the lack of sufficient
oversight of the activities and qualifications of the PCB waste
brokers and other intermediate storers who may store the PCB
wastes owned by others.
SUMMARY OF THE FINAL RULE
This rule amends EPA's existing TSCA regulations for the
storage and disposal of PCBs. The first storage and disposal
regulations for PCBs were published in the FEDERAL REGISTER of
February 17, 1978 (43 FR 7150), and amended in part in a rule
which EPA published in the May 31, 1979 FEDERAL REGISTER (44 FR
31514). The amendments in this rule add to the TSCA disposal
regulations a PCB waste tracking system based on the RCRA model
for the tracking of hazardous wastes. At the heart of the
tracking system are the requirements that PCB waste handlers
(disposers, commercial storers, transporters, and generators with
PCB storage areas) notify EPA of their PCB waste activities, and
use the RCRA Uniform Manifest in connection with their shipments
of regulated PCB wastes.
Second, this rule adds to the existing PCB storage facility
standards a requirement that commercial storers of PCB wastes
obtain written approvals from the EPA Regional Administrators.
The issuance of these commercial storer approvals would be
conditioned on an evaluation of the applicant's qualifications to
engage in the business of PCB waste storage, and the submission
of closure plans and proof of financial responsibility for proper
closure of PCB storage areas. Environmental compliance histories
will also be included in the evaluation.
In addition, the rule includes additional recordkeeping and
reporting requirements that will complete the PCB waste tracking
function, as well as facilitate EPA's enforcement of the PCB
disposal regulations.
For further information contact the TSCA Hotline at 202-554-1404.
-------
NOTES
1. California - flegolates <5« ppo/PCB for handling dow to 5 ppn.
2. Connecticut - Manifest not required but is recoonefided.
3. Delaware - Cat issie tmporarr mnbers, if required.
4. Florida - Caa issoe to^orary nmbers, if required.
- Retires notification froa TSDf ft annual reports.
5. 6eorgia - Requires transporter have ID I.
6. Idaho - Transporters of PCB wastes Mst purchase a trip perait.
7. lllioois - PC8s are a special waste, not ROJA ha:ardo«s. Requires out of state.generators to get an Illinois Ben.
ID! if shipping into Illinois k TSOF's out of state if receiving Illinois waste.
8. Maine - Mar traosport PCS waste witkout a manifest if rot are transporting the waste to a facility with ai
approved PCS plan owed by the generator of the uaste. <500 ppa tra/isforaers are treated as PCS waste
and require the ese of a nanifest when shipping for disposal unless triple rinsed.
9. Missouri - State Uaste Code Listing:
MOO] Mineral oil dielectric fluid containing equal to or greater than 50 ppa PCBs but less thai 500
ppa PCSs.
M002 PCS contaninated electrical eqsipnent with dielectric fluid.
M8J3 PCS contaninated electrical equipaent that has been drained of all free-flowing liquids.
M004 Dielectric fluid containing greater than 560 ppa PCSs.
MM5 PCS Transforaers with dielectric fluid.
MOO & PCS Transforaers that have been drained of all free-flcuing liquids.
M807 PCS Transforaers that have been flushed with solvent as prescribed in 40 CFR 761.60
-------
II. New Jerser
• State Uaste Code Listing:
X727 Uute oil fron the draiaiog, cleaning or disposal of electric Iransforners.
X73# PCS coetaniuted liquids cootaieing 51 ppn or nore by weight of PC8s.
X7S1 PCS contaninated solids containing 51 ppn or nore of PCSs br wight.
X732 Drained electrical, hrdraulic, or other eqiipnent wfiicb contained liquids with 50 ppn or
•ore of PCSs br weigit.
X753 [Mdrained elKtrical, hrdraolic or other rquipneet containing liquids with 50 ppn or aore 50 ppn the Federal Regulations take effect.
- <90 ppn uaste handled as >50 waste is aot regulated br the state.
- <51 ppn transformers not regelated, if rinsed.
- Uaste Code W, Daigeroos Uaste.
- PCBs require a special tracking fort, not a nanifest.
- PCSs are regelated fron 5-10 ppn range fc up, as a special uaste.
- Is writing PCB reflations due oat Spring 1990.
- Unifon nanifest supplied br TSDF.
-------
STATE PCB REQUIREMENTS (continued)
Are PC8s
Does State
Is a
Federal or
Requiraents
a State
Have a
Manifest
State 6eoerator
State Uaste
For Processes
State
Uasti?
Manifest?
Required?
1M
Codes?
or Facilities?
Notei
Sooth Dakota
Regulations on PCS due out in DKober
, 198?.
Tennessee
No
No
No
No
No
No
Texas
No
Yes
Yes
Yes '
Yes
Yes
114
Utah
No.
No
No
¦ No
No
No
Veraoot
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
VTOl
Yes
f!5
Virginia
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Hi
Washington
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
DU
Yes
117
Uest Virginia
No
No
No
No
No
No
Uiscoasin
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
118
Uyoaing
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
»1?
District of Colisbia
No
No
No
No
No
No
-------
STATE PCB REQUIREMENTS
Are PC8s
Does State
Is a
Federal or
Reqviroents
a State
Have a
Manifest
State Generator
SUte Waste
For Processes
State
.Waste?
Manifest?
Required?
IDI
Codes?
or Facilities?
Notei
Alabaa
No
No
No
No
No
No
125
Alaska
No
No
No
No
No
No
Arizona
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Arkansas
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
PC8s
No
California
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
261-S k 731-i
Yes
HI
Colorado
No
No
No
No
No
No
Connecticut
Yes
No
Na/Reccanended
No
6004
No
12
Delaware^
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
13
Florida '
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
14
Georgia
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
15
Hawaii
No
No
No
No
No
No
Idaho
No
No
No
No
No
No
16
Illinois
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
17
Indiana
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
low
No
No
No
No
No
No
Kansas
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Kentucky
No
No
No
No
No
No
Louisiana
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
Maine
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
M002
Yes
its
Maryland
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
M001
Yes
Massachusetts
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
mt>2
No
Michigan
No
Yes
Yes
No
0261
No
Minnesota
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
W03
Yes
Mississippi
No
No
No
No
No
No
hissouri
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
»?
Montana
No
No
No
No
No
No
Nebraska
No
No
No
No
No
No
Nevada
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
110
Nn Hupshire
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
New Jersey
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
111
New Mexico
No
No
No
No
No
No
New York
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
1112
North Carolina
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
North Dakota
No
No
No
No
No
No
Olio
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Oklahma
No
No
No
No
No
No
Oregon
No
No
No
No
X002
Yes
Pennsylvania
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
113
Rhode Island
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
R007
Yes
South Carolina
No
Yes
No
No
No.
No
-------
PCB NOTIFICATION AND MANIFESTING RULE
TIMELINE FOR SUBMITTING NOTIFICATIONS AND COMMERICAL STORAGE APPLICATIONS
FR
I'ubl icat ion
DeCy 21
Day
44
Feb. 5
/
Day
104
Apr.
/
Day
164
June
/
Day
224
Aug
/
Not i f icat ions
Submi 11 ed
/
Notifications Processed -- New Numbers
Issued and Old Numbers Verified
Interim Approval for Existing Commercial Storage
Facilities Pending Receipt of "Complete* Application
Within the 180 Day Timeframe (or by Day 224)
Also
Review is Initiated of Any Applications Received
During this Timeframe
/
LEGEND:
Da y
44 =
Ef f ec
Day
104 =
End o
Subrn
Day
164 =
End o
EPA
Day
224 =
End o
Subm
tive Date of Rule
f 60 Day Timeframe for
ission of Notifications
f 120 Day Timeframe for
to Process Notifications
f 180 Day Timeframe for
ission of Storage Applications
Interim Approval Continued for
Commercial Storers who Sub-
mitted Complete Applications;
Approval Continues Until
Region "Approves" or "Denies"
Applica t ion
-------
REMOVAL OF PCB TRANSFORMERS
BY OCTOBER 1. 1990
The July 1, 1990 publication of the 40 C.F.R. §761 addresses the
removal of PCB Transformers by October 1, 1990. This
publication is very specific concerning the location of the PCB
Transformers to be removed.
In 40 C.F.R. §761.3 the following definitions are founds
1. "In or Near Commercial Buildings" means within the
interior of, on the roof of, attached to the exterior
wall of, in the parking area serving, or within 30
meters of a non-industrial non-substation building.
Commercial buildings are typically accessible to the
members of the general public and employees, and
include: (1) public assembly properties, (2)
educational properties, (3) institutional properties,
(4) residential properties, (5) stores, (6) office
buildings, and (7) transportation centers (e.g.,
airport terminal buildings, subway stations, bus
stations, or train stations).
2. "Industrial building" means a building directly used in
manufacturing or technically productive enterprises.
Industrial buildings are not generally or typically
accessible to other than workers. Industrial buildings
include buildings used directly in the production of
power, the manufacture of products, the mining of raw
materials, and the storage of textiles, petroleum
products, wood and paper products, chemicals, plastics,
and metals.
These definitions should be used in determing the classification
of a facility. For an industrial classification, the October 1,
1990 deadline for the removal of PCB Transformers does not
apply. However, if the facility is classified as commercial,
then the following gives a brief synopsis of the requirements.
For complete information, refer to 40 CFR §761.
1. Radial PCB Transformers - By October 1. 1990. those in
use in or near commercial buildings must be equipped
with electrical protection to avoid transformer
ruptures caused by high current faults, and utilize
current-limiting fuses or other equivalent technology
to detect sustained high current faults and provide for
complete deenergization of the transformer.
-------
-2-
2. Lower Secondary Voltage Network PCB Transformers -
{secondary voltages below 480 volts) - By October 1.
1990. those not located in sidewalk vaults in or near
commercial buildings must be equipped with electrical
protection to avoid transformer ruptures caused by high
current faults, and utilize current-limiting fuses or
other equivalent technology to detect sustained high
current faults and provide for complete deenergization
of the transformer.' By October .1, 1990, those
transformers that have not been protected as described
above, must be registered with the EPA Regional
Administrator in the appropriate region. These must be
removed from service by October 1, 1993. The
information provided by the owner of the transformers,
prior to October 1. 1990. must include: (1) the
specific location of the PCB Transformer(s); (2) the
address(es) of the building(s) and the physical
location of the PCB Transformer(s) on the building
site(s); (3) the identification number(s) of the PCB
Transformer(s).
3. Lower Secondary Voltage Network PCB Transformers -
(secondary voltages below 480 volts) - By October 1,
1993. those located in sidewalk vaults in use in or
near commercial buildings must be removed from service.
4. Radial PCB Transformers with Higher Secondary Voltages
- (secondary voltages of 480 volts and above, including
480/277 volt systems) - By October 1, 19 90. those in
use in or near commercial buildings must be equipped
with electrical protection to avoid transformer
ruptures caused by sustained low current faults, and
utilize current-limiting fuses or other equivalent
technology to detect sustained high current faults and
provide for complete deenergization of the transformer.
5. Network PCB Transformers with Higher Secondary Voltages
- (secondary voltages equal to or greater than 480
volts, including 480/277 volt systems) - By October 1.
1990. those in use in or near commercial buildings is
prohibited. Network PCB Transformers with higher
secondary voltages which are removed from service in
accordance with this requirement must either be
reclassified to PCB Contaminated or non PCB status,
placed into storage for disposal, or disposed.
-------
REGION IV - State Contacts
Underground Storage Tank Program
Ms. Sonja Massey, Chief (202) 271-7832
Ground-Water Section
AL Dept. of Environmental Management
1751 Congressman William Dickerson Dr.
Montgomery, Alabama 36130
Mr. Marshall Mott-Smith (904) 488-0300
Environmental Administrator
Storage Tank Regulation Section
FL Dept. of Environmental Regulation
Twin Towers Office Building
2600 Blair Stone Road
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
Mr. Randy Williams (404) 669-3927
Program Manager
Industrial Waste Management Program
Environmental Protection Division
3420 Norman Berry Drive
Hapeville, Georgia 30354
Ms. Joan Cullen-Lollis (502) 564-6716
Chief, UST Section
Hazardous Waste Branch
KY Dept. of Environmental Protection
Fort Boone Plaza, Building #2
18 Reilly Road
Frankfort, Kentucky 40601
John Harper, UST Coordinator (601) 961-5142
MS Dept. of Environmental Quality
Bureau of Pollution Control
P. 0. Box 10385
Jackson, Mississippi 39209
-------
-2-
Ms. Ann Borden, Chief (919) 733-8486
Pollution Control Branch
Groundwater Section
Division of Environmental Management
NC Dept. of Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
P. 0. Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Mr. Raymond Knox, Director (803) 734-5332
Ground-Water Protection Division
SC Dept. of Health and Environmental Control
2600 Bull Street
Columbia, South Carolina 29201
Mr. Chuck Head, Manager (615) 741-4081
Underground Storage Tank Program
TN Dept. of Health and Environment
Division of Superfund
Cordell Hull Bldg., Third Floor
Nashville, Tennessee 37219
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Solid Waste And
Emergency Response
December
1989
Office of Underground Storage Tanks (QS-420)
SB>A UPDATE
on ordering underground storage
tank documents, audiovisual
programs, and computer software
Because of the overwhelming demand for Musts for USTs
and Dollars and Sense (EPA's plain-English overviews of
the final Federal regulations), we've identified an improved
method of supplying these two publications. They are now
available through the U.S. Government Printing Office.
Ordering information is as follows:
Musts for USTs
A Summary of the New Regulations for Underground
Storage Tank Systems
Stock No. 055-000-00294-1
$2.50 each (includes postage and handling)
Dollars and Sense
A Summary of the Financial Responsibility Regulations
for Underground Storage Tank Systems
Stock No. 055-000-00293-2
$1.25 each (includes postage and handling)
Address to:
Superintendent of Documents
U.S. Government Printing Office
Washington, D.C. 20402
(202)783-3238
Methods of Payment:
Visa Or MasterCard by phone or mail (Include account no. and expiration date)
Prepay by check or money order
Inside on page 2 we provide ordering information for Publications,
Audiovisual Programs, and Computer Software which are available
from sources other than EPA. On page 3 we include a publications
list and order form for those documents which are available from
EPA's Office of Underground Storage Tanks.
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
AVAILABLE FROM SOURCES OTHER THAN EPA
Publications
lean up of Releases from Petroleum LIST*: Selected Technologies
Stock No. 055-000-00272-0 $7.50
Processes Affecting Subsurface Transport of Leaking Underground
Tank Fluids
Stock No. 055-000-00269-0 $3.25
Survey of Vendors of External Petroleum Leak Monitoring Devices
for Use with USTs
Slock No. 055-000-00277-1 $4.25
Petroleum Tank Releasee Under Control: A Compendium of Current
Practices for State UST Inspectors
Stock No. 055-000-00295-9 $8.50
Order From: Superintendent of Documents
U.S. Government Printing Office
Washington, D.C. 20402
<202) 783-3238
Soil Gas Sensing for Detection and Mapping of Volatile Organica
Catalog No. 49 $38.00/member; $46.75/non-member
Order From: National Water Well Association
P.O. Box 182039, DeptOI7
Columbus. OH 43218
(614) 761-1711
Evaluation of Volumetric Leek Detection Methods for
Underground Fuel Storage Tanks
Volume 1. No. PB89-124333 $39.95
Volume 2. No. PB39-124341 $76.95
Order From: National Technical Information Service
5285 Port Royai Road
Springfield, VA 22161
(703) 487-4600
Audiovisual Programs
"Tank Closure Without Tears: An Inspector's Safety Guide"
Purchase: Video and booklet $25.00 prepaid
Booklet only $ 5.00 prepaid
Order From: New England Interstate Water Pollution
Control Commission
Ann: VIDEOS
85 Memmac Street
Boston. MA 02114
Loan: Video and bookie) $5.00 prepaid
Order From: New England Regional
Wastewater Institute
2 Fort Road
South Portland, ME 04106
"Doing It Right" (Proper installation of underground tanks and piping
for installation crews.)
Purchase: Video $16.00 prepaid
Order From: American Petroleum Institute
1220 L Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005
or (next column)
Petroleum Equipment Institute
Box 2380
Tulsa, OK 74101
"A Question of When: Tank Installation for Inspectors"
pipe installation with a checklist for inspectors.)
(Tank and
"In Your Own Backyard" (What tank owners should require from
installation contractors.)
Purchase: Videos $22.85 each prepaid
Order From: National Fine Protection Association
Attn: Jim Smalley
Battery march Park
Quincy, MA 02269
"Managing Underground Storage Tanks" (An Action Plan)
Purchase: 185 Slide Presentation $120.00
Order From: National Audiovisual Center
Customer Services Secbon/WD
8700 Edgeworth Drive
Capitol Heights. M0 20743-3701
(301) 763-1891
Computer Software
Reg-ln-A-Box personal computer (PC) software is an aid to understand-
ing and working with the Federal UST regulations. Easy to use and
available for PC-compatibles or Macintosh computers with hard disk
drives. Not copy protected.
Order PC-Compailbles From:
Public Brand Software
$5.00 plus shipping and handling
1-800-426-3475 (24 hours a day)
(317) 856-7571 (in Indiana)
Visa and MasterCard accepted
NTERGAID Computer Bulletin
Board (203) 366-5698 (modem)
EcoNet (subscription telecomputing)
(415)923-0900
Order Apple Macintosh From:
Budgetbytas Software
$3.50 plus shipping and handling
1-800-356-3551 (8 a.m. to 6 p.m., CST)
Visa and MasterCard accepted
EcoNet (subscription telecomputing)
(415)923-0900
2
-------
AVAILABLE FROM EPA'S
OFFICE OF UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS
General Information oboermo.
