FOSTERING THE STATE ROLE IN SUPERFUND
Prepared for the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region II
August 1983
ICF INCORPORATED International Square
1850 K Street, Northwest, Washington, D. C. 20006
-------
FOSTERING THE STATE ROLE IN SUPERFUND
Submitted to:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region II
by:
ICF Incorporated
August 1983
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-1
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION : 1
1.1 Purpose of Report 1
1.2 Approach 1
CHAPTER 2: NEW JERSEY 4
2.1 Introduction 4
2.2 Current State Program 6
2.3 Obstacles to Further Program Participation 19
2.4 Prospects for Future Program Efforts 24
CHAPTER 3: NEW YORK 28
3.1 Introduction 28
3.2 Current State Program 29
3.3 Obstacles to Further Program Participation 39
3.4 Prospects for Future Program Efforts 43
CHAPTER 4: PUERTO RICO 46
4.1 Introduction 46
4.2 Current Program 46
4.3 Prospects for Future Involvement 49
APPENDIX A: ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK A-l
APPENDIX B: SUMMARY OF COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS AND STATE
SUPERFUND CONTRACTS B-l
ICF INCORPORATED
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. PURPOSE OF REPORT
A major goal of the Environmental Protection Agency in the Superfund
program is to maximize state participation in program management. The
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA), which authorizes the Superfund program, requires substantial State
participation. Because the States vary in their ability to manage the many
elements of the program, EPA's strategy for encouraging State participation
must be tailored to the individual States.
EPA Region II acquired the services of ICF Incorporated for assistance in
assessing State Superfund capabilities, with the aim of fostering the State
role in the Superfund program in the Region. This report presents the
analytic framework developed for the assessment, the findings of the study,
and an indication of opportunities available to foster the State role in the
Region II Superfund program.
This summary briefly reviews the State programs in Region II and outlines
possible commitments that EPA and the States may wish to consider in order to
develop further the State role in the Superfund program. The recommendations
are based on the analysis in this report and are presented separately for New
Jersey, New York, and Puerto Rico.
2. COMPARISON OF STATE PROGRAMS
The States in Region II each have distinctive strengths and weaknesses.
New York and New Jersey both have relatively large Superfund programs and
numerous hazardous waste sites in need of response. Puerto Rico, by contrast,
is just beginning to develop a Superfund capability.
New York and New Jersey appear to have different mixes of assets and
problems. New York has efficient contracting procedures but a shortage of
staff. New Jersey has precisely the opposite problem, with staffing levels
now being expanded to meet current needs but with time-consuming procurement
processes. New York has encountered problems in raising funds for meeting
cost-share requirements; New Jersey, by contrast, is one of the few States in
the country without immediately pressing financial shortfalls. New York
officials believe they have sufficient disposal capacity at the present time;
New Jersey does not have adequate disposal facilities within the State.
It is important to recognize, however, that these problems can change over
time. New Jersey, for example, is now recognizing that funding shortfalls may
occur within the next few years. New York's disposal capacity may similarly
present problems in the near future. The range of problems and achievements
ICF INCORPORATED
-------
ES-2
found in New York, New Jersey, and Puerto Rico, and the continuing evolution
of each program require EPA to develop a sound understanding of each
individual State program in order to foster State Superfund participation,
realistically and effectively.
3. RECOMMENDATIONS
This section summarizes the State programs and presents recommendations
developed during the course of this project for fostering the State role in
each of the Region II States. The recommendations and their format were
developed at the express request of Region II. They are presented in the form
of specific commitments that could be adopted by the States and by Region II.
Such commitments can be reflected in future State-EPA agreements. All
decisions on whether to adopt the recommended initiatives will be made by
Region II and by the States, as appropriate.
NEW JERSEY
Summary of Program
New jersey currently has 665 hazardous waste site's listed on EPA's
Emergency and Remedial Response Inventory System (ERRIS). There are
unconfirmed reports of over 200 additional sites. Sixty-five New Jersey sites
are on EPA's National Priorities List (NPL), a greater number than any other
State.
New Jersey and EPA have signed six cooperative agreements and seven State
Superfund contracts. An additional 12 agreements or contracts are slated for
signing by October 1, 1983. New Jersey completed cleanup of 34 major sites
between February 1980 and January 1982. Thirty-three minor drum dumps
(containing fewer than 1,000 surface drums) were also cleaned up in 1983.