Notification for Underground Storage Tanks: EPA Form 7530-1 (Revised 9-88) 5
Hazardous Substance List 7
LUSTLINE Bulletin 10
OUST Publications List 25
Managing Underground Storage Tanks 40
"Oh No! Leaks and Spills!" - First Response (brochure) 73
Leak Lookout (External Leak Detectors) 74
Introducing REG-1N-A-BOX (ordering flier) 84
Regulations
Notification of Requirements for Owners of Underground Storage Tanks; Final Rule
40 CFR Part 280 (Federal Register 11/8/85) 3
Underground Storage Tanks: Technical Requirements and State Program Approval; Final Rules
40 CFR Parts 280 & 281 (Federal Register Part II 9/23/88) 4A
Underground Storage Tanks Containing Petroleum; Financial Responsibility Requirements and
State Program Approval Objective; Final Rule 40 CFR Parts 280 & 281 (Federal Register Part I110/26/88),
Underground Storage Tanks Containing Petroleum; Financial Responsibility Requirements; Interim Final
Rule 40 CFR Part 280 (Federal Register 11/9/89) 4B
Hazardous Waste; Interim Prohibition Against Installation of Unprotected Underground
Storage Tanks; Inlerpretive Rule 40 CFR Part 280 (Federal Register 6/4/86) 17
Subtitle I. Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984; RCRA 21
Underground Storage Tanks Containing Hazardous Substances; Financial Responsibility Requirements; Advance
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 40 CFR Part 280 (Federal Register 2/9/88) 35
Underground Storage Tanks; Financial Responsibility Requirements for Petroleum Tank Systems;
Supplement to Proposed Rule, Request for Comments. Underground Storage Tanks; Availability
of Information and Request for Comments 40 CFR Parts 280 & 281 (Federal Register 3/31/88) 36
Technical Reports
Causes of Release From UST Systems 32
Volumetric Tank Testing (Summary of Edison Study) 34B
Tank Corrosion Study 42
Estimating Air Emissions from Petroleum UST Cleanups 88
Detecting Leaks. Successful Methods Step-by-Step 92
Order Form
Organization:
Street:
City: State: Zip:
Telephone: ( )
[ ] Please put my name on your mailing list;
I don't need any publications at this time.
[ ] Please put my name on your mailing list and
send me the following publications:
3 4A 4B 5 7 10 17 21 25 32
34B 35 36 40 42 73 74 84 88 92
Please return this order form to:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Olfice of Underground Storage Tanks
P.O. Box 6044
Rockville, MD 20850
3
12/89
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Underground Storage Tanks
Washington, D.C. 20460
EPA/530/UST-88/008
September 1988
&ERA Musts for USTs
-------
PAGE 40
ORGANIZATIONS TO CONTACT FOR TANK INFORMATION
ACT -- Association for Composite Tanks
108 North State Street
Suite 720
Chicago, IL 60602
(301) 355-1307 (for information requests)
API -- American Petroleum Institute
1220 L Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 682-8000
Fiberglass Petroleum Tank and
Pipe Institute
One SeaGate, Suite 1001
Toledo, OH 43604
(419) 247-5412
NACE - National Association of Corrosion
Engineers
Box 218340
Houston, TX 77218
(713) 492-0535
NFPA - National Fire. Protection Association
Batterymarch Park
Quincy, MA 02269
(617) 770-3000
NLPA - National Leak Prevention Association
P.O. Box 29809
Cincinnati, OH 45229
(513) 281-7693
1 -(800)-543-1838
PEI - Petroleum Equipment Institute
Box 2380
Tulsa/OK 74101
(918) 743-9941
Steel Tank Institute
P.O. Box 4020
Northbrook, IL 60065
(312) 498-1980
US GOVERNMENT PJUNTIN'G OFFICE i9e<9 - &::-6l8 - lJO:,'100a6
-------
REGULATIONS FOR ESTABLISHING
AN ADMINISTRATIVE
RECORD UNDER SECTION 113(k) OF CERCLA
REMEDIAL ACTIONS
-------
General Requirement
Lead agency must establish an administrative record that contains
the documents that form the basis for the selection of a response
action,
Documents considered or relied on by decision maker
For all response actions taken under Section 104 of CERCLA, or
ordered administratively or judicially under Section 106 of
CERCLA
-------
Purpose of an Administrative Record
1. Judicial review of issues concerning the adequacy or the response
action is limited to the administrative record
show, based on administrative record, that the Agency ?vas not arbitrary and capricious or
otherwise not in accordance with administrative law
vast improvement over pre-SARA jestions of scope of judicial review
2. Vehicle for public participation in the selection of the response action
statute requires that the Agency promulgate regulations establishing procedures for
appropriate participation of interested persons in the development of the administrative
record
early availability of the record file ensures this public participation
-------
sections of Regulations
300.800 Establishment of an administrative record
300.805 Location of the administrative record
300.810 Contents of the administrative record
300.815 Administrative record for a remedial action
300.820 Administrative record for a removal action
300.825 Record requirements after decision document is signed
-------
Contents of the Administrative Record
Remedials
Factual information/data
Preliminary assessment (PA) report
Site investigation (SI) report
Approved remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) work plan
Amendments to final work plan
Sampling and analysis plan (SAP): consisting of a quality assurance project plan (QAPP)
and a field sampling plan (FSP)
Validated sampling and analysis data
Chainof-custody forms
Inspection forms
Summary of remedial action alternatives (used in conjunction with early special notice
letters)
Data summary sheets
Technical studies
Endangerment assessment/risk assessment
RI/FS
Data submitted by the public, including PRPs
-------
Policy and Guidance
Memoranda on policy decisions (site-specific, issue-specific)
Guidance documents
Technical literature
Public Participation
Community relations plan
Proposed plan
Public notices (concerning response action selection)
Documentation of public meetings
Public comments
Transcripts of public meetings
Responses to significant comments
Responses to State and other federal agency comments
-------
Enforcement Documents
(Relevant to the response selection)
Administrative orders
Consent decrees
Affidavits containing relevant factual information
Notice letters to PRPs
Responses to notice letters
Section 104(e) information request letters and subpoenas
Responses to Section 104(e) requests
Other Information
Record file index
Documentation of State involvement
ATSDR health assessments
Natural resource trustee findings of fact and assessment reports
Bridge documents
Decision Documents
Record of decision (ROD), including responsiveness summary
Explanations of significant differences
Amended ROD
-------
COMPENDIUM OF CERCLA
RESPONSE SELECTION
GUIDANCE DOCUMEN1S FOR
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORDS
-------
Definition of Compendium
Guidance documents relied upon in selecting a response action
Contains only guidance documents frequently used in selecting
response action
Available to the public at central location
-------
Purpose of Compendium
1. For development of administrative records -
Reduces burden of copying and storage
Allows for easy access by the public and EPA staff
2. As information source/reference library for selection of response
action -
Centralizes the core policy and guidance documents relied upon most often during
remedial or removal action selection
-------
Compendium Subject Categories
Pre-remedial
Removal Action
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs)
Water Quality
Risk Assessment
Cost Analysis
Community Relations
Enforcement
Selection of Remedy/Decision Documents
-------
Special Concerns
Public Availability: Remedials
Publish a notice of availability of the record file when available,
when the remedial investigation begins
Record file available at a central regional location and at or near
the site
Publish a notice of public comment period on proposed plan and
record when RI/FS and proposed plan are completed
Provide a formal 30-day comment period on the RI/FS proposed
plan and record
Provide opportunity for public meetings and keep transcripts
Prepare a discussion of any significant changes and a response
to all significant comments
Publish a notice of availability of the ROD
-------
Special Concerns
Public Comments
Administrative record must document opportunities for public
involvement in the selection of a response action
Record file must contain relevant information brought to the
Agency's attention by the public
Responses to early comments - optional
Comments received during the formal public comment period
must be addressed in the responsiveness summary
Responsiveness summary must be responsive
Responses to late comments
-------
Special Concerns
Challenges to Record
Evidence of imminent and substantial endangerment
Ignored important information - record not complete
Include submissions by PRPs, public, other agencies
Include responses to comments
Insufficient opportunity to participate in development of record
Evidence of public participation
Decision arbitrary and capricous
Evidence that the decision is not inconsistent with the NCP
Bridge documents explaining differences of opinion or
contradictory data
State challenges
Evidence of State participation
Documentation of ARAR determinations
-------
NCP Issues
Contents of the record
Availability of the record file at the start of the remedial
investigation
Application of Subpart I regulations to state-lead sites
Location of the record
Exemption of documents from at or near the site location
Public participation requirements
Supplementing the record
Scope of judicial review
«»106 injunctive actions
endangerment assessments
cost expenditures
-------
Other Records
De Minimis settlements
Record for cost expenditures-cost recovery
Record for § 106(b) petitions
-------
EPA7540/G-88/002
OSWER Directive 9230.0-3B
June 1988
Community Relations in Superfund:
A Handbook
Interim Version
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
NOTICE . ii
PREFACE iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS x
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION: COMMUNITY RELATIONS IN SUPERFUND 1-1
1.1 The Program and Its Objectives 1-1
1.2 Background 1-2
1.3 How to Use this Handbook 1-3
CHAPTER 2: COMMUNITY RELATIONS REQUIREMENTS AND POLICIES 2-1
2.1 Requirements for Removal Actions 2-2
2.2 Requirements for Remedial Responses 2-10
2.3 Requirements for Additions of Sites to the
National Priorities List (NPL) 2-14
2.4 Requirements for Deletion of Sites from the
National Priorities List (NPL) 2-14
2.5 Requirements for the Superfund Innovative
Technology Evaluation (SITE) Program 2-15
CHAPTER 3: CONDUCTING COMMUNITY INTERVIEWS AND DESIGNING
COMMUNITY RELATIONS PROGRAMS FOR REMEDIAL RESPONSES 3-1
3.1 Planning and Conducting Community Interviews 3-1
3.2 Designing Community Relations Programs 3-7
3.3 Community Relations for SITE Demonstration
Projects 3-14
CHAPTER 4: CONDUCTING COMMUNITY RELATIONS PROGRAMS DURING
REMEDIAL RESPONSES 4-1
4.1 Community Relations Before Remedial Investigation 4-1
4.2 Community Relations During Remedial Investigation/
Feasibility Study (RI/FS) 4-5
4.3 Community Relations at the Conclusion of Feasibility
Study ; 4-7
4.4 Community Relations Before and During Remedial Design ... 4-13
4.5 Community Relations During Remedial Action 4-14
4.6 Community Relations During Operation and Maintenance .... 4-15
4.7 Community Relations During the National Priorities
List (NPL) Deletion Process 4-16
4.8 Coping with Unanticipated Developments 4-17
4.9 Summary 4-18
CHAPTER 5: COMMUNITY RELATIONS DURING REMOVAL ACTIONS (Reserved) ..... 5-1
vi
-------
TART* of CONTESTS
(continued)
Page
CHAPTER 6: COMMUNITY RELATIONS REGARDING ADMINISTRATIVE
RECORDS AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS (Reserved) 6-1
CHAPTER 7: TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE (Reserved) 7-1
CHAPTER 8: INTERAGENCY COORDINATION 8-1
8.1 Federal, State, and Local Agency Roles in Superfund 8-2
8.2 Federally-Owned Facilities 8-3
8.3 Interagency Coordination at Federal-Lead Sites 8-4
8.4 Interagency Coordination at State-Lead Sites 8-5
8.5 Interagency Coordination at Enforcement Sites 8-5
CHAPTER 9: ADMINISTRATION OF COMMUNITY RELATIONS PROGRAMS 9-1
9.1 The Role of Headquarters and Regional Offices. 9-1
9.2 Appropriate Tasks for Contractors 9-1
9.3 Managing Contractor Support 9-2
APPENDIX A: EXAMPLES OF COMMUNITY RELATIONS ACTIVITIES A-l
A.l Briefings A-3
A. 2 Community Interviews A-5
A. 3 Contact Person A-9
A.4 Door-to-Door Canvassing A-11
A. 5 Exhibits A-13
A.6 Fact Sheets A-15
A.7 Formal Public Hearings A-17
A. 8 Information Respository A-19
A. 9 News Conferences A-22
A. 10 News Releases A-24
A. 11 Observation Deck A-27
A. 12 On-Scene Information Office A-29
A. 13 Open Houses A-31
A. 14 Presentations A-33
A. 15 Public Comment Period •. A-35
A. 16 Public Meetings A-37
A. 17 Public Notices A-40
A.18 Responsiveness Summaries A-42
A.19 Revision of Community Relations Plans A-43
A. 20 Site Tours A-44
A.21 Small Group Meetings A-46
A. 22 Superfund Briefing Book A-49
A.23 Technical Advisor A-51
A. 24 Telephone Contacts A-52
A. 25 Telephone Hotline A-55
A.26 Telephone Network/Phone Tree A-57
vii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)
Page
A.27 Translations A-59
A.28 Using Existing Groups/Publications A-62
A.29 Workshops A-64
APPENDIX B: SUGGESTED FORMAT FOR AND SAMPLE COMMUNITY RELATIONS
PLAN B-l
I. Suggested Format B-l
II. Sample Plan B-4
APPENDIX C: SUGGESTED FORMAT FOR AND SAMPLE RESPONSIVENESS
SUMMARIES .. C-l
I. Suggested Format C-l
II. Sample Responsiveness Summary C-2
APPENDIX D: GLOSSARY D-l
APPENDIX E: REFERENCES .. E-l
APPENDIX F: KEY CONTACTS FOR THE SUPERFUND COMMUNITY RELATIONS
PROGRAM F-l
APPENDIX G: PROPOSED COMMUNITY RELATIONS AND ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD
REQUIREMENTS FOR REMOVALS G-l
viii
-------
WHAT IS A HAZARDOUS WASTE?
TWO MECHANISMS BY WHICH WASTES BECOME HAZARDOUS
1. LISTED BY SPECIFIC NAME OR PROCESS GENERATING THE WASTE
2- HAZARDOUS BY CHARACTERISTIC
0 IGMITABLE (FLASH < 140° f)
0 REACTIVE (EXPLOSIVE OR REACTS VIOLENTLY WITH AIR/WATER)
0 CORROSIVE (2 12.5)
0 EP TOXIC (LEACHATE EXTRACTION > SET HEAVY METALS a PESTICIDES)
SEVERAL MEHCANISMS TO EXEMPT
0 DELISTING
0 WASTE WATEK/MPDES EXEMPTION
0 POTW/DOMESTIC SEWAGE EXEMPTION
WHAT IS RCRA?
0 RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT (1976)
- CRADLE TO GRAVE MANAGEMENT OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
- INTERIM AND PERMIT STANDARDS FOR TREATMENT, STORAGE, AND
DISPOSAL FACILITIES (TSDs)
- MARKING, MANIFESTING, AND RECORD KEEPING STANDARDS FOR
GENERATORS AND TRANSPORTERS OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
0 HAZARDOUS AND SOLID WASTE AMENDMENTS OF 1984 (HSWA)
- ESTABLISHED CORRECTIVE ACTION REQUIREMENTS FOR SOLID WASTE
MANAGEMENT UNITS (SWMUs)
- ESTABLISHED THE LAND DISPOSAL RESTRICTIONS
- ESTABLISHED THE UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK (UST) PROGRAM
- SET DEADLINES FOR ISSUING TSD PERMITS
-------
RCRA ADMINISTRATION
BASE RCRA SUBSTANTIALLY DELEGATED TO THE STATES TO ADMINISTER
FEW STATES DELEGATED HSWA AUTHORITY
RESULTS IN TWO REGULATORY ENTITIES MANAGING RCRA PROGRAM
STATE ROLE
BASIC RCRA PROGRAM
ANNUAL INSPECTION OF ALL FEDERALLY OWNED OR OPERATED TSD FACILITIES
ISSUANCE OF ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS TO COMPEL COMPLIANCE - PENALTIES
STILL A QUESTION
MAY PENALIZE GOVERNMENT CONTRACTORS
ISSUANCE OF BASIC RCRA PERMIT TO OPERATE
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AS APPROPRIATE
INPUT TO A-106 PROCESS
EPA ROLE
OVERSEE STATES TO ASSURE TIMELY AND APPROPRIATE ENFORCEMENT/
CORRECTION OF VIOLATIONS
INITIATE ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS WHERE STATE HAS BEEN UNABLE OR
UNWILLING TO ACT OR LACKS AUTHORITY
MAY PENALIZE GOVERNMENT CONTRACTORS
OVERSEE STATE PERMITS TU FEDERAL TSDs
ISSUE CORRECTIVE ACTION PORTION OF PERMIT WHERE APPROPRIATE
ISSUE CORRECTIVE ACTION ORDERS TO FEDERAL TSDs WHERE APPROPRIATE
PROVIDE INPUT TO A-106 PROCESS
PROVIDE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE WHERE APPROPRIATE
-------
KEY ENFORCEMENT PRIORITIES
BASIC COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS TO MINIMIZE RELEASES OR MIS-HANDLING
OF WASTE
COMPLIANCE WITH LAND BAN
IMPLEMENTING CORRECTIVE ACTION FOR PAST RELEASES
ENCOURAGING WASTE MINIMIZATION
EPA ENFORCEMENT ACTION
FOLLOWS "YELLOW BOOK" STRATEGY
INFORMAL NOTICES OF VIOLATION FOR MINOR INFRACTIONS (NOV)
FORMAL ACTION BEGINS WITH A NOTICE OF NON-COMPLIANCE (NON) WHICH
- IDENTIFIES THE VIOLATION
- EXPLAINS HOW THE VIOLATION WAS DETECTED
- WHAT NEEDS TO BE CORRECTED (NOT HOW)
- REQUIREMENT FOR A WRITTEN RESPONSE AND DATE FOR A SETTLEMENT
CONFERENCE
- CONTAINS ENFORCEMENT LANGUAGE OR CITIZEN SUITS, PRESIDENTIAL
EXEMPTIONS, INDIVIDUAL CIVIL/CRIMINAL LIABILITIES
SECOND PHASE OF FORMAL ACTION IS FEDERAL FACILITY COMPLIANCE
AGREEMENT (FFCA)
ESSENTIALLY A CONSENT AGREEMENT ON FIXES, SCHEDULES, DISPUTE
RESOLUTIONS, ENFORCEABILITY CLAUSES
MUST BE NEGOTIATED AND SIGNED WITHIN 120 DAYS OF ISSUANCE OF THE
NON OR ELEVATED TO HQ
ELEVATION NORMALLY REQUIRES A PRESS RELEASE
-------
EPA TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
RCRA HOTLINE (800) 424-9346 OR (202) 382-3000
A-106 SUBMISSIONS
REGIONAL OFFICE OF FEDERAL ACTIVITIES (OFA) (REGION IV - ART
AT (404) 347-3776
FEDERAL FACILITIES SECTION
BEVERLY SPA6G - (404) 347-3016 (AFTER 3/1/90) - CURRENTLY
(404) 347-5059 .
WASTE ENGINEERING SECTION (RCRA PERMITS)
DOUG McCURRY (404) 347-3433
WASTE COMPLIANCE SECTION
(404) "547-7603
-------
-sss^
SOLID WASTE
DISPOSAL FACILITY
CRITERIA:
PROPOSED REVISIONS
-------
MANDATE:
HAZARDOUS AND SOLID WASTE
AMENDMENTS OF 1984
(HSWA)
-------
EPA must REVISE EXISTING CRITERIA for
facilities that receive household or small
quantity generator hazardous waste
• At minimum, revisions must include:
- Location criteria
- Ground-water monitoring
- Corrective action, as appropriate
• Consider "practicable capability" of
facilities
-------
States must:
• ESTABLISH PERMIT PROGRAM for
existing Criteria by November 1987
• ESTABLISH REVISED PERMIT PROGRAM
within 18 months after revised Criteria
are final
-------
OPERATING CRITERIA
• Procedures for excluding hazardous waste
• Daily cover
• Disease vector control
• Explosive gases
• Air criteria
• Access control
• Run-on and run-off control
• Surface water requirements
• Liquids management
• Recordkeeping
-------
PROCEDURES FOR EXCLUDING
HAZARDOUS WASTE
Requires a program to detect the receipt of regulated
quantities of hazardous waste:
- Random inspection of incoming loads,
- Inspection of suspicious loads,
- Recordkeeping,
- Training, and
- Procedures to notify authorities
• New requirement
-------
DAILY COVER
Requires cover at the end of each operating day
or more frequently to control:
- Disease vectors,
- Fires,
- Odors,
- Blowing litter, and
- Scavenging
Allows temporary waivers for extreme seasonal
climatic conditions
Modifies existing Part 257 Criteria
-------
DISEASE VECTORS
Requires other measures as necessary to control
vectors
• Same as existing Part 257 Criteria
-------
EXPLOSIVE GASES
Requires that explosive gases do not exceed 25%
LEL in on-site structures or LEL at property
boundary
Requires routine monitoring
Requires remedial measures when performance
standard is exceeded
-------
AIR CRITERIA
Bans open burning
Allows infrequent burning of specific wastes
Requires compliance with State Implementation
Plans
Same as existing Part 257 Criteria
-------
ACCESS CONTROL
• Requires access control to:
- Protect human health and environment.
- Prevent unauthorized vehicular traffic, and
- Prevent illegal dumping of waste
• New requirement
-------
RUN-ON/RUN-OFF CONTROLS
Requires that run-on onto active portion of unit
during peak discharge from 25-year storm be
prevented
Requires collection and control of run-off from
active portion of unit resulting from a 24-hour,
25-year storm
New requirement
-------
SURFACE WATER REQUIREMENTS
• Prohibits discharges to surface waters in
violation of the CWA including:
- Non-point sources discharges (Section 208), and
- Point source discharges (Section 402).
• Same as existing Part 257 Criteria
-------
LIQUIDS RESTRICTIONS
Prohibits disposal of:
- Bulk or non-containerized liquids, and
- Containerized liquids
Allows leachate and gas condensate recirculation
if MSWLF equipped with composite liner and
leachate collection system (LCS)
New requirement
-------
RECORDKEEPING
Requires records to be kept of:
- Ground-water monitoring,
- Gas monitoring results,
- Procedures for excluding hazardous waste, and
- Closure and post-closure plans.
State specifies reporting format
New requirement
-------
DESIGN CRITERIA FOR NEW
MSWLF UNITS
States establish design goal within a carcinogenic
risk range of IxlO-4 to 1x10-7
Requires liners, LCSs, and final covers as
necessary to meet design goal at a specified Point
of Compliance (POC)
POC must he:
- Waste management unit boundary, or
- Alternative boundary not exceeding 150 meters
from unit boundary and on property of
owner/operator
-------
MSWLF
V
Ground-water Flow
POCat
unit boundary
Property
boundary
-------
DESIGN CRITERIA FOR EXISTING
MSWLF UNITS
Requires installation of final cover that prevents
infiltration after closure
Does not require retrofitting with liners and LCSs
-------
GROUND-WATER MONITORING
PROGRAM
• Requires monitoring to be conducted in two
phases:
- Phase I: To detect changes in ground-water
chemistry
- Phased: To identify hazardous constituents
(HC) released and monitor HC detected
-------
PHASE I MONITORING
• Limited number of parameters
• Minimum semiannual frequency
-------
PHASE II MONITORING
Phase II is initiated when Phase I indicates
possible release
Requires monitoring for all hazardous
constituents in Appendix II
Corrective action program is initiated if
Appendix II constituents exceed "trigger levels"
-------
CORRECTIVE ACTION PROGRAM
Assessment of corrective measures
Selection of remedy and ground-water
protection standard (GWPS)
Implementation of corrective action program
-------
ASSESSMENT OF CORRECTIVE
MEASURES
Requires assessment when Appendix II constituents
exceed pre-established "trigger levels""
Scope of assessment established by State
-------
CORRECTIVE ACTION PROGRAM
IMPLEMENTATION
Requires clean-up to be initiated when GWPS
exceeded
Owner or operator must:
- Establish corrective action ground-water
monitoring program,
- Implement selected remedy,
- Notify affected property owners, and
- Take interim measures specified by State
State determines when remedy complete
-------
CLOSURE CRITERIA
• Requires closure in a manner that:
- Minimizes post-closure release of leachate and
explosive gases
- Minimizes need for further maintenance, and
- Ensures protection of HHE
-------
CLOSURE PLAN
• Closure plan must include:
- Description of closure activities,
- Description of final cover,
- Schedule for completing closure, and
- Other information needed for financial
assurance
-------
POST-CLOSURE CARE REQUIREMENTS
• Requires two phase post-closure care period
• First phase must last at least 30 years and must
include:
- Maintenance of the final cover and
containment systems,
- Leachate collection,
- Ground-water monitoring, and
- Gas monitoring
-------
POST-CLOSURE CARE REQUIREMENTS
(Cont'd.)
• Second phase begins after initial 30 years
• Second phase must include ground-water
monitoring and gas monitoring
• State establishes length of second phase
-------
FINANCIAL ASSURANCE
• Applies to all entities, except States and the
Federal Government
• Requesting comment on:
- Special tests for local governments, and
- Approach to Indian Tribes
-------
Notification Requirement
• Requires notification by Industrial Solid Waste
Disposal Facilities including:
- Landfills,
- Surface Impoundments,
- Land Application Units,
- Waste Piles, and
- Construction/Demolition Waste Landfills
-------
Notification Requirement (Cont'd.)
Form to be submitted to State and EPA within 6
months of promulgation date of rule
One-time requirement, not applicable to facilities
that open after the effective date of rule
Required information includes:
- Number and type of units
- Waste types
- Total annual amount of waste disposed
- Number of households within one mile
- Number of wells
-------
IMPLEMENTATION
• Revised Criteria to be implemented by State Solid
Waste Programs
• EPA is developing strategy to determine actions
necessary for implementing programs
-------
ENFORCEMENT
• Revised criteria can be enforced by:
- States that have adopted the revised Criteria,
- Through Citizen Suits, or
- By EPA in States that have not adopted an
adequate program
-------
REVISED HRS OVERVIEW
SOIL
EXPOSURE
GROUND
WATER
Drinking
Water Threat
SURFACE
WATER
Human Food
Chain Threat
FACTOR
CATEGORIES
Environmental
Threat
Resident
Population Threat
Nearby Population
Threat
Likelihood of
Release/Exposure
Evaluates the risk of
release of hazardous
substances
Waste
Characteristics
Evaluates the degree
of harm from potential
release of hazardous
substances
Evaluates people and
environments
potentially affected by
release of hazardous
substances
-------
In 1986, the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA)
required that the HRS be revised to "assure, to the maximum extent feasible,
that the hazard ranking system accurately assess the relative degree of risk to
human health and the environment posed by sites and facilities subject to
review".
SARA Requirements
• Accurately assess relative risk to the maximum extent feasible
• Emphasize drinking water contamination
• Consider:
- Potential contamination of ambient air
- Human food chain exposure
- Human recreational exposure
• Balance costs of data collection vs. improvements in accuracy
-------
General Revisions
• Toxicity assessed based on acute toxicity, chronic noncarcinogenic toxicity, and carcinogenicity
• Hazardous Waste Quantity calculation considers all types of quantity information; e.g.,
constituent amount, wastestream, source volume, and source area
• Soil Exposure Pathway has been added
• All four pathways now evaluate targets based on exposure above health-based benchmarks
and background, and potentially exposed targets; targets exposed above health-based
benchmarks are weighted more heavily
• Targets weighted by distance from the source for groundwater, air, and soil exposure
pathways; targets for surface water are weighted by dilution, e.g., flow of water body
• The nearest individual is considered in the assessment of risks in all four pathways
• Population served by "blended water" systems is apportioned
• Containment criteria and list of sensitive environments expanded
-------
DATA COLLECTION IMPACTS
I. Addressed through standard reference sources e.g., maps in the rule, "lookup tables",
automated chemical database, GEMS database, etc.
II. Addressed through increased level of effort
source characterization
exact target data to apply distance/dilution weighting, apportionment, etc.
specific information on levels of remediation (e.g., time frame, oversight, extent of
removal)
-------
AIR MIGRATION
PATHWAY
COMPONENT
OVERVIEW
Targets
Likelihood
of Release
Waste
Characteristics
V7777777s7777777777777777777777?77777.
Toxicity/Mobihty
:h
Nearest Individual
Population
.• //
Resources
/-¦' <
Sensitive Environments
./////'/.¦//////•',///
Observed Release
or
Potential to Release
Source Containment
.Source Mobility
Source Type
Hazardous Waste Quantity
Hazardous Constituent Quantity
Wastestream Quantity
Site Disposal Capacity
-------
Specific Pathway Revisions
Air Migration Pathway
Potential for release to the atmosphere is now considered
Mobility of particulates and gases is now considered
Does not address:
Intermedia transfer; e.g., deposition of air contaminants onto surface water bodies
and eventual ingestion through drinking water
Food chain
Indoor air contamination (except in special circumstances)
-------
GROUNDWATER
MIGRA TION
PATHWAY
COMPONENT
OVERVIEW
Targets
Likelihood
of Release
Waste
Characteristics
Toxicity/Mobility
ft
#//.
Nearest Well
<¦>3:
v'/Z:
'¦'///¦
Population
'-¦////,
¦m
Resources
¦////.
m.
Wellhead Protection Area
¦///
¦"•/.'.'V .' ' > / ' > f J > / } > > > > ' '
§ Observed Release
or
Containment
Net Precipitation
Depth to Aquifer
Travel Time
Potential Release
Hazardous Constituent Quantity
Site Wastestream Quantity
Site Disposal Capacity
Hazardous Waste Quantity
-------
Groundwater Migration Pathway
Target distance limit for potentially exposed targets expanded to a 4-mile radius
Aquifers associated with karst topography are given special consideration under
Groundwater Release Potential and Targets
Wellhead Protection Areas receive special consideration
Mobility (i.e., solubility) of contaminants is considered in assessing Potential to Release
-------
SURFACE WATER
PATHWAY
COMPONENT
OVERVIEW
Likelihood
of Release
Groundwater
Discharge to
Surface Water
Exposure
Threats
Observed Release
or
: V-"/,- y-f////// V V////
Potential To Release i
v/
o.'-f- '-v/sy////. y.
Overland Flow
Flood
Drinking Water Threat
Waste Characteristics
Targets
% Environmental Threat %
Waste Characteristics
Targets
'ss-v/zsw/yw/SsVA-' y;s-v/z/v ¦'////^ ¦'*
Human Food Chain Threat
Waste Characteristics
Targets
-------
Surface Water Migration Pathway
The Surface Water Pathway is divided into three subpathways based on the threat of
exposure
Drinking Water Threat evaluates the human population exposed through the
consumption of contaminated or potentially contaminated drinking water
Human Food Chain Threat considers bioaccumulation as well as toxicity/persistence
and evaluates human exposure based on the production of fisheries
Environmental Threat considers ecotoxicity and bioaccumulation in evaluating the risk
to a wide range of sensitive environments
Target distance limits for potentially exposed targets extended to 15 stream miles
Flooding now considered in assessing the Likelihood of Release to surface water
Runoff of particulates and dissolved materials is considered in assessing the Likelihood of
Release by Overland Flow
Persistence in surface water, formerly based on biodegradation, now based on a half-life
calculation
Evaluation of potential for groundwater discharge to surface water has been added
-------
SOIL EXPOSURE PATHWAY COMPONENT
OVERVIEW
Resident
Population
Nearby
Population
Likelihood of Exposure
Waste Characteristics
Targets
-------
Soil Exposure Pathway
Pathway added to consider risks from direct contact, ingestion, and inhalation of
contaminated soils or waste
Considers sites where people or wildlife are routinely exposed to onsite hazardous
substances (Resident Population Threat)
Considers sites where people may travel to locations where hazardous substances are
present (Nearby Population Threat)
-------
Site-Specific
Community Relations
Preliminary Characterization
Summary Report
Receptor Analysis/Preliminary
Risk Analysis Report
(Identify ARARs)
mmm
Document
Document
w:v>
¦yes—
Proposed Plan
NFA ROD
no
Revise or supplement
Site-Specific Work Plan
to include CMS/FS work
and/or next phase of
Field Investigation
Establish Preliminary
Remedial Action Goals and
Alternatives. If Alter-
natives involve treatment,
propose treatability
studies. Identify ARARs.
Characterization C
Progress
Report
no
Treatability
Studifes
yes-
RFI/RI
Report
Baseline Risk
Assessment
CMS/FS
Report
Proposed Plan
/PN Draft Permit Modification
ROD/Final Permit
Modification
INTEGRATED RCRA/CERCLA PROCESS FOR OPERABLE UNITS
-------
Remedial Alternatives
Documentation
1
V£rnEey#n®£E
Preliminary Characterization
Summary Report
2
VnZcy®£2»s
3
it
ij
\\
II
:!'
:i
:|
ij
:i
II
V I y S.fi E
Remedial Investigation Report
4
V 2 y a
Feasibility Study Report
5
n
Proposed Plan
6
a
Record of Decision
Explanation: v No Action
DISCUSSION
1. Potential Alternatives Identification: Combine general response
actions and the process representing technology types for each
specific media to form alternatives.
2 . Initial Screening of Alternatives: Screen technologies on the
basis of technical implementability according to existing information
and preliminary characterization data.
3. Refine Potential Alternatives: Further refine alternatives under
consideration on the basis of effectiveness, implementability and
cost, and the results of the Remedial Investigation.
4. Detailed Analysis of Alternatives: Conduct individual
.assessments of alternatives according to the nine criteria. Also,
conduct comparative analysis to assess the relative performance of
alternatives.
5. Propose Preferred Alternativefs1: Select the preferred
alternative(s) and propose remedial action(s) to the public.
6. Finalize Remedial ActionsSelection: Document final remedial
action(s).
-------
THE NINE CRITERIA
COMPLIANCE WITH ARARs
PROTECTION OF HUMAN HEALTH
AND THE ENVIRONMENT
EXISTING AND POTENTIAL RISKS ADEQUATELY
ELIMINATED. REDUCED, OR CONTROLLED
THROUGH TREATMENT. ENGINEERING CONTROLS
(e.g., CONTAINMENT), AND/OR INSTITUTIONAL
CONTROLS
ATTAINMENT OF CHEMICAL-, LOCATION-,
AND ACTION-SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS
GROUNDS FOR INVOKING A WAIVER
LONG-TERM
REDUCTION Or
SHORT-TERM
EFFECTIVENESS
IMPLEMEnTABILjTt
MAGNITUDE OF
TOTAL RESIDUAL
RISK (UNTREATED
WASTE i TREAT-
MENT RESIDUALS)
ADEQUACY AND
SUITABILITY OF
CONTROLS
(ENGINEERING &
INSTITUTIONAL)
USED TO MANAGE
UNTREATED WASTE
AND TREATMENT
RESIDUALS
RELIABILITY CF
CONTROLS OVER
TIME. INCLUDING
POTENTIAL NEED
FOR REPLACEMENT
TREATMENT
PROCESS AND
AMOUNT OF
MATERIAL TO
BE TREATED
AMOUNT OF
HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS THAT
WILL BE
DESTROYED OR
REDUCED,
INCLUDING HOW
PRINCIPAL THREAT
IS ADDRESSED
THROUGH TREAT-
MENT.
DEGREE OF
EXPECTED TMV
REDUCTION (e.g.. %
CF TOTAL, ORDER
CF MAGNITUDE)
DEGREE TO WHICH
TREATMENT IS
IRREVERSIBLE
TYPE AND
cuantity of
RESIDUALS
RESULTING
FROM TREAT-
MENT PROCESS
POTENTIAL IMPACTS
ON COMMUNITY
DURING RA
IMPLEMENTATION
POTENTIAL
IMPACTS ON
WORKERS DURING
RA AND THE
EFFECTIVENESS
AND RELIABILITY
CF PROTECTIVE
MEASURES
POTENTIAL
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACTS OF RA
AND THE
EFFECTIVENESS
AND RELIABILITY OF
MITIGAT1VE
MEASURES
TIME UNTIL
PROTECTION IS
ACHIEVED
TECHNICAL
FEASIBILITY:
•DIFFICULTIES AND
UNKNOWNS
ASSOCIATED W/
TECHNOLOGY
- RELIABILITY CF
TECHNOLOGY
- EASE OF
UNDERTAKING
ADDITIONAL
ACTION, IF :
REQUIRED
ADMINISTRATIVE
FEASIBILITY:
-AEIUTY AND TIME
REQUIRED TO
OBTAIN REQUIRED
APPROVALS/
PERMrrs
• STEPS RECUIRED
TO COORDINATE
WITH OTHER
AGENCIES AND
ASSOCIATED TIME
REQUIREMENTS
AVAILABILITY OF
SERVICES AND
MATERIALS
-TREATMENT.
STORAGE OR '
DISPOSAL
CAPACITY
•EXISTENCE CF
MULTIPLE
VENDORS
- AVAILABILITY CF
NEEDED •
EQUIPMENT AND
SPECIALISTS
• TIMING CF
TECH NOLOGY
AVAILABILITY
CAPfTAL
OPERATION
AND
MAINTENANCE
PRESENT
WORTH
ACCEPTANCE
COMMUNITY
ACCEPTANCE
-------
PRIMARY/SECONDARY DOCUMENTS
REQUIRED UNDER A REGION IV FEDERAL FACILITY AGREEMENT
The Primary Documents for the remedial process shall be as specified in
the Federal Facility Agreement and shall include at a minimum the
following:
- "Site Management Plan";
- "Remedial Investigation Work Plan(s)";
- "Remedial Investigation Report(s)";
- "Baseline Risk Assessment Report(s)";
- "Feasibility Study Report(s)";
- "Proposed Plan(s)";
- "Record(s) of Decision";
- "Remedial Design Implementation Work Plan(s);
- "Remedial Design Report(s)";
- "Remedial Action Work Plan(s)";
- "Final Remediation Report(s)"; and
- "Site NPL Closeout Report".