The draft Four-Year Plan for Hazardous Waste Site Cleanups in New Jersey,
developed by the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) in consultation
with EPA Region II, schedules the initiation of response actions at 65 NPL
sites, 23 additional major sites, and 11 minor drum dumps. The Plan includes
a preliminary division of responsibility for managing the cleanup of these
sites, assigning lead responsibility to DEP for 45 percent of the remedial
action sites (and all of the drum dumps) and to EPA for 35 percent of the
remedial action sites. Private parties are expected to clean up 20 percent of
the sites pursuant to enforcement action. Cleanup of 43 major sites (as well
as the 11 drum dumps) should be completed within four years.
Using Federal funds provided under Section 3012 of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act, New Jersey will conduct 200 preliminary
assessments of sites in its hazardous waste site inventory and 40 to 50 site
inspections in FY 1984. EPA will conduct an additional 200 preliminary
assessments of New Jersey sites.
ICF INCORPORATED
-------
ES-3
New Jersey has an active spill response program that is administered from
regional field offices. About 30 percent of the 200 emergency calls received
on average each month require some kind of response.
In order to manage this workload, DEP will increase the staffing of its
Division of Waste Management by 50 percent over the present level.
Implementation of this proposed expansion will take place in FY 1984.
Funding for Superfund cost-share requirements, remedial actions at sites
that are not national priorities, and spill responses is obtained from a fund
established in 1978 and a recent $100 million bond issue. New Jersey's
financial capabilities for Superfund may be stronger than any other State, but
there may nonetheless be insufficient funding to carry out all actions on the
four-year plan if operation and maintenance expenses continue to be as great
as at present.
The major problem in New Jersey's program to date has been the length of
time required to procure contractors. The source of this problem is discussed
in the report; recommendations for addressing it are presented below.
Recommended Initiatives
To reduce the time required to procure contractors, DEP will
pursue the following initiatives:*
-- Review its management structure to determine whether
the number of approvals required for a contract can
be reduced by delegating responsibilities for
approval;
Speed the development of technical specifications
for requests for proposals;
-- Further explore the possibility of seeking waivers
from open bidding requirements in certain cases;
-- Further explore the feasibility of prequalifying
construction contractors;
-- Examine New York State's proposal review process
and, if suitable for New Jersey's purposes, adopt it;
-- Continue to develop specialized capabilities within
the DEP program office for procuring contractors;
*These initiatives are recommended; they have not at present been agreed
to by appropriate State or EPA policy-makers. The term "will" is used
throughout, at the request of Region II, to indicate that the recommendations
imply specific commitments.
CF INCORPORATED
-------
ES-4
-- Make available training in.contract management
techniques for staff; and
Support legislative proposals for increasing the
flexibility of the contractor procurement
requirements without detracting from competition and
fiscal accountability.
EPA Region II will continue to assume the lead in
remedial actions when necessary to avoid delays that
would result from the procurement of contractors by New
Jersey. Region II will also assist New Jersey to
identify ways to speed the review of proposals.
To further the standardization of analytical
methodologies, in order to facilitate the procurement of
contract laboratory services and to minimize the
questioning of methodologies in judicial proceedings,
DEP and Region II will resolve any impasses delaying
completion of New Jersey's quality assurance plan. DEP
will give additional consideration to the use of Region
II's plan as a model. Region II will communicate New
Jersey's need for assistance in formulating standard
analytical methodologies to the appropriate EPA national
laboratories.
To ensure that dioxin sites in New Jersey receive
appropriate responses, DEP will reevaluate its
allocation of resources to factor in possible needs for
dioxin sites. Region II will bring to the attention of
EPA Headquarters the need for a national policy on
dioxin sites that appear unlikely to receive high scores
on EPA's Hazard Ranking System. Region II will continue
to assist DEP in investigating possible sites.
To reduce delays in developing cooperative agreements,
Region II will work with DEP to develop standard
indirect cost and administrative cost rates for New
Jersey Superfund projects.
To improve coordination between DEP and Region II, DEP
will increase the involvement of its site team manager
in EPA-lead remedial actions in New Jersey.
Region II will develop criteria for the data required
to list a site in a management plan such as New Jersey's
Four-Year Plan, and the procedures to follow in
scheduling actions, to facilitate adherence to such
plans and minimize the need for repeated revisions to
schedules. New Jersey will ensure that its plan meets
these criteria.