I. GENERAL DOCUMENTS
A. Site Management Plan:
The purpose for the Site Management Plan is to document project
scoping and provide a general plan and associated schedule (i.e.,
timelines) for work to be completed at the Site. The Site Scope
of Work shall include at a minimum the following:
1. Actions necessary to mitigate immediate threats to human
health or the environment.
2. A list of Operable Units subject to the Agreement.
3. A prioritization and rationale for the Operable Units at
the Site.
4. Activities and schedules for work planned for the current
or next Fiscal Year, as appropriate.
5. Work projections for subsequent Fiscal Years.
B. Site Community Relations Plan /CRP^:
The purpose for the Site Community Relations Plan (CRP) is to
provide guidelines for community relations activities at the Site
to keep the concerned public informed of the Site response action
activities. The Site CRP must incorporate at a minimum the
following:
1. Specific community relations activities to be implemented.
2. The concerns expressed during interviews with people from the
local community.
3. Indication of how the public will contribute to Site response
action decisions.
4. A forum where conflict can be constructively resolved.
5. Coordination with RCRA or other related (e.g., NEPA)
community relations activities, as appropriate.
-------
-2-
C. Site Administrative Record (SAR^:
The purpose for the SAR is to document the basis for selected response
action(s) at the Site. The SAR shall incorporate at a minimum the
following:
1. Record of public participation in the selection of Site
response action(s).
2. Documentation necessary for judicial review of the decision
process used to select response action(s) at the Site.
3. Guidance documents and technical literature.
II. REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION AND FEASIBILITY STUDY DOCUMENTS
The following is a brief description of the Primary and Secondary
documents and information necessary to document the RI/FS process,
initiated with the establishment of the Site Administrative Record and
concluded through the Site Record(s) of Decision.
A. Remedial Investigation fRIl Statement (si of Work (SOWW
The purpose for the RI SOWfsl is to provide the basis for the
development of Site/Operable Unit RI Work Plan(s). The RI SOW(s)
shall include at a minimum the following:
1. Summary of Site/Operable Unit existing information.
2. General purpose and objectives of the RI/FS.
3. Brief description of tasks to obtain objectives.
B. Remedial Investigation Work Planfsl:
The purpose for RI Work Planfs\ is to provide details of planned RI/FS
field work and laboratory analysis. The Work Plan(s) should include
at a minimum the following:
1. Rationale and expected results or goals of RI/FS.
2. Detailed history of Site/Operable Unit, including physical
setting and all existing information.
3. Description of the potential migration and exposure pathways.
4. Documentation of potential human exposure and environmental
concerns.
5. Documentation of data required for the Risk Assessment and
the alternatives evaluation.
6. Explanation of how planned work activities will provide the
required data.
7. Details of the following tasks:
a. project planning, including but not limited to the
following:
-------
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
C. Site Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP):
The purpose for the Site SAP is to assure sample collection and
laboratory analysis quality control. The Site SAP should include at a
minimum the following:
1. Field Sampling Plan (FSP) providing for all field procedures
by defining in detail the sampling objectives and methods,
and decontamination procedures to be used.
2. Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) describing the policy,
organization, functional activities, quality assurance and
quality control protocols, and analytical procedures
necessary to achieve the data quality objectives (DQOs)
dictated by the scope and objectives of the RI/FS.
D. Site Health and Safety Plan (HSP1:
The purpose for the Site Health and Safety Plan-(HSPV-ds-to provide a
contingency plan which satisfies OSHA requirements through detailed
Site standard operating procedures. The Site HSP shall at a minimum
provide for the following:
1. Identification of key Site health and safety personnel and
document the necessary Site measures to control the risk
associated with existing Site conditions.
2. Details of a contingency plan and Site standard operating
procedures.
3. Identification potential problems and special Site
requirements ensuring safe field activity.
4. Site safety briefings before implementation of the Site SAP
and inspections during field activity.
Site/Operable Unit reconnaissance and limited field
investigations;
identification of preliminary remedial action
objectives and potential remedial alternatives;
- identification of necessary treatability studies;
preliminary identification of applicable, or
relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs); and
initiation of coordination with analytical
laboratories,
implementation of the Site CRP,
field investigation(s),
sample analysis and validation,
data evaluation, and
initial screening and detailed analysis of alternatives.
-------
-4-
E. Site Quarterly Progress Report(si:
The purpose for Site Quarterly Progress Report(s1 is to document Site
response action progress and problems. The Quarterly Report(s) shall
at a minimum provide the following:
1. Documentation of completed work and delays in schedule.
2. Discussion of planned activities scheduled for the next
quarter.
3. Information oil Operation and Maintenance (O&M), and a summary
environmental monitoring results.
F. Preliminary Characterization fiummarv Report(si;
The purpose for Preliminary Characterization Summary Report(si is
to provide supportive information for the Preliminary Risk Analysis
Report(si. The Characterization Report(s) shall include at a
minimum the following:
1. Summary of data from initial sampling and analysis activity.
2. Documentation of the development of potential remedial
alternatives.
3. Documentation of potential ARARs.
4. The necessary information to form the basis for the
Site Health Assessment conducted by the Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR).
G. Preliminary Risk Analysis Report(si:
The purpose for Preliminary Risk Analysis Report(si is to provide an
evaluation of the potential risk to human health or welfare, and the
environment in the absence of any remedial action. Preliminary Risk
Analysis Report(s) must include at a minimum the following:
1. Summary of existing response actions and their effectiveness.
2. Documentation of Site/Operable Unit imminent and substantial
endangerment.
3. The necessary information to form the basis for Baseline
Risk Assessment Report(s).
4. Determination of indicator chemicals, estimation of exposure
point concentrations of indicator chemicals and chemical
intakes, and an assessment of toxicity.
-------
-5-
H. Treatability Study Reportfs^:
The purpose for Treatability Study Report(b) is to report on the
feasibility of a treatment technology or process. Treatability
Study Report(s) must include at a minimum the following:
1. Sufficient data to allow treatment alternatives to be
fully developed and evaluated during the detailed analysis
and to support the remedial design of the selected
alternative.
2. Documentation of performance uncertainties and operating
parameters.
I. Remedial Investigation Report(s^:
The purpose for Remedial Investigation Report(s > is to report on
the results of field characterization studies and laboratory
analysis. RI Report(s) shall include at a minimum the following:
1. Presentation of the physical characteristics of the
Site/Operable Unit.
2. Definition of the source(s) of contamination at the
Site/Operable Unit.
3. Characterization of the nature and extent of Site/Operable
Unit contamination for all media.
4. Presentation of the results from the initial screening of
alternatives.
5. The data necessary to support the Feasibility Study.
J. Baseline Risk Assessment Report(s)i
The purpose for Baseline Risk Assessment Report(s) is to expand on the
Preliminary Risk Analysis Reportand,.to the degree possible, to.
determine the actual risk to human health or welfare, and the
environment associated with a Site/Operable Unit. Baseline Risk
Assessment Report(s) shall at a minimum include the following:
1. Characterization of the risk and uncertainties concerning
noncarcinogenic and potential carcinogenic effects associated
with Site/Operable Unit contamination.
2. Development of performance goals and risk analysis for
potential remedial alternatives based on Site/Operable
Unit ARARs.
3. The information necessary to support Feasibility Study
Report(s).
-------
-6-
K. Feasibility Study Report(s):
The purpose for Feasibility Study Report(si is to present the
results of the detailed analysis of alternatives. Feasibility
Study Report(s) shall provide the necessary information to support
the Site/Operable Unit Proposed Planfsl and Recordss^ of Decision.
L. Proposed Planfsl:
The purpose for Proposed Planf s) is to provide a brief analysis of
remedial alternatives under consideration for the Site/Operable Unit
and propose the preferred alternative(s). The Parties shall publish a
notice of the availability of the Proposed Plan, RI and FS Report(s),
and the SAR in a major local newspaper of general circulation. At a
minimum, the Proposed Plan(s) shall:
1. Highlight the RI and FS Report(s).
2. Provide the public with all necessary information and an
opportunity to participate in the remedy selection process.
M. Recordfsl of Decision:
The purpose for Record(s) of Decision (RODs) is to document the
final remedial action decisions for the Site/Operable Unit. At a
minimum the ROD(s) must:
1. Summarize the problems affecting implementation of the
selected remedy for the Site/Operable Unit and provide an
analysis of the alternative ways to address those problems.
2. Provide a Decision Summary addressing public comment
expressed concerning the Proposed Plan, RI and FS Report(s),
and other information made available in the SAR.
III. REMEDIAL DESIGN AND REMEDIAL ACTION PROCESS
The following is a brief description of the Primary and Secondary
documents and information necessary to document the RD/RA process,
initiated with Remedial Design Implementation Plan(s) and completed
through the Site NPL Closeout Report.
A. Remedial Desicm Implementation Work Planfs^:
The purpose for Remedial Design Implementation Work Plant si is to
describe how the design will meet the scope and goals of the
approved remedial action plan for the Site/Operable Unit. At a
minimum, the Remedial Design Implementation Work Plan(s) shall:
-------
7-
1. Provide the Schedules for the submission of the Remedial
Pre-Design and Design Reports and related activities, and the
Remedial Action Work Plan(s).
2. Describe how, prior to the initiation of design, the Parties
will initiate and/or revise the CRP to address community
concerns anticipated during the RD/RA process or indicate how
they are addressed by the CRP.
B. Remedial Pre-Desian Report(si:
The purpose for Remedial Pre-Desian Report(si is to provide a
summary of the factors of the selected remedy that will affect the
design, construction and completion of the remedial action. At a
minimum, the Remedial Pre-Design Report(s) shall:
1. Provide Site/Operable Unit description(s) including a
topographic map and preliminary layout of remedial
activities.
2. Briefly describe the following:
- description of remedy;
- scope and goals of remedy;
- preliminary design criteria and rational;
- general operation and maintenance requirements;
- short and long term environmental monitoring requirements;
- specific factors from RI/FS affecting remedy;
- results and impacts of applicable tests or studies; and
- description of additional tests or studies needed to
design or implement RA.
3. Provide special Design/Implementation Considerations
including:
- special technical considerations;
- additional engineering/Site data required;
- permit and/or regulatory requirements (ARARs);
- access, easements, right-of-way needs; and
- specific health and safety considerations.
C. Remedial Design Report(si:
The purpose for Remedial Design Report(si is to expand on the
Remedial Pre-Design Report(s) and to document final design
criterion. The Remedial Design Report(s) shall:
1. Describe how the design will implement and accomplish the
goals of the approved remedial action plan.
2. Provide the schedules for completion of various components of
the preliminary and final designs listed below and
implementation/completion of work ( e.g., Site selection,
Site preparation, construction, testing, start-up, etc.).
-------
-8-
3. Provide Design Plans and Specifications, including:
a. preliminary design addressing not less than 30% of the
total design based on the information in the Remedial
Design Report,
b. pre-final design at 90% completion which shall include
all functional details, specifications and drawings, and
c. final design at 100% completion with final construction
drawings and specifications.
D. Remedial Action Work Plants V:
The purpose for Remedial Action Work Plants^ is to provide a plan
which will explain in detail how the approved remedial action will
be implemented. Remedial Action Work Plan(s) shall include the
following:
1. A Health and Safety Plan developed specifically for the RA.
2. A Sampling and Analysis Plan developed specifically for the
RA.
3. A Permitting Plan to provide for satisfaction of all
permitting requirements, both administrative and technical
including ARARs and actions exempt from permitting.
4. An Environmental Monitoring Plan to address all potentially
affected media as appropriate.
5. A schedule for the construction and operation of the approved
remedy and remedial design and submission of the Final
Remediation Report(s).
E. Remedial Action Post-Construction Reportfs):
The purpose for Remedial Action Post-Construction Reportfs^ is to
provide a close-out report that includes but is not limited to:
1. A final construction inspection report.
2. A brief description of any outstanding construction and/or
testing items.
3. Certification by a registered professional engineer that the
remedy is fully operational and functional as designed and
planned.
4. Explanation of any changes in design, installation or
operation from that described in previously submitted reports
or plans.
5. As-built design and specifications and drawings and Final
Operation and Maintenance Plan(s).
-------
-9-
F. Final Remediation Reportfs^:
The purpose for Final Remediation Report(s^ is to document the
completion of remedial action. Upon completion of the remediation
of the Site/Operable Unit the following information will be
provided at a minimum:
1. How the Remediation has met the goals of the approved
remedial action plan.
2. A summary of Site/Operable Unit conditions including
monitoring results and a detailed description of any
remaining contamination or releases.
3. A description of any O&M requirements and assurances of
applicable institutional controls that will be necessary.
4. Any recommendations for further action or monitoring at the
Site/Operable Unit.
G. Site NPL Gloseout Report:
The purpose for the Site NPL Closeout Report is to begin the process
for delisting of a Site from the National Priorities List. The Report
shall contain all information required and the deletion process shall
be carried out in accordance with applicable EPA guidance and
directives. As appropriate, the Parties shall publish a "Notice of
Intent to Delete" when the Site is intended to be delisted from the
National Priorities List (NPL).
-------
-10-
REFERENCES
1. "Interim Guidance on Administrative Records for Selection of CERCLA
Response Actions", OSWER Directive 9833.3A, March 1989.
2. "Administrative Record for Federal Facilities", EPA Region IV, 1989.
3. Interim Version "Community Relations in Superfund", OSWER Directive
9230.0-3B, June 1988.
4. Interim Final "Guidance for Conducting Remedial Investigations and
Feasibility Studies Under CERCLA, OSWER Directive 9355.3-01,
October 1988.
5. Interim Final "Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume I,
Human Health Evaluation Manual", OSWER Directive 9285.7-01a,
September 1989.
6. Interim Final "Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume II,
Environmental Evaluation Manual", OSWER Directive 9285.7-02,
March 1989.
7. "Superfund Exposure Assessment Manual", OSWER Directive 9285.5-1,
April 1988.
8. "Superfund Remedial Design and Remedial Action Guidance", OSWER
Directive 9355.0-4A, June 1986.
9. "Procedures for Completion and Deletion of NPL Sites", OSWER
Directive 9320.2-3A, April 1989.
10. "National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan",
40 CFR 300, Proposed Rule (53 Federal Register 12-21-88).
-------
-488-
SPBPART E — HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE RESPONSE
§ 300.400 General.
(a) This subpart establishes methods and criteria for
determining the appropriate extent of response authorized by
CERCLA:
(1) When there is a release of a hazardous substance into the
environment; or
(2) When there is a release into the environment of any
pollutant or contaminant that may present an imminent and
substantial danger to the public health or welfare.
(b) Limitations on response. Unless the lead agency
determines that a release constitutes a public health or
environmental emergency and no other person with the authority and
capability to respond will do so in a timely manner, a removal or
remedial action under section 104 of CERCLA shall not be
undertaken in response to a release:
(1) Of a naturally occurring substance in its unaltered form,
or altered solely through naturally occurring processes or
phenomena, from a location where it is naturally found;
(2) From products that are part of the structure of, and
result in exposure within, residential buildings or business pr
community structures; or
(3) Into public or private drinking water supplies due to
deterioration of the system through ordinary use.
(c) Fund-financed action. In determining the need for and in
planning or undertaking Fund-financed action, the lead agency
shall, to the extent practicable:
(1) Engage in prompt response;
(2) Provide for state participation in response actions, as
described in Subpart F of this Part;
(3) Conserve Fund monies by encouraging private party
response;
(4) Be sensitive to local community concerns;
(5) Consider using treatment technologies;
(6) Involve the Regional Response Team (RRT) in both removal
-------
-489-
and remedial response actions at appropriate decision-making
stages;
(7) Encourage the involvement and sharing of technology by
industry and other experts; and
(8) Encourage the involvement of organizations to coordinate
responsible party actions, foster site response, and provide
technical advice to the public, federal and state governments, and
industry.
(d) Entry and access. (1) For purposes of determining the
need for response, or choosing or talcing a response action, or
otherwise enforcing the provisions of CERCLA, EPA, or the
appropriate federal agency, and a state or political subdivision
operating pursuant to a contract or cooperative agreement under
CERCLA section 104(d)(1), has the authority to enter any vessel,
facility, establishment or other place, property, or location
described in paragraph (d)(2) below and conduct, complete,
operate, and maintain any response actions authorized by CERCLA or
these regulations.
(2)(i) Under the authorities described in paragraph (d)(1)
above, EPA, or the appropriate federal agency, and a state or
political subdivision operating pursuant to a contract or
cooperative agreement under CERCLA section 104(d)(1), may enter:
(A) Any vessel, facility, establishment, or other place or
property where any hazardous substance or pollutant or contaminant
may be or has been generated, stored, treated, disposed of, or
transported from;
(B) Any vessel, facility, establishment, or other place or
property from which, or to which, a hazardous substance or
pollutant or contaminant has been, or may have been, released or
where such release is or may be threatened;
(C) Any vessel, facility, establishment, or other place or
property where entry is necessary to determine the need for
response or the appropriate response or to effectuate a response
action; or
(D) Any vessel, facility, establishment, or other place,
property, or location adjacent to those vessels, facilities,
establishments, places or properties described in paragraphs
(d) (2) (i) (A), (B), or (C) of this section.
(ii) Once a determination has been made that there is a
reasonable basis to believe that there has been or may be a
release, EPA, or the appropriate federal agency, and a state or
political subdivision operating pursuant to a contract or
cooperative agreement under CERCLA section 104(d)(1), is
-------
-490-
authorized to enter all vessels, facilities, establishments,
places, properties, or locations specified in paragraph (d)(2)(i)
of this section, at which the release is believed to be, and all
other vessels, facilities, establishments, places, properties or
locations identified in paragraph (d)(2)(i) above that are related
to the response or are necessary to enter in responding to that
release.
(3) The lead agency may designate as its representative
solely for the purpose of access, among others, one or more
potentially responsible parties, including representative,
employees, agents and contractors of such parties. EPA, $r the
appropriate federal agency, may exercise the authority contained
in section 104(e) of CERCLA to obtain access for its designated
representative. A potentially responsible party may only be
designated as a representative of the lead agency where that
potentially responsible party has agreed to conduct response
activities pursuant to an administrative order or consent decree.
(4)(i) If consent is not granted under the authorities
described in paragraph (d)(1) of this section, or if consent is
conditioned in any manner, EPA, or the appropriate federal agency,
may issue an order pursuant to section 104(e)(5) of CERCLA
directing compliance with the request for access made under
§ 300.400(d)(1). EPA or the appropriate federal agency may ask
the Attorney General to commence a civil action to compel
compliance with either a request for access or an order directing
compliance.
(ii) EPA reserves the right to proceed, where appropriate,
under applicable authority other than CERCLA section 104(e).
(iii) The administrative order may direct compliance with a
request to enter or inspect any vessel, facility, establishment,
place, property, or location described in paragraph (d)(2) of this
section.
(iv) Each order shall contain:
(A) A determination by EPA, or the appropriate federal
agency, that it is reasonable to believe that there may be or has
been a release or threat of a release of a hazardous substance or
pollutant or contaminant and a statement of the facts upon which
the determination is based;
(B) A description, in light of CERCLA response authorities,
of the purpose and estimated scope and duration of the entry,
including a description of the specific anticipated activities to
be conducted pursuant to the order ?
(C) a provision advising the person who failed to consent
that an officer or employee of the agency that issued the order
-------
-491-
will be available to confer with respondent prior to effective
date of the order; and
(D) A provision advising the person who failed to consent
that a court may impose a penalty of up to $25,000 per day for
unreasonable failure to comply with the order.
(v) orders shall be served upon the person or responsible
party who failed to consent prior to their effective date. Force
shall not be used to compel compliance with an order.
(vi) orders may not be issued for any criminal
investigations.
(e) Permit requirements. (1) No federal, state, or local
permits are required for on-site response actions conducted
pursuant to CERCLA sections 104, 106, 120, 121 or 122. The term
"on-site" means the areal extent of contamination and all
suitable areas in very close proximity to the contamination
necessary for implementation of the response action.
(2) Permits, if required, shall be obtained for all response
activities conducted off-site.
(f) Health assessments. Health assessments shall be
performed by ATSDR at facilities on or proposed to be listed on
the NPL and may be performed at other releases or facilities in
response to petitions made to ATSDR. Where available, these
health assessments may be used by the lead agency to assist in
determining whether response actions should be taken and/or to
identify the need for additional studies to assist in the
assessment of potential human health effects associated with
releases or potential releases of hazardous substances.
(g) Identification of applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements. (1) The lead and support agencies shall identify
requirements applicable to the release or remedial action
contemplated based upon an objective determination of whether the
requirement specifically addresses a hazardous substance,
pollutant, contaminant, remedial action, location, or other
circumstance found at a CERCLA site.
(2) If, based upon paragraph (g)(1) of this section, it is
determined that a requirement is not applicable to a specific
release, the requirement may still be relevant and appropriate to
the circumstances of the release. In evaluating relevance and
appropriateness, the factors in paragraphs (g)(2)(i) through
(viii) shall be examined, where pertinent, to determine whether a
requirement addresses problems or situations sufficiently similar
to the circumstances of the release or remedial action
contemplated, and whether the requirement is well-suited to the
site, and therefore is both relevant and appropriate. The
-------
492-
pertinence of each of the following factors will depend, in part,
on whether a requirement addresses a chemical, location, or
action. The following comparisons shall be made, where
pertinent, to determine relevance and appropriateness:
(i) The purpose of the requirement and the purpose of the
CERCLA action;
(ii) The medium regulated or affected by the requirement and
the medium contaminated or affected at the CERCLA site;
(iii) The substances regulated by the requirement atad the
substances found at the CERCLA site;
(iv) The actions or activities regulated by the requirement
and the remedial action contemplated at the CERCLA site;
(v) Any variances, waivers, or exemptions of the requirement
and their availability for the circumstances at the CERCLA. site;
(vi) The type of place regulated and the type of place
affected by the release or CERCLA action;
(vii) The type and size of structure or facility regulated
and the type and si2e of structure or facility affected by the
release or contemplated by the CERCLA action;
(viii) Any consideration of use or potential use of affected
resources in the requirement and the use or potential use of the
affected resource at the CERCLA site.
(3) In addition to applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements, the lead and support agencies may, as appropriate,
identify other advisories, criteria, or guidance to be considered
for a particular release. The "to be considered" (TBC) category
consists of advisories, criteria, or guidance that were developed
by EPA, other federal agencies, or states that may be useful in
developing CERCLA remedies.
(4) Only those state standards that are promulgated, are
identified by the state in a timely manner and are more stringent
than federal requirements may be applicable or relevant and
appropriate. For purposes of identification and notification of
promulgated state standards, the term "promulgated" means that the
standards are of general applicability and are legally
enforceable.
(5) The lead agency and support agency shall identify their
specific requirements that are applicable or relevant and
appropriate for a particular site. These agencies shall notify
each other, in a timely manner as described in § 300.515(d), of
the requirements they have determined to be applicable or
-------
-493-
relevant and appropriate. When identifying a requirement as an
ARAR, the lead agency and support agency shall include a citation
to the statute or regulation from which the requirement is
derived.
(6) Notification of ARARs shall be according to procedures
and timeframes specified in §§ 300.515(d)(2) and (h)(2).
(h) Oversight. The lead agency may provide oversight for
actions taken by potentially responsible parties to ensure that a
response is conducted consistent with this Part. The lead agency
may also monitor the. actions of third parties preauthorized under
Subpart H of this Part. EPA will provide oversight when the
response is pursuant to an EPA order or federal consent decree.
(i) other. (1) This subpart does not establish any
preconditions to enforcement action by either the federal or state
governments to compel response actions by potentially responsible
parties.
(2) While much of this subpart is oriented toward federally
funded response actions, this subpart may be used as guidance
concerning methods and criteria for response actions by other
parties under other funding mechanisms. Except as provided in
Subpart H of this Part, nothing in this part is intended to limit
the rights of any person to seek recovery of response costs from
responsible parties pursuant to CERCLA section 107.
(3) Activities by the federal and state governments in
implementing this subpart are discretionary governmental
functions. This subpart does not create in any private party a
right to federal response or enforcement action. This subpart
does not create any duty of the federal government to take any
response action at any particular time.
§ 300.405 Discovery or notification.
(a) A release may be discovered through:
(1) A report submitted in accordance with section 103(a) of
CERCLA, i.e., reportable quantities codified at 40 CFR Part 302;
(2) A report submitted to EPA in accordance with section
103(c) of CERCLA;
(3) Investigation by government authorities conducted in
accordance with section 104(e) of CERCLA or other statutory
authority;
(4) Notification of a release by a federal or state permit
holder when required by its permit;
-------
494-
(5) inventory or survey efforts or random or incidental
observation reported by government agencies or the public;
(6) Submission of a citizen petition to EPA or the
appropriate federal facility requesting a preliminary assessment,
in accordance with section 105(d) of CERCLA; and
(7) other sources.
(b) Any person in charge of a vessel or a facility shall
report releases as described in paragraph (a)(1) of this Motion
to the National Response Center (NRC). If direct reporting to the
NRC is not practicable, reports may be made to the United States
Coast Guard (USCG) on-scene coordinator (OSC) for the geographic
area where the release occurs. The EPA predesignated OSC may also
be contacted through the regional 24-hour emergency response
telephone number. All such reports shall be promptly relayed to
the NRC. If it is not possible to notify the NRC or predesignated
OSC immediately, reports may be made immediately to the nearest
USCG unit. In any event, such person in charge of the vessel or
facility shall notify the NRC as soon as possible.
(c) All other reports of releases described, under paragraph
(a) of this section, except releases reported under paragraphs
(a)(2) and (6) of this section, shall, as appropriate, be made to
the NRC.
(d) The NRC will generally need information that will help
to characterize the release. This will include, but not be
limited to: location of the release? type(s) of material(s)
released; an estimate of the quantity of material released;
possible source of the release; date and time of the release.
Reporting under paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section shall not
be delayed due to incomplete notification information.
(e) Upon receipt of a notification of a release, the NRC
shall promptly notify the appropriate OSC. The.OSC shall notify
the Governor, or designee, of the state affected by the release.
(f)(1) When the OSC is notified of a release that may
require response pursuant to § 300.415(b), a removal site
evaluation shall, as appropriate, be promptly undertaken pursuant
to S 300.410.
(2) When notification indicates that removal action pursuant
to § 300.415(b) is not required, a remedial site evaluation shall,
if appropriate, be undertaken by the lead agency pursuant to
§ 300.420, if one has not already been performed.
(3) If radioactive substances are present in a release, the
EPA Radiological Response Coordinator should be notified for
-------
-495-
evaluation and assistance, consistent with §§ 300.130(f) and
300.145(f).
(g) Release notification made to the NRC under this section
does not relieve the owner/operator of a facility from any
obligations to which it is subject under SARA Title III or state
law. In particular, it does not relieve the owner/operator from
the requirements of section 304 of SARA Title III and 40 CFR Part
355 and § 300.215(f) of this Part for notifying the community
emergency coordinator for the appropriate local emergency planning
committee of all affected areas and the state emergency response
commission of any state affected that there has been a release.
Federal agencies are not legally obligated to comply with the
requirements of Title III of SARA.
§ 300.410 Removal site evaluation.
(a) A removal site evaluation includes a removal preliminary
assessment and, if warranted, a removal site inspection.
(b) A removal site evaluation of a release identified for
possible CERCLA response pursuant to § 300.415 shall, as
appropriate, be undertaken by the lead agency as promptly as
possible. The lead agency may perform a removal preliminary
assessment in response to petitions submitted by a person who is,
or may be, affected by a release of a hazardous substance,
pollutant ot contaminant pursuant to § 300.420(b)(5).
(c)(1) The lead agency shall, as appropriate, base the
removal preliminary assessment on readily available information.
A removal preliminary assessment may include, but is not limited
to:
(1) Identification of the source and nature of the release or
threat of release;
(ii) Evaluation by ATSDR or by other sources, for example,
state public health agencies, of the threat to public health;
(iii) Evaluation of the magnitude of the threat;
(iv) Evaluation of factors necessary to make the
determination of whether a removal is necessary; and
(v) Determination of whether a nonfederal party is
undertaking proper response.
(2) A removal preliminary assessment of releases from
hazardous waste management facilities may include collection or
review of data such as site management practices, information from
generators, photographs, analysis of historical photographs,
-------
-496-
literature searches, and personal interviews conducted as
appropriate.
(d) A removal site inspection may be performed if more
information is needed. Such inspection may include a perimeter
(off-site) or on-site inspection, taking into consideration
whether such inspection can be performed safely.
(e) A removal site evaluation shall be terminated vhen the
OSC or lead agency determines:
(1) There is no release;
(2) The source is neither a vessel nor a facility as defined
in § 300.5 of the NCP;
(3) The release involves neither a hazardous substance, nor a
pollutant or contaminant that may present an imminent and
substantial danger to public health or welfare;
(4) The release consists of a situation specified in
§ 300.400(b)(1) through (3) subject to limitations on response;
(5) The amount, quantity, or concentration released does not
warrant federal response;
(6) A party responsible for the release, or any other person,
is providing appropriate response, and on-scene monitoring by the
government is not required; or
(7) The removal site evaluation is completed.
(f) The results of the removal site evaluation shall be
documented.
(g) If natural resources are or may be injured by the
release, the OSC or lead agency shall ensure that state and
federal trustees of the affected natural resources are promptly
notified in order that the trustees may initiate appropriate
actions, including those identified in Subpart G of this Part.
The OSC or lead agency shall seek to coordinate necessary
assessments, evaluations, investigations, and planning with such
state and federal trustees.
(h) If the removal site evaluation indicates that removal
action under § 300.415 is not required, but that remedial action
under § 300.4 30 may be necessary, the lead agency shall, as
appropriate, initiate a remedial site evaluation pursuant to
§ 300.420.
-------
-497-
§ 300.415 Removal action.
(a)(1) In determining the appropriate extent of action to be
taken in response to a given release, the lead agency shall first
review the removal site evaluation, any information produced
through a remedial site evaluation, if any has been done
previously, and the current site conditions, to determine if
removal action is appropriate.
(2) Where the responsible parties are known, an effort
initially shall be made, to the extent practicable, to determine
whether they can and will perforin the necessary removal action
promptly and properly.
(3) This section does not apply to removal actions taken
pursuant to section 104(b) of CERCLA. The criteria for such
actions are set forth in section 104(b) of CERCLA.
(b)(1) At any release, regardless of whether the site is
included on the National Priorities List, where the lead agency
makes the determination, based on the factors in paragraph (b)(2)
of this section, that there is a threat to public health or
welfare or the environment, the lead agency may take any
appropriate removal action to abate, prevent, minimize, stabilize,
mitigate, or eliminate the release or the threat of release.
(2) The following factors shall be considered in determining
the appropriateness of a removal action pursuant to this section:
(i) Actual or potential exposure to nearby human
populations, animals, or the food chain from hazardous substances
or pollutants or contaminants;
(ii) Actual or potential contamination of drinking water
supplies or sensitive ecosystems;
(iii) Hazardous substances or pollutants or contaminants in
drums, barrels, tanks, or other bulk storage containers, that may
pose a threat of release;
(iv) High levels of hazardous substances or pollutants or
contaminants in soils largely at or near the surface, that may
migrate;
(v) Weather conditions that may cause hazardous substances
or pollutants or contaminants to migrate or be released;
(vi) Threat of fire or explosion;
(vii) The availability of other appropriate federal or state
response mechanisms to respond to the release; and
-------
-498-
(viii) Other situations or factors that may pose threats to
public health or welfare or the environment.
(3) If the lead agency determines that a removal action is
appropriate, actions shall, as appropriate, begin as soon as
possible to abate, prevent, minimize, stabilize, mitigate, or
eliminate the threat to public health or welfare or the
environment. The lead agency shall, at the earliest possible
time, also make any necessary determinations pursuant to paragraph
(b)(4) of this section.
(4) Whenever a planning period of at least six months exists
before on-site activities must be initiated, and the lead agency
determines, based on a site evaluation, that a removal action is
appropriate:
(i) The lead agency shall conduct an engineering evaluation/
cost analysis (EE/CA) or its equivalent. The EE/CA is an analysis
of removal alternatives for a site.
(ii) If environmental samples are to be collected, the lead
agency shall develop sampling and analysis plans that shall
provide a process for obtaining data of sufficient quality and
quantity to satisfy data needs. Sampling and analysis, plans
shall be reviewed and approved by EPA. The sampling and analysis
plans shall consist of two parts:
(A) The field sampling plan, which describes the number,
type, and location of samples and the type of analyses; and
(B) The quality assurance project plan, which describes
policy, organization, and functional activities and the data
quality objectives and measures necessary to achieve adequate
data for use in planning and documenting the removal action.
(5) Fund-financed removal actions, other than those
authorized under section 104(b) of CERCLA, shall be terminated
after $2 million has been obligated for the action or twelve
months have elapsed from the date that removal activities begin
on-site, unless the lead agency determines that:
(i) There is an immediate risk to public health or welfare
or the environment; continued response actions are immediately
required to prevent, limit, or mitigate an emergency; and such
assistance will not otherwise be provided on a timely basis; or
(ii) Continued response action is otherwise appropriate and
consistent with the remedial action to be taken.
(c) Removal actions shall, to the extent practicable,
contribute to the efficient performance of any anticipated
long-term remedial action with respect to the release concerned.
-------
-499-
(d) The following removal actions are, as a general rule,
appropriate in the types of situations shown; however, this list
is not exhaustive and is not intended to prevent the lead agency
from taking any other actions deemed necessary under CERCLA or
other appropriate federal or state enforcement or response
authorities, and the list does not create a duty on the lead
agency to take action at any particular time:
(1) Fences, warning signs, or other security or site control
precautions — where huaans or animals have access to the release;
(2) Drainage controls, for example, run-off or run-on
diversion -- where needed to reduce migration of hazardous
substances or pollutants or contaminants off-site or to prevent
precipitation or run-off from other sources, for example,
flooding, from entering the release area from other areas;
(3) stabilization of berms, dikes, or impoundments or
drainage or closing of lagoons — where needed to maintain the
integrity of the structures;
(4) Capping of contaminated soils or sludges — where needed
to reduce migration of hazardous substances or pollutants or
contaminants into soil, ground or surface water, or air;
(5) Using chemicals and other materials to retard the spread
of the release or to mitigate its effects ~ where the use of such
chemicals will reduce the spread of the release;
(6) Excavation, consolidation, or removal of highly
contaminated soils from drainage or other areas — where such
actions will reduce the spread of, or direct contact with, the
contamination;
(7) Removal of drums, barrels, tanks, or other bulk
containers that contain or may contain hazardous substances or
pollutants or contaminants — where it will reduce the likelihood
of spillage; leakage; exposure to humans, animals, or food chain;
or fire or explosion;
(8) Containment, treatment, disposal, or incineration of
hazardous materials — where needed to reduce the likelihood of
human, animal, or food chain exposure; or
(9) Provision of alternative water supply — where necessary
immediately to reduce exposure to contaminated household water and
continuing until such time as local authorities can satisfy the
need for a permanent remedy.
(e) Where necessary to protect public health or welfare, the
-------
-500-
lead agency shall request that FEMA conduct a temporary relocation
or that state/local officials conduct an evacuation.
(f) If the lead agency determines that the removal action
will not fully address the threat posed by the release and the
release may require remedial action, the lead agency shall ensure
an orderly transition from removal to remedial response
activities.
(g) Removal actions conducted by states under cooperative
agreements, described in Subpart F of this Part, shall coiq>ly with
all requirements of this section.
(h) Facilities operated by a state or political subdivision
at the time of disposal require a state cost share of at least 50
percent of Fund-financed response costs if a Fund-financed
remedial action is conducted.
(i) Fund-financed removal actions under CERCLA section 104
and removal actions pursuant to CERCLA section 106 shall, to the
extent practicable considering the exigencies of the situation,
attain applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements under
federal environmental or state environmental or facility siting
lavs. Waivers described in § 300.430(f)(1)(ii)(C) may be used for
removal actions. Other federal and state advisories, criteria or
guidance may, as appropriate, be considered in formulating the
removal action (see § 300.400(g)(3)). In determining whether
compliance with ARARs is practicable, the lead agency may consider
appropriate factors, including:
(A); The urgency of the situation; and
(B) The scope of the removal action to be conducted.
(j) Removal actions pursuant to section 106 or 122 of CERCLA
are not subject to the following requirements of this section:
(1) Section 300.415(a)(2) requirement to locate responsible
parties and have them undertake the response;
(2) Section 300.415(b)(2)(vii) requirement to consider the
availability of other appropriate federal or state response and
enforcement mechanisms to respond to the release;
(3) Section 300.415(b)(5) requirement to terminate response
after $2 million has been obligated or twelve months have elapsed
from the date of the initial response; and
(4) Section 300.415(f) requirement to assure an orderly
transition from removal to remedial action.
-------
-501-
(k) To the extent practicable, provision for post-removal
site control following a fund-financed removal action at both NPL
and non-NPL sites is encouraged to be made prior to the initiation
of the removal action. Such post-removal site control includes
actions necessary to ensure the effectiveness and integrity of the
removal action after the completion of the on-site removal action
or after the $2 million or 12 month statutory limits are reached
for sites that do not meet the exemption criteria in paragraph
(b)(5) of this section. Post-removal site control may be
conducted by:
(1) The affected state or political subdivision thereof or
local units of government for any removal;
(2) Potentially responsible parties; or
(3) EPA's remedial program for some federal-lead
Fund-financed responses at NPL sites.
(1) OSCs/RPMs conducting removal actions shall submit OSC
reports to the RRT as required by § 300.165.
(m) Community relations in removal actions. (1) In the
case of all removal actions taken pursuant to § 300.415 or CERCIA
enforcement actions to compel removal response, a spokesperson
shall be designated by the lead agency. The spokesperson shall
inform the community of actions taken, respond to inquiries, and
provide information concerning the release. All news releases or
statements made by participating agencies shall be coordinated
with the OSC/RPM. The spokesperson shall notify, at a minimum,
immediately affected citizens, state and local officials and, when
appropriate, civil defense or emergency management agencies.
(2) For actions where, based on the site evaluation, the
lead agency determines that a removal is appropriate, and that
less than six months exists before on-site removal activity must
begin, the lead agency shall:
(i) Publish a notice of availability of the administrative
record file established pursuant to § 300.820 in a major local
newspaper of general circulation within 60 days of initiation of
on-site rcnoval activity;
(ii) Provide a public comment period, as appropriate, of not
less than 30 days from the time the administrative record file is
made available for public inspection, pursuant to § 300.820(b)(2);
and
(iii) Prepare a written response to significant comments
pursuant to § 300.820(b)(3).
-------
-502-
(3) For removal actions where on-site action is expected to
extend beyond 120 days from the initiation of on-site removal
activities, the lead agency shall by the end of the 120-day
period:
(i) Conduct interviews with local officials, community
residents, public interest groups, or other interested or affected
parties, as appropriate, to solicit their concerns, information
needs, and how or when citizens would like to be involved in the
Superfund process;
(ii) Prepare a formal community relations plan (CRP) based
on the community interviews and other relevant information,
specifying the community relations activities that the lead agency
expects to undertake during the response; and
(iii) Establish at least one local information repository at
or near the location of the response action. The information
repository should contain items made available for public
information. Further, an administrative record file established
pursuant to Subpart I for all removal actions shall be available
for public inspection in at least one of the repositories. The
lead agency shall inform the public of the establishment of the
information repository and provide notice of availability of the
administrative record file for public review. All items in the
repository shall be available for public inspection and copying.
(4) Where, based on the site evaluation, the lead agency
determines that a removal action is appropriate and that a
planning period of at least six months exists prior to initiation
of the on-site removal activities, the lead agency shall at a
minimum:
(i) Comply with the requirements set forth in paragraphs
(m)(3)(i), (ii), and (iii) of this section, prior to the
completion of the engineering evaluation/cost analysis (EE/CA), or
its equivalent, except that the information repository and the
administrative record file will be established no later than when
the EC/CA approval memorandum is signed;
(ii) Publish a notice of availability and brief description
of the EE/CA in a major local newspaper of general circulation
pursuant to § 300.820;
(iii) Provide a reasonable opportunity, not less than 30
calendar days, for submission of written and oral comments after
completion of the EE/CA pursuant to § 300.820(a). Upon timely
request, the lead agency will extend the public comment period by
a minimum of 15 days; and
(iv) Prepare a written response to significant comments
pursuant to § 300.820(a).
-------
-503-
§ 300.420 Remedial site evaluation.
(a} General. The purpose of this section is to describe the
methods, procedures, and criteria the lead agency shall use to
collect data, as required, and evaluate releases of hazardous
substances, pollutants, or contaminants. The evaluation may
consist of two steps: a remedial preliminary assessment (PA) and a
remedial site inspection (SI).
(b) Remedial preliminary assessment. (1) The lead agency
shall perform a remedial PA on all sites in CERCLIS as defined in
§ 300.5 to:
(1) Eliminate from further consideration those sites that
pose no threat to public health or the environment;
(ii) Determine if there is any potential need for removal
action;
(iii) Set priorities for site inspections; and
(iv) Gather existing data to facilitate later evaluation of
the release pursuant to the Hazard Ranking System (HRS) if
warranted.
(2) A remedial PA shall consist of a review of existing
information about a release such as information on the pathways of
exposure, exposure targets, and source and nature of release. A
remedial PA shall also include an off-site reconnaissance as
appropriate. A remedial PA may include an on-site reconnaissance
where appropriate.
(3) If the remedial PA indicates that a removal action may
be warranted, the lead agency shall initiate removal evaluation
pursuant to § 300.410.
(4) In performing a remedial PA, the lead agency may
complete the EPA Preliminary Assessment form, available from EPA
regional offices, or its equivalent, and shall prepare a PA
report, which shall include:
(i) A description of the release;
(ii) A description of the probable nature of the release;
and
(iii) A recommendation on whether further action is
warranted, which lead agency should conduct further action, and
whether an SI or removal action or both should be undertaken.
(5) Any person may petition the lead federal agency (EPA or
the appropriate federal agency in the case of a release or
-------
-504-
suspected release from a federal facility), to perform a PA of a
release when such person is, or may be, affected by a release of a
hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant. Such petitions
shall be addressed to the EPA Regional Administrator for the
region in which the release is located, except that petitions for
PAs involving federal facilities should be addressed to the head
of the appropriate federal agency.
(i) Petitions shall be signed by the petitioner and shall
contain the following:
(A) The full name, address, and phone number of petitioner;
(B) A description, as precisely as possible, of the location
of the release; and
(C) How the petitioner is or may be affected by the release.
(ii) Petitions should also contain the following information
to the extent available:
(A) What type of substances were or may be released;
(B) The nature of activities that have occurred where the
release is located; and
(C) Whether local and state authorities have been contacted
about the release.
(iii) The lead federal agency shall complete a remedial or
removal PA within one year of the date of receipt of a complete
petition pursuant to paragraph (b)(5) of this section, if one has
not been performed previously, unless the lead federal agency
determines that a PA is not appropriate. Where such a
determination is made, the lead federal agency shall notify the
petitioner and will provide a reason for the determination.
(iv) When determining if performance of a PA is appropriate,
the lead federal agency shall take into consideration:
(A) Whether there is information indicating that a release
has occurred or there is a threat of a release of a hazardous
substance, pollutant, or contaminant; and
(B) Whether the release is eligible for response under
CERCLA.
(c) Remedial site inspection. (1) The lead agency shall
perform a remedial SI as appropriate to:
(i) Eliminate from further consideration those releases that
pose no significant threat to public health or the environment;
-------
-505-
(ii) Determine the potential need for removal action;
(iii) Collect or develop additional data, as appropriate, to
evaluate the release pursuant to the HRS; and
(iv) Collect data in addition to that required to score the
release pursuant to the HRS, as appropriate, to better
characterize the release for more effective and rapid initiation
of the RI/FS or response under other authorities.
(2) The remedial SI shall build upon the information
collected in the remedial PA. The remedial SI shall involve, as
appropriate, both on- and off-site field investigatory efforts,
and sampling.
(3) If the remedial SI indicates that removal action may be
appropriate, the lead agency shall initiate removal site
evaluation pursuant to S 300.410.
(4) Prior to conducting field sampling as part of site
inspections, the lead agency shall develop sampling and analysis
plans that shall provide a process for obtaining data of
sufficient quality and quantity to satisfy data needs. The
sampling and analysis plans shall consist of two parts:
(i) The field sampling plan, which describes the number, type
and location of samples and the type of analyses, and
(ii) The quality assurance project plan (QAPP), which
describes policy, organization and functional activities and the
data quality objectives and measures necessary to achieve adequate
data for use in site evaluation and hazard ranking system
activities.
(5) Upon completion of a remedial SI, the lead agency shall
prepare a report that includes the following:
(i) A description/history/nature of waste handling;
(iii A description of known contaminants;
(iii) A description of pathways of migration of
contaminants;
(iv) An identification and description of human and
environmental targets; and
(v) A recommendation on whether further action is warranted.
-------
-506-
§ 300.425 Establishing remedial priorities.
(a) General. The purpose of this section is to identify the
criteria as well as the methods and procedures EPA uses to
establish its priorities for remedial actions.
(b) National Priorities List. The NPL is the list of
priority releases for long-term remedial evaluation and response.
(1) Only those releases included on the NPL shall b«
considered eligible for Fund-financed remedial action. Rnoval
actions (including remedial planning activities, RI/FSs, and other
actions taken pursuant to CERCLA section 104(b)) are not iimited
to NPL sites.
(2) Inclusion of a release on the NPL does not imply that
monies will be expended, nor does the rank of a release on the NPL
establish the precise priorities for the allocation of Fund
resources. EPA may also pursue other appropriate authorities to
remedy the release, including enforcement actions under CERCLA and
other laws. A site's rank on the NPL serves, along with other
factors, including enforcement actions, as a basis to guide the
allocation of Fund resources among releases.
(3) Federal facilities that meet the criteria identified in
paragraph (c) of this section are eligible for inclusion on the
NPL. Except as provided by CERCLA sections 111(e)(3) and 111(c),
federal facilities are not eligible for Fund-financed remedial
actions.
. (4) Inclusion on the NPL is not a precondition to action by
the lead agency under CERCLA sections 106 or 122 or to action
under CERCLA section 107 for recovery of non-Fund-financed costs
or Fund-financed costs other than Fund-financed remedial
construction costs.
(c) Methods for determining eligibility for NPL. A release
may be included on the NPL if the release meets one of the
following criteria:
(1) The release scores sufficiently high pursuant to the
Hazard Ranking System described in Appendix A to this Part.
(2) A state (not including Indian tribes) has designated a
release as its highest priority. States may make only one such
designation; or
(3) The release satisfies all of the following criteria:
(i) The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry has
issued a health advisory that recommends dissociation of
individuals from the release;
-------
-507-
(ii) EPA determines that the release poses a significant
threat to public health; and
(iii) EPA anticipates that it will be more cost-effective to
use its remedial authority than to use removal authority to
respond to the release.
(d) Procedures for placing sites on the NPL- Lead agencies
may submit candidates to EPA by scoring the release using the HRS
and providing the appropriate backup documentation.
(1) Lead agencies may submit HRS scoring packages to EPA
anytime throughout the year.
(2) EPA shall review lead agencies' HRS scoring packages and
revise them as appropriate. EPA shall develop any additional HRS
scoring packages on releases known to EPA.
(3) EPA shall compile the NPL based on the methods
identified in paragraph (c) of this section.
(4) EPA shall update the NPL at least once a year.
(5) To ensure public involvement during the proposal to add
a release to the NPL, EPA shall:
(i) Publish the proposed rule in the FEDERAL REGISTER and
solicit comments through a public comment period; and
(ii) Publish the final rule in the FEDERAL REGISTER, and
make available a response to each significant comment and any
significant new data submitted during the comment period.
(6) Releases may be categorized on the NPL when deemed
appropriate by EPA.
(e) Deletion from the NPL. Releases may be deleted from or
recategorized on the NPL where no further response is appropriate.
(1) EPA shall consult with the state on proposed deletions
from the NPL prior to developing the notice of intent to delete.
In making a determination to delete a release from the NPL, EPA
shall consider, in consultation with the state, whether any of the
following criteria has been met:
(i) Responsible parties or other persons have implemented
all appropriate response actions required;
(ii) All appropriate Fund-financed response under CERCLA has
been implemented, and no further response action by responsible
parties is appropriate; or
-------
-508-
(iii) The remedial investigation has shown that the release
poses no significant threat to public health or the environment
and, therefore, taking of remedial measures is not appropriate.
(2) Releases shall not be deleted from the NPL until the
state in which the release was located has concurred on the
proposed deletion. EPA shall provide the state 30 working days
for review of the deletion notice prior to its publication in the
FEDERAL REGISTER.
(3) All releases deleted from the NPL are eligible for
further Fund-financed remedial actions should future conditions
warrant such action. Whenever there is a significant release from
a site deleted from the NPL, the site shall be restored to the NPL
without application of the HRS.
(4) To ensure public involvement during the proposal to
delete a release from the NPL, EPA shall:
(i) Publish a notice of intent to delete in the FEDERAL
REGISTER and solicit comment through a public comment period of a
minimum of 30 calendar days;
(iij In a major local newspaper of general circulation at or
near the release that is proposed for deletion, publish a notice
of availability of the notice of intent to delete;
(iii) Place copies of information supporting the proposed
deletion in the information repository, described in
§ 300.430(c)(2)(iii), at or near the release proposed for
deletion. These items shall be available for public inspection
and copying; and
(iv) Respond to each significant comment and any significant
new data submitted during the comment period and include this
response document in the final deletion package.
(5) EPA shall place the final deletion package in the local
information repository once the notice of final deletion has been
published in the FEDERAL REGISTER.
-------
-509-
§ 300.430 Remedial investigation/feasibility study and
selection of remedy.
(a) General — (l) introduction. The purpose of the remedy
selection process is to implement remedies that eliminate, reduce
or control risks to human health and the environment* Remedial
actions are to be implemented as soon as site data and information
make it possible to do so. Accordingly, EPA has established the
following program goal, expectations and program management
principles to assist in the identification and implementation of
appropriate remedial actions.
(i) Program goal. The national goal of the remedy selection
process is to select remedies that are protective of human health
and the environment, that maintain protection over time and that
minimize untreated waste.
(ii) Program management principles. EPA generally shall
consider the following general principles of program management
during the remedial process:
(A) Sites should generally be remediated in operable units
when early actions are necessary or appropriate to achieve
significant risk reduction quickly, when phased analysis and
response is necessary or appropriate given the size or complexity
of the site, or to expedite the completion of total site cleanup.
(B) Operable units, including interim action operable units,
should not be inconsistent with nor preclude implementation of the
expected final remedy.
(C) Site-specific data needs, the evaluation of alternatives,
and the documentation of the selected remedy should reflect the
scope and complexity of the site problems being addressed.
(iii) Expectations. EPA generally shall consider the
following expectations in developing appropriate remedial
alternatives:
(A) EPA expects to use treatment to address the principal
threats posed by a site, wherever practicable. Principal threats
for which treatment is most likely to be appropriate include
liquids, areas contaminated with high concentrations of toxic
compounds and highly mobile materials.
(B) EPA expects to use engineering controls, such as
containment, for waste that poses a relatively low long-term
threat or where treatment is impracticable.
(C) EPA expects to use a combination of methods, as
appropriate, to achieve protection of human health and the
environment. In appropriate site situations, treatment of the
-------
-510-
principal threats posed by a site, with priority placed on
treating waste that is liquid, highly toxic or highly mobile, will
be combined with engineering controls (such as containment) and
institutional controls, as appropriate, for treatment residuals
and untreated waste.
(D) EPA expects to use institutional controls such as water
use and deed restrictions to supplement engineering controls as
appropriate for short- and long-term management to prevent or
limit exposure to hazardous substances, pollutants or
contaminants. Institutional controls may be used during the
conduct of the remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS)
and implementation of the remedial action and, where necessary, as
;a component of the completed remedy. The use of institutional
controls shall not substitute for active response measures (e.g.,
treatment and/or containment of source material, restoration of
ground waters to their beneficial uses) as the sole remedy unless
such active measures are determined not to be practicable, based
on the balancing of trade-offs among alternatives that is
conducted during the selection of remedy.
(E) EPA expects to consider using innovative technology when
such technology offers the potential for comparable or superior
treatment performance or implementability, fewer or lesser adverse
impacts than other available approaches, or lower costs for
similar levels of performance than demonstrated technologies.
(F) EPA expects to return usable ground waters to their
beneficial uses wherever practicable, within a timeframe that is
reasonable given the particular circumstances of the site. When
restoration of ground water to beneficial uses is not practicable,
EPA expects to prievent further migration of the plume, prevent
exposure to the contaminated ground water, and evaluate further
risk reduction.
(2) Remedial investigation/feasibility study. The purpose
of the remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) is to
assess site conditions and evaluate alternatives to the extent
necessary to select a remedy. Developing and conducting an RI/FS
generally includes the following activities: project scoping,
data collection, risk assessment, treatability studies, and
analysis of alternatives. The scope and timing of these
activities should be tailored to the nature and complexity of the
problem and the response alternatives being considered.
(b) Scopinc. In implementing this section, the lead agency
should consider the program goal, program management principles,
and expectations contained in this rule. The investigative and
analytical studies should be tailored to site circumstances so
that the scope and detail cf the analysis is appropriate to the
complexity of site problems being addressed. During scoping the
lead ana support agencies shall confer to identify the optimal set
-------
-511-
and sequence of actions necessary to address site problems.
Specifically, the lead.agency shall:.
(1) Assemble and evaluate existing data on the site,
including the results of any removal actions, remedial preliminary
assessment and site inspections, and the HPL listing process.
(2) Develop a conceptual understanding of the site based on
the evaluation of existing data described in paragraph (b)(1) of
this section.
(3) Identify likely response scenarios and potentially
applicable technologies and operable units that nay address site
problems.
(4) Undertake limited data collection efforts or studies
where this information will assist in scoping the RI/FS or
accelerate response actions, and begin to identify the need for
treatability studies, as appropriate.
(5) Identify the type, quality, and quantity of the data
that will be collected during the RI/FS to support decisions
regarding remedial response activities.
(6) Prepare site-specific health and safety plans that shall
specify, at a minimum, employee training and protective equipment,
medical surveillance requirements, standard operating procedures,
and a contingency plan that conforms with 29 CFR 1910.120(1)(1)
and (1)(2).
(7) if natural resources are or may be injured by the
release, ensure that state and federal trustees of the affected
natural resources have been notified in order that the trustees
may initiate appropriate actions, including those identified in
Subpart G of this Part. The lead agency shall seek to coordinate
necessary assessments, evaluations, investigations, and planning
with such state and federal trustees.
(8) Develop sampling and analysis plans that shall provide a
process for obtaining data of sufficient quality and quantity to
satisfy data needs. Sampling and analysis plans shall be reviewed
and approved by EPA. The sampling and analysis plans shall
consist of two parts:
(i) The field sampling plan, which describes the number,
type, and location of samples and the type of analyses; and
(ii) The quality assurance project plan, which describes
policy, organization, and functional activities and the data
quality objectives and measures necessary to achieve adequate data
for use in selecting the appropriate remedy.
-------
-512-
(9) Initiate the identification of potential federal and
state ARARs and, as appropriate, other criteria, advisories, or
guidance to be considered.
(c) Community relations. (1) The community relations
requirements described in this section apply to all remedial
activities undertaken pursuant to CERCLA section 104 and to
section 106 or section 122 consent orders or decrees, or section
106 administrative orders.
(2) The lead agency shall provide for the conduct of the
following community relations activities, to the extent
practicable, prior to commencing field work for the remedial
investigation:
(i) Conducting interviews with local officials, community
residents, public interest groups, or other interested or affected
parties, as appropriate, to solicit their concerns and information
needs, and to learn how and when citizens would like to be
involved in the Superfund process.
(ii) Preparing a formal community relations plan (CRP),
based on the community interviews and other relevant information,
specifying the community relations activities that the lead agency
expects to undertake during the remedial response. The purpose of
the CRP is to:
(A) Ensure the public appropriate opportunities for
involvement in a wide variety of site-related decisions, including
site analysis and characterization, alternatives analysis, and
selection of remedy;
(B) Determine, based on community interviews, appropriate
activities to ensure such public involvement, and
'(C) Provide appropriate opportunities for the community to
learn about the site.
(iii) Establishing at least one local information repository
at or near the location of the response action. Each information
repository should contain a copy of items made available to the
public, including information that describes the technical
assistance grants application process. The lead agency shall
inform interested parties of the establishment of the information
repository.
(iv) Informing the community of the availability of technical
assistance grants.
(3) For PRP actions, the lead agency shall plan and
implement the community relations program at a site. Potentially
responsible parties (PRPs) may participate in aspects of the
-------
-513-
community relations program at the discretion of and with
oversight by the lead agency.
(4) The lead agency nay conduct technical discussions
involving PRPs and the public. These technical discussions may be
held separately from, but contemporaneously with, the
negotiations/settlement discussions.
(5) In addition, the following provisions specifically apply
to enforcement actions:
(1) Lead agencies entering into an enforcement agreement
with de minimis parties under CERCLA. section 122(g) or cost
recovery settlements under section 122(h) shall publish a notice
of the proposed agreement in the FEDERAL REGISTER at least 30 days
before the agreement becomes final, as required by section
122(i). The notice must identify the name of the facility and the
parties to the proposed agreement and must allow an opportunity
for comment and consideration of comments; and
(ii) Where the enforcement agreement is embodied in a
consent decree, public notice and opportunity for public comment
shall be provided in accordance with 28 CFR 50.7.
(d) Remedial investigation. (1) The purpose of the remedial
investigation (RI) is to collect data necessary to adequately
characterize the site for the purpose of developing and evaluating
effective remedial alternatives. To characterize the site, the
lead agency shall, as appropriate, conduct field investigations,
including treatability studies, and conduct a baseline risk
assessment. The RI provides information to assess the risks to
human health and the environment and to support the development,
evaluation, and selection of appropriate response alternatives.
Site characterization may be conducted in one or more phases to
focus sampling efforts and increase the efficiency of the
investigation. Because estimates of actual or potential
exposures and associated impacts on human and environmental
receptors may be refined throughout the phases of the RI as new
information is obtained, site characterization activities should
be fully integrated with the development and evaluation of
alternatives in the feasibility study. Bench- or pilot- scale
treatability studies shall be conducted, when appropriate and
practicable, to provide additional data for the detailed analysis
and to support engineering design of remedial alternatives.
(2) The lead agency shall characterize the nature of and
threat posed by the hazardous substances and hazardous materials
and gather data necessary to assess the extent to which the
release poses a threat to human health or the environment or to
support the analysis and design of potential response actions by
conducting, as appropriate, field investigations to assess the
following factors:
-------
-514-
(i) Physical characteristics of the site, including
important surface features, soils, geology, hydrogeology,
meteorology, and ecology;
(ii) Characteristics or classifications of air, surface
water, and ground water;
(iii) The general characteristics of the waste, including
quantities, state, concentration, toxicity, propensity to
bioaccumulate, persistence, and nobility;
(iv) The extent to which the source can be adequately
identified and characterized;
(v) Actual and potential exposure pathways through
environmental media;
(vi) Actual and potential exposure routes, for example,
inhalation and ingestion; and
(vii) other factors, such as sensitive populations, that
pertain to the characterization of the site or support the
analysis of potential remedial action alternatives.
(3) The lead and support agency shall identify their
respective potential ARARs related to the location of and
contaminants at the site in a timely manner. The lead and support
agencies may also, as appropriate, identify other pertinent
advisories, criteria or guidance in a timely manner (see
§ 300.400(g)(3)).
(4) Using the data developed under paragraphs (d)(1) and (2)
of this section, the lead agency shall conduct a site-specific
baselin¥"risk assessment to characterize the current and potential
threats to human health and the environment that may be posed by
contaminants migrating to ground water or surface water, releasing
to air, leaching through soil, remaining in the soil, and
bioaccumulating in the food chain. The results of the baseline
risk assessment will help establish acceptable exposure levels for
use in developing remedial alternatives in the FS, as described in
paragraph (e) of this section.
(e) Feasibility study. (1) The primary objective of the
feasibility study (FS) is to ensure that appropriate remedial
alternatives are developed and evaluated such that relevant
information concerning the remedial action options can be
presented to a decision-maker and an appropriate remedy selected.
The lead agency may develop a feasibility study to address a
specific site problem or the entire site. The development and
evaluation of alternatives shall reflect the scope and complexity
of the remedial action under consideration and the site problems
-------
-515-
being addressed. Development of alternatives shall be fully
integrated with the site characterization activities of the
remedial investigation described in paragraph (d) of this
section. The lead agency shall include an alternatives screening
step, when needed, to select a reasonable number of alternatives
for detailed analysis.
(2) Alternatives shall be developed that protect human health
and the environment by recycling waste or by eliminating,
reducing, and/or controlling risks posed through each pathway by a
site. The number and type of alternatives to be analyzed shall be
determined at each site, talcing into account the scope,
characteristics, and complexity of the site problem that is being
addressed. In developing and, as appropriate, screening the
alternatives, the lead agency shall:
(i) Establish remedial action objectives specifying
contaminants and media of concern, potential exposure pathways,
and remediation goals. Initially, preliminary remediation goals
are developed based on readily available information, such as
chemical-specific ARARs or other reliable information.
Preliminary remediation goals should be modified, as necessary, as
more information becomes available during the RI/FS. Final
remediation goals will be determined when the remedy is selected.
Remediation goals shall establish acceptable exposure levels that
are protective of human health and the environment and shall be
developed by considering the following:
(A) Applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements
under federal environmental or state environmental or facility
siting laws, if available, and the following factors:
(1) For systemic toxicants, acceptable exposure levels shall
represent concentration levels to which the human population,
including sensitive subgroups, may be exposed without adverse
effect during a lifetime or part of a lifetime, incorporating an
adequate margin of safety;
(2.) For known or suspected carcinogens, acceptable exposure
levels ar* generally concentration levels that represent an excess
upper bapad lifetime cancer risk to an individual of between 10~4
and 10~"w»ing information on the relationship between dose and
response* The 10~6 risk level shall be used as the point of
departure for determining remediation goals for alternatives when
ARARs are not available or are not sufficiently protective because
of the presence of multiple contaminants at a site or multiple
pathways of exposure;
(2) Factors related to technical limitations such as
detection/quantification limits for contaminants;
(A) Factors related to uncertainty; and
-------
-516-
(5) Other pertinent information.
(B) Maximum contaminant levels goals (MCLGs), established
under the Safe Drinking Water Act, that are set at levels above
zero, shall be attained by remedial actions for ground or surface
waters that are current or potential sources of drinking water,
where the MCLGs are relevant and appropriate under the
circumstances of the release based on the factors in
§ 300.400(g)(2). If an MCLG is determined not to be relevant and
appropriate, the corresponding maximum contaminant level (MCL)
shall be attained where relevant and appropriate to the
circumstances of the release.
(C) Where the MCLG for a contaminant has been set at a level
of zero, the MCL promulgated for that contaminant under the Safe
Drinking Water Act shall be attained by remedial actions for
ground or surface waters that are current or potential sources of
drinking water, where the MCL is relevant and appropriate under
the circumstances of the release based on the factors in
§ 300.400(g)(2).
(D) In cages involving multiple contaminants or pathways
where attainment of chemical-specific ARARs will result in
cumulative risk in excess of 10~4, criteria in paragraph
(e)(2)(i)(A) of this section may also be considered when
determining the cleanup level to be attained.
(E) Water quality criteria established under sections 303 or
304 of the Clean Water Act shall be attained where relevant and
appropriate under the circumstances of the release.
(F) An alternate concentration limit (ACL) may be established
in accordance with CERCLA section 121(d)(2)(B)(ii).
(G) Environmental evaluations shall be performed to assess
threats to the environment, especially sensitive habitats and
critical habitats of species protected under the Endangered
Species Act.
(ii) Identify and evaluate potentially suitable technologies,
including innovative technologies;
(iii) Assemble suitable technologies into alternative
remedial actions.
(3) For source control actions, the lead agency shall
develop, as appropriate:
(i) A range of alternatives in which treatment that reduces
the toxicity, mobility, or volume of the hazardous substances,
pollutants, or contaminants is a principal element. As
-------
-517-
appropriate, this range shall include an alternative that removes
or destroys hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants to
the maximum extent feasible, eliminating or minimizing, to the
degree possible, the need for long-term management. The lead
agency also shall develop, as appropriate, other alternatives
which, at a minimum, treat the principal threats posed by the site
but vary in the degree of treatment employed and the quantities
and characteristics of the treatment residuals and untreated waste
that must be managed; and
(ii) One or more alternatives that involve little or no
treatment, but provide protection of human health and the
environment primarily by preventing or controlling exposure to
hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants, through
engineering controls, for example, containment, and, as necessary,
institutional controls to protect human health and the environment
and to assure continued effectiveness of the response action.
(4) For ground-water response actions, the lead agency shall
develop a limited number of remedial alternatives that attain
site-specific remediation levels within different restoration time
periods utilizing one or more different technologies.
(5) The lead agency shall develop one or more innovative
treatment technologies for further consideration if those
technologies offer the potential for comparable or superior
performance or implementability; fever or lesser adverse impacts
than other available approaches; or lower costs for similar levels
of performance than demonstrated treatment technologies.
(6) The no-action alternative, which may be no further
action if some removal or remedial action has already occurred at
the site, shall be developed.
(7) As appropriate, and to the extent sufficient information
is available, the short- and long-term aspects of the following
three criteria shall be used to guide the development and
screening of remedial alternatives:
(i) Effectiveness. This criterion focuses on the degree to
which air alternative reduces toxicity, mobility, or volume through
treatment, minimizes residual risks and affords long-term
protection, complies with ARARs, minimizes short-term impacts, and
how quickly it achieves protection. Alternatives providing
significantly less effectiveness than other, more promising
alternatives may be eliminated. Alternatives that do not provide
adequate protection of human health and the environment shall be
eliminated from further consideration.
(ii) Implementabi1itv. This criterion focuses on the
technical feasibility and availability of the technologies each
alternative would employ and the administrative feasibility of
-------
-518-
implementing the alternative. Alternatives that are technically
or administratively infeasible or that would require equipment,
specialists, or facilities that are not available within a
reasonable period of time may be eliminated from further
consideration.
(iii) Cost. The costs of construction and any long-term
costs to operate and maintain the alternatives shall be
considered. Costs that are grossly excessive compared to the
overall effectiveness of.alternatives may be considered as one of
several factors used to eliminate alternatives. Alternatives
providing effectiveness and implementability similar to that of
another alternatives by employing a similar method of treatment or
engineering control, but at greater cost, may be eliminated.
(8) The lead agency shall notify the support agency of the
alternatives that will be evaluated in detail to facilitate the
identification of ARARs and, as appropriate, pertinent advisories,
criteria or guidance to be considered.
(9) Detailed analysis of alternatives. (i) A detailed
analysis shall be conducted on the limited number of alternatives
that represent viable approaches to remedial action after
evaluation in the screening stage. The lead and support agencies
must identify their ARARs related to specific actions in a timely
manner and no later than the early stages of the comparative
analysis. The lead and support agencies may also, as appropriate,
identify other pertinent advisories, criteria or guidance in a
timely manner.
(ii) The detailed analysis consists of an assessment of
individual alternatives against each of nine evaluation criteria
and a comparative analysis that focuses upon the relative
performance of each alternative against those criteria.
(iii) Nine criteria for evaluation. The analysis of
alternatives under review shall reflect the scope and complexity
of site problems and alternatives being evaluated and consider the
relative significance of the factors within each criteria. The
nine evaluation criteria are as follows:
(A) Overall protection of human health and the environment.
Alternatives shall be assessed to determine whether they can
adequately protect human health and the environment, in both the
short- and long-term, from unacceptable risks posed by hazardous
substances, pollutants, or contaminants present at the site by
eliminating, reducing, or controlling exposures to levels
establish :: during development of remediation goals consistent
with § 30,.430 (e)(2) (i). Overall protection of human health and
the environment draws on the assessments of other evaluation
criteria, especially long-term effectiveness and permanence,
short-term effectiveness, and compliance with ARARs.
-------
-519-
(B) Compliance with ARARs. The alternatives shall be
assessed to determine whether they attain applicable or relevant
and appropriate requirements under federal environmental laws and
state environmental or facility siting laws or provide grounds for
invoking one of the waivers under paragraph (£)(l)(ii)(C) of this
section.
(C) Long-term effectiveness and permanence. Alternatives
shall be assessed for the long-term effectiveness and permanence
they afford, along with the degree of certainty that the
alternative will prove successful. Factors that shall be
considered, as appropriate, include the following:
(1) Magnitude of residual risk remaining from untreated waste
or treatment residuals remaining at the conclusion of the remedial
activities. The characteristics of the residuals should be
considered to the degree that they remain hazardous, taking into
account their volume, toxicity, mobility, and propensity to
bioaccumulate.
(2) Adequacy and reliability of controls such as containment
systems and institutional controls that are necessary to manage
treatment residuals and untreated waste. This factor addresses in
particular the uncertainties associated with land disposal for
providing long-term protection from residuals; the assessment of
the potential need to replace technical components of the
alternative, such as a cap, a slurry wall, or a treatment system;
and the potential exposure pathways and risks posed should the
remedial action need replacement.
(D) Reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume through
treatment~ The degree to which alternatives employ recycling or
treatment that reduces toxicity, mobility, or volume shall be
assessed, including how treatment is used to address the principal
threats posed by the site. Factors that shall be considered, as
appropriate, include the following:
(1) The treatment or recycling processes the alternatives
employ and materials they will treat;
(2) A* amount of hazardous substances, pollutants or
contaminants that will be destroyed, treated, or recycled;
(2) The degree of expected reduction in toxicity, mobility,
or volume of the waste due to treatment or recycling and the
specification of which reduction(s) are occurring;
(A) The degree to which the treatment is irreversible;
(5) The type and quantity of residuals that will remain
following treatment, considering the persistence, toxicity,
-------
-520-
mobility, and propensity to bioaccumulate of such hazardous
substances and their constituents; and
(£) The degree to which treatment reduces the inherent
hazards posed by principal threats at the site.
(E) Short-term effectiveness. The short-term impacts of
alternatives shall be assessed considering the following:
(1) Short-term risks that might be posed to the comnunity
during implementation of an alternative;
(2) Potential impacts on workers during remedial action and
the effectiveness and reliability of protective measures;
(2) Potential environmental impacts of the remedial action
and the effectiveness and reliability of mitigative measures
during implementation; and
(1) Time until protection is achieved.
(F) Implementabilitv. The ease or difficulty of implementing
the alternatives shall be assessed by considering the following
types of factors as appropriate:
(1) Technical feasibility, including technical difficulties
and unknowns associated with the construction and operation of a
technology, the reliability of the technology, ease of undertaking
additional remedial actions, and the ability to monitor the
effectiveness of the remedy.
(Z) Administrative feasibility, including activities needed
to coordinate with other offices and agencies and the ability and
time required to obtain any necessary approvals and permits from
other agencies (for off-site actions);
(2) Availability of services and materials, including the
availability of adequate off-site treatment, storage capacity, and
disposal capacity and services; the availability of necessary
equipment and specialists, and provisions to ensure any necessary
additional resources; the availability of services and materials;
and availability of prospective technologies.
(G) Cost. The types of costs that shall be assessed include
the following:
(1) Capital costs, including both direct, and indirect costs;
(2.) Annual operation and maintenance costs; and
(3) Net present value of capital and O&M costs.
-------
-521-
(H) State acceptance. Assessment of state concerns may not
be completed until comments on the RI/FS are received but may be
discussed, to the extent possible, in the proposed plan issued for
public comment. The state concerns that shall be assessed include
the following:
(I) The state's position and key concerns related to the
preferred alternative and other alternatives; and
(2) State comments on ARARs or the proposed use of waivers.
(I) community acceptance. This assessment includes
determining which components of the alternatives interested
persons in the community support, have reservations about, or
oppose. This assessment may not be completed until comments on
the proposed plan are received.
(f) Selection of remedy ~ (1) Remedies selected shall
reflect the scope and purpose of the actions being undertaken and
how the action relates to long-term, comprehensive response at the
site.
(i) The criteria noted in paragraph (e)(9)(iii) are used to
select a remedy. These criteria are categorized into three
groups.
(A) Threshold criteria. Overall protection of human health
and the environment and compliance with ARARs (unless a specific
ARAR is waived) are threshold requirements that each alternative
must meet in order to be eligible for selection.
(B) Primary balancing criteria. The five primary balancing
criteria are long-term effectiveness and permanence; reduction of
toxicity, mobility or volume through treatment;. short-term
effectiveness; implementability; and cost.
(C) Modifying criteria. State and community acceptance are
modifying criteria that shall be considered in remedy selection.
(ii) The selection of a remedial action is a two-step
process Mid shall proceed in accordance with § 300.515(e). First,
the leuflGMency, in conjunction with the support agency,
identifisfc a preferred alternative and presents it to the public
in a proposed plan, for review and comment. Second, the lead
agency shall review the public comments and consult with the
state (or support agency) in order to determine if the alternative
remains the most appropriate remedial action for the site or site
problem. The lead agency, as specified in S 300.515(e), makes the
final remedy selection decision, which shall be documented in the
ROD. Each remedial alternative selected as a Superfund remedy
will employ the criteria as indicated in paragraph (f)(1)(i) of
this section to make the following determination:
-------
-522-
(A) Each remedial action selected shall be protective of
human health and the environment.
(B) On-site remedial actions selected in a ROD must attain
those ARARs that are identified at the time of ROD signature or
provide grounds for invoking a waiver under
§ 300.430(f)(1)(ii)(C).
(1) Requirements that are promulgated or modified after ROD
signature must be attained (or waived) only when determined to be
applicable or relevant and appropriate and necessary to ensure
that the remedy is protective of human health and the environment.
(2) Components of the remedy not described in the ROD must
attain (or waive) requirements that are identified as applicable
or relevant and appropriate at the time the amendment to the ROD
or the explanation of significant difference describing the
component is signed.
(C) An alternative that does not meet an ARAR under federal
environmental or state environmental or facility siting laws may
be selected under the following circumstances:
(2) The alternative is an interim measure and will become
part of a total remedial action that will attain the applicable or
relevant and appropriate federal or state requirement;
(Z) Compliance with the requirement will result in greater
risk to human health and the environment than other alternatives;
(1) Compliance with the requirement is technically
impracticable from an engineering perspective;
(1) The alternative will attain a standard of performance
that is equivalent to that required under the otherwise applicable
standard, requirement, or limitation through use of another method
or approach;
(5) With respect to a state requirement, the state has not
consistently applied, or demonstrated the intention to
consistently apply, the promulgated requirement in similar
circumstances at other remedial actions within the state; or
(£) For Fund-financed response actions only, an alternative
that attains the ARAR will not provide a balance between the need
for protection of human health and the environment at the site and
the availability of Fund monies to respond to other sites that may
present a threat to human health and the environment.
(D) Each remedial action selected shall be cost effective,
provided that it first satisfies the threshold criteria set forth
-------
-523-
in §§ 300.430(f)(1)(ii)(A) and (B). Cost-effectiveness is
determined by evaluating the following three of the five balancinc
criteria noted in paragraph 300.430(f)(l)(i)(B) to determine
overall effectiveness: long-term effectiveness and permanence,
reduction of toxicity, mobility or volume through treatment, and
short-term effectiveness. Overall effectiveness is then compared
to cost to ensure that the remedy is cost-effective. A remedy
shall be cost-effective if its costs are proportional to its
overall effectiveness.
(E) Each remedial action shall utilize permanent solutions
and alternative treatment technologies or resource recovery
technologies to the maximum extent practicable. This requirement
shall be fulfilled by selecting the alternative that satisfies
paragraph (f)(1)(ii)(A) and (B) of this section and provides the
best balance of trade-offs among alternatives in terms of the
five primary balancing criteria noted in paragraph (f)(1)(i)(B) of
this section. The balancing shall emphasize long-term
effectiveness and reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume
through treatment. The balancing shall also consider the
preference for treatment as a principal element and the bias
against off-site land disposal of untreated waste. In making the
determination under this paragraph, the modifying criteria of
state acceptance and community acceptance described in paragraph
(f)(1)(i)(C) shall also be considered.
(2) The proposed plan. In the first step in the remedy
selection process, the lead agency shall identify the alternative
that best meets the requirements in paragraph 300.430(f)(1),
above, and shall present that alternative to the public in a
proposed plan. The lead agency, in conjunction with the support
agency and consistent with S 300.515(e), shall prepare a proposed
plan that briefly describes the remedial alternatives analyzed by
the lead agency, proposes a preferred remedial action
alternative, and summarizes the information relied upon to select
the preferred alternative. The selection of remedy process for an
operable unit may be initiated at any time during the remedial
action process. The purpose of the proposed plan is to supplement
the RI/FS and provide the public with a reasonable opportunity to
comment en the preferred alternative for remedial action, as well
as altea^jpfclve plans under consideration, and to participate in
the seliKien of remedial action at a site. At a minimum, the
proposefl%tan shall:
(i) Provide a brief summary description of the remedial
alternatives evaluated in the detailed analysis established under
paragraph (e)(9) of this section;
(ii) Identify and provide a discussion of the rationale that
supports the preferred alternative;
-------
-524-
(iii) Provide a summary of any formal comments received from
the support agency; and
(iv) Provide a summary explanation of any proposed waiver
identified under paragraph (f)(1)(ii)(C) of this section from an
ARAR.
(3) Community relations to support the selection of remedy,
(i) The lead agency, after preparation of the proposed plan and
review by the support agency, shall conduct the following
activities:
(A) Publish a notice of availability and brief analysis of
the proposed plan in a major local newspaper of general
circulation;
(B) Make the proposed plan and supporting analysis and
information available in the administrative record required under
Subpart I of this Part;
(C) Provide a reasonable opportunity, not less than 30
calendar days, for submission of written and oral comments on the
proposed plan and the supporting analysis and information located
in the information repository, including the RI/FS. Upon timely
request, the lead agency will extend the public comment period by
a minimum of 30 additional days;
(D) Provide the opportunity for a public meeting to be held
during the public comment period at or near the site at issue
regarding the proposed plan and the supporting analysis and
information;
(E) Keep a transcript of the public meeting held during the
public comment period pursuant to CERCLA section 117(a) and make
such transcript available to the public; and
(F) Prepare a written summary of significant comments,
criticisms, and new relevant information submitted during the
public comment period and the lead agency response to each issue.
This responsiveness summary shall be made available with the
record of decision.
(ii) After publication of the proposed plan and prior to
adoption of the selected remedy in the record of decision, if new
information is made available that significantly changes the basic
features of the remedy with respect to scope, performance, or
cost, such that the remedy significantly differs from the original
proposal in the proposed plan and the supporting analysis and
information, the l«ad agency shall:
(A) Include a discussion in the record of decision of the
significant changes and reasons for such changes, if the lead
-------
-525-
agency determines such changes could be reasonably anticipated by
the public based on the alternatives and other information
available in the proposed plan or the supporting analysis and
information in the administrative record; or
(B) Seek additional public comment on a revised proposed
plan, when the lead agency determines the change could not have
been reasonably anticipated by the public based on the information
available in the proposed plan or the supporting analysis and
information in the administrative record. The lead agency shall,
prior to adoption of the selected remedy in the ROD, issue a
revised proposed plan, which shall include a discussion of the
significant changes and the reasons for such changes, in
accordance with the public participation requirements described in
paragraph (f)(3)(i) of this section.
(4) Final remedy selection, (i) in the second and final step
in the remedy selection process, the lead agency shall reassess
its initial determination that the preferred alternative provides
the best balance of trade-offs, now factoring in any new
information or points of view expressed by the state (or support
agency) and community during the public comment period. The lead
agency shall consider state (or support agency) and community
comments regarding the lead agency's evaluation of alternatives
with respect to the other criteria. These comments may prompt the
lead agency to modify aspects of the preferred alternative or
decide that another alternative provides a more appropriate
balance. The lead agency, as specified in § 300.515(e), shall
make the final remedy selection decision and document that
decision in the ROD.
(ii) If a remedial action is selected that results in
hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remaining at the
site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted
exposure, the lead agency shall review such action no less often
than every five years after initiation of the selected remedial
action.
(iii) The process for selection of a remedial action at a
federal iaoility on the NPL, pursuant to CERCLA section 120, shall
entail:
(Aywoint selection of remedial action by the head of the
relevant department, agency, or instrumentality and EPA; or
(B) If mutual agreement on the remedy is not reached,
selection of the remedy is made by EPA.
(5) Documenting the decision. (i) To support the selection
of a remedial action, all facts, analyses of facts, and site-
specific policy determinations considered in the course of
carrying out activities in this section shall be documented, as
-------
-526-
appropriate, in a record of decision, in a level of detail
appropriate to the site situation, for inclusion in the
administrative record required under Subpart I of this Part.
Documentation shall explain how the evaluation criteria in
paragraph (e)(9)(iii) of this section were used to select the
remedy.
(ii) The ROD shall describe the following statutory
requirements as they relate to the scope and objectives of the
action:
(A) How the selected remedy is protective of human health and
the environment, explaining how the remedy eliminates, reduces, or
controls exposures to human and environmental receptors;
(B) The federal and state requirements that are applicable or
relevant and appropriate to the site that the remedy will attain;
(C) The applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements
of other federal and state laws that the remedy will not meet, the
waiver invoked, and the justification for invoking the waiver;
(D) How the remedy is cost-effective, i.e., explaining how
the remedy provides overall effectiveness proportional to its
costs;
(E) How the remedy utilizes permanent solutions and
alternative treatment technologies or resource recovery
technologies to the maximum extent practicable; and
(F) Whether the preference for remedies employing treatment
which permanently°and significantly reduces the toxicity,
mobility, or volume of the hazardous substances, pollutants, or
contaminants as a principal element is or is not satisfied by the
selected remedy. If this preference is not satisfied, the record
of decision must explain why a remedial action involving such
reductions in toxicity, mobility, or volume was not selected.
(iii) The ROD also shall:
(A) Indicate, as appropriate, the remediation goals,
discussed in paragraph (e)(2)(i) of this section, that the remedy
is expected to achieve. Performance shall be measured at
appropriate locations in the ground water, surface water, soils,
air, and other affected environmental media. Measurement
relating to the performance of the treatment processes and the
engineering controls may also be identified, as appropriate;
(B) Discuss significant changes and the response to comments
described in paragraph (f)(3)(i)(F) of this section;
-------
-527-
(C) Describe whether hazardous substances, pollutants, or
contaminants will remain at the site such that a review of the
remedial action under paragraph (f)(4)(ii) of this section no les.
often than every five years shall be required; and
(D) When appropriate, provide a commitment for further
analysis and selection of long-term response measures within an
appropriate timeframe.
(6) Community relations when the record of decision is
sicmed. After the ROD is signed, the lead agency shall:
(i) Publish a notice of the availability of the ROD in a
major local newspaper of general circulation; and
(ii) Make the record of decision available for public
inspection and copying at or near the facility at issue prior to
the commencement of any remedial action.
-------
-528-
§ 300.435 Remedial design/remedial action, operation and
maintenance.
(a) General. The remedial design/remedial action (RD/RA)
stage includes the development of the actual design of the
selected remedy and implementation of the remedy through
construction. A period of operation and maintenance may follow
the RA activities.
(b) RD/RA activities. (1) All RD/RA activities shall be in
conformance with the remedy selected and set forth in the ROD or
other decision document for that site; Those portions of RD/RA
sampling and analysis plans describing the QA/QC requirements for
chemical and analytical testing and sampling procedures of samples
taken for the purpose of determining whether cleanup action
levels specified in the ROD are achieved, generally will be
consistent with the requirements of S 300.430(b)(8).
(2) During the course of the RD/RA, the lead agency shall be
responsible for ensuring that all federal and state requirements
that are identified in the ROD as- applicable or relevant and
appropriate requirements for the action are met. If waivers from
any ARARs are involved, the lead agency shall be responsible for
ensuring that the conditions of the waivers are met.
(c) Community relations. (1) Prior to the initiation of
RD, the lead agency shall review the CRP to determine whether it
should be revised to describe further public involvement
activities during RD/RA that are not already addressed or provided
for in the CRP.
(2) After the aaopt-ion of the ROD, if the remedial action or
enforcement action taken, or the settlement or consent decree
entered into, differs significantly, from the remedy selected in
the ROD with respect to scojpe,. performance, or costthe lead
agency shall consult with the support agency, as appropriate, and
shall either:
(i) Publish an explanation of significant^differences when
the deferences in the remedial or enforcement action, settlement,
or consent decree significantly change but do not fundamentally
alter the reaedy selected in the ROD with respect to scope,
performance, or cost. To issue ani explanation of significant
differences, the lead agency shall:
(A) Make the explanation of significant differences and
supporting information available to the public in the
administrative record established under § 300.-815 and the
information repository; and
(B) ^Publish a notice that briefly summarizes "the explanation
-------
-529-
of significant differences, including the reasons for such
differences, in a major local newspaper of general circulation; 01
(ii) Propose an amendment to the ROD if the differences in
the remedial or^enforcement action, settlement, or consent decree
fundamentally aiter-the basic features of the selected remedy with
respect to scope,, performance, or cost. To amend the ROD, the
lead agency, in conjunction with the support agency, as provided
in § 300.515(e), shall:
(A) Issue a notice of availability and brief description of
the proposed amendment to the ROD in a major local newspaper of
general circulation;
(B) Make the proposed amendment to the ROD and information
supporting the decision available for public comment;
(C) Provide a reasonable opportunity, not less than 30
calendar days, for submission of written or oral comments on the
amendment to the ROD. Upon timely request, the lead agency will
extend the public comment; period by a minimum of 30 additional
days;
(D) Provide the opportunity for a public meeting to be held
during the public comment period at or near the facility at issue;
(E) Keep.a transcript of comments received at the public
meeting held during the public comment period;
(F) Include in the amended ROD a brief explanation of the
amendment and the response to each of the significant comments,
criticisms, and new relevant information, submitted during the
public comment, period;
(G) Publish a notice of tthe availability of the amended ROD-
in a major locail newspaper of general circulation; and
(H) Make the amended ROD and supporting information
available to the public in the administrative record and
information repository prior to the connencement of the .remedial
action flpfected by the amendment..
(Jf* After the completion of the final engineering de&igrv,
the lead agency shall issue a fact sheet and provide, as
appropriate, a public briefing prior to the initiation of the
remedial action.,
(d) contractor/ conflict of interest. (l) For Fund-financed
RD/RA and o&M activities, the lead agency shall:
(i) Include .appropriate language in the solicitation
requiring potential prime contractors to submit information on
-------
-530-
their status, as well as the status- of theirsubcontractors,
parent, companies, and affil iatesas 'potentially responsible
parties at the site.
(ii) Require potential prime contractors to certify that, to
the best of their knowledge, they *emd£their potential
subcontractors, parent companies;2and'**affiliates have disclosed
all information described in s 300.435(8)(l|(i) or that no such
information exists, and that any such information discovered after
submission of their bid or proposal or contract award will be
disclosed immediately.
(2) Prior to contract award; the lead agency shall evaluate
the information provided by the potential prime contractors and:
(i.) Determine whether they have, conflicts of interest that
could significantly impact the pei^fp^anc'fB ;p^f*'the contract or the
liability of potential prime contractors br*subcontractors.
(ii) If a potential prime wcorit|:a;c tor, or subcontractor has a
conflict of interest that cannot b&; avo.i|(^d or otherwise resolved,
and using that potential prime cohtrictfor or Subcontractor to
conduct RD/RA or O&M work under7 Furird-fihanced action would not
be in the best interests of IthflL* statei or federal government, an
offeror or bidder contemplating use. of that'prime contractor or
subcontractor may be declared, nonr sponsible or ineligible for
award in accordance with appropriate acquisition regulations, and
the contract may be awarded to th^nekt eligiBl^ offeror or
bidder.
(e) Recontractina. (1) If a Fund-financed contract must be
terminated because additional work outside the scope of the
contract is needed, EPA is authorise tptake appropriate steps to
continue,tfnterim RAs as necessary to reduce riskstb public health
arid' the environment. Appropriate steps may inclineextending an
existing contract for a federal-lead RA or amending a cooperative
agreement ?for. a,;state-l«tad BA. Vrjtil the lead agency can reopen
the bidding process and"^recbritr&&iH^ complete' the RA, EPA may
take such appropriate 8£epsc as. described above to cover interim
work tW reduce such risks, wbefe:
(i) Additional work is found to be needed as a result of
such unforeseen: situations as. newly, discovejrgd^sources, types, or
quantities bf hazardous substances' at a facility; and
(ii) Performance of the complete RA Yeauires the lead agency
to rebid the Contract because the existing contract does not
encompass this newly discovered work.
f2) The cost of such interim actions shall hot exceed $2
million.
-------
-5*1-
(f) Operationrandmaintenance. (1) Operation and
maintenance i^easufes^are .initiated after the remedy has
achieved the remedial action objectives and remediation goals' in
the ROD, and is determined to be operational and functional,
except for groynd-.or surface, water restoration actions covered
under § 300.435(2^(5^.. 'Ik state must provide its assurance to
assume responsibility*for Q&l^includiojf,, where appropriate,
requirements for-maintaining institutional controls; under
§ 300.510(c).
(2) A remedy becomes "operational and functional"-either one
year after construction is complete, or when the remedy^is
determined concurrently-by the,EPA,and the state to be functioning
properly and is performing as:.designed, whichever is earlier; EPA
may grant extensions to the one-year period, as appropriate*
(3) For Fundr-"fir\^need ^epgdial actions involving treatment
or other measures to . jrestpiieu or surface water quality to a
level that assures protection' of' human health and the
environment, thevop<^«^pn,.9& su^ treatment or other measures for
a period of up tb^O*^yliyir&TJrt^^tjie remedy becomes operational
and functional v^Ll'l tfarl? of the remedial actionV
Activities required to .jMi^^inj the. effectiveness of such
treatment or measures'fjsllbwing the lp-year period, or after
remedial act i onri s complete r_ jrfhi'chciW):. is earlffer, shall bV
considered OSM. ..^Tpr pur^ses tfr Te^teral funding provided
under CERCLA aection 404 (cl(i), a res€ox^tion Activity will be
considered a
------- |