ICF INCORPORATED
-------
ES-5
In response to the possibility that New Jersey will
lack sufficient funds to address all sites in its
four-year plan, Region II and DEP will jointly take
steps to strengthen cost-recovery efforts. New Jersey
will dedicate staff to cost- recovery. Region II will
coordinate its cost-recovery efforts with New Jersey.
As a further response to the problems caused by
operation and maintenance assurances, Region II and DEP
will periodically review remedial action plans to
explore options for meeting these assurances, including
whether remedies can be designed to lessen operation and
maintenance requirements.
To ensure the availability of adequate technical
capabilities despite a low State salary scale, DEP will
consider obtaining additional technical assistance by
contract. DEP will also consider the use of experts in
a voluntary advisory capacity to supplement staff. In
addition, DEP will consider the use of contracting to
supplement enforcement staff for the documentation of
site histories, title searches, and similar enforcement
work.
To provide for adequate off-site disposal capacity
within the State, New Jersey will accelerate the efforts
of its siting commission.
Region II will continue to provide technical
assistance, as needed, for community relations.
NEW YORK
Summary of Program
New York State has 26 sites on the National Priorities List and has
identified 750 hazardous waste sites in the State. One hundred of these sites
are receiving preliminary assessments using State funds and an additional 100
are being assessed with RCRA Section 3012 monies. On the basis of these
assessments, further investigations will be needed at some portion of these
sites during the coming year.
New York has three cooperative agreements signed with EPA, for the Love
Canal, PAS Oswego, and Olean Wellfields sites. Applications for cooperative
agreements have also been submitted to EPA for the Marathon and Sinclair
Refinery sites, and an additional number of cooperative agreements are
expected to be signed by October 1, 1983. New York intends to manage all
Superfund remedial actions conducted in the State. New York State has an
ICF INCORPORATED
-------
ES-6
active enforcement capability for Superfund-related cases and is in the
process of developing an emergency response capability for hazardous substance
releases.
New York State's Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) is
expecting a substantial increase in staff levels for its Superfund activities
over the next few months, mostly as a result of State funds. .This should
result in a faster pace for the remedial action program. DEC has developed a
system for contracting remedial actions, based on prequalification of a list
of firms, that EPA hopes to use as a model for other States in the country.
Obstacles for further program development by DEC include staff shortages
and funding shortfalls, as indicated in the recommended initiatives below.
Basic to the goal of fostering the role of New York State in the Superfund
program is the furtherance of a good working relationship between DEC and EPA
Region II. That relationship will become increasingly important as the
program is more fully implemented and' additional controversial issues arise.
Emphasis on routine meetings, exchange of data, informal contacts, and a good
working knowledge of the issues and situations facing both organizations will
be invaluable in the coming years.
Recommended Initiatives*
In response to the differing approaches towards
enforcement action and differing emphases placed on
negotiation and litigation,"both New York State (NYS)
and EPA Region II agree that more in-depth understanding
of the relative successes of each approach would be
useful. To achieve that goal and to attempt to reduce
problems in coordination between DEC and the NYS
Attorney General's Office, a representative of the New
York State Attorney General's Office will attend
meetings to be held between EPA Region II and DEC to
establish a protocol for coordination. Coordination
among all three groups will be discussed and
incorporated in this protocol.
* In response to DEC's criticism of the pace of
completion and the quality of Remedial Action Master
Plans (RAMPs) prepared by contractors for EPA, Region II
staff will evaluate the source of delays and problems
with RAMPs to date and take appropriate action to
improve the pace and quality of contractor work on
RAMPs. Region II will also consider, in consultation
with EPA Headquarters, whether the requirement to
prepare a RAMP should be eliminated.
ICF INCORPORATED
-------
ES-7
To ameliorate the current lack of full-time staff
assigned to Superfund community relations in New York
State, and the resultant problems, DEC will designate a
Superfund community relations coordinator. Region II
will continue to make technical assistance available for
community relations planning and activities.
In order to permit accurate planning and resource
allocation, a multiyear Superfund plan for New York
State is essential. DEC will adapt the State plan to be
developed under Chapter 857 to meet Federal Superfund
purposes as well. EPA Region II will develop minimum
criteria for the amount of data required on sites listed
in the plan and for the procedures to follow in
preparing a schedule for initiating action at listed
sites.
EPA will develop greater standardization of
cooperative agreement provisions, particularly with
respect to special grant conditions, in order to reduce
the delay involved in negotiations.
DEC will continue efforts to develop a stable source
of revenue to meet the State's cost-share requirements.
DEC will work with Region II staff to develop internal
guidelines for determining the appropriate extent of
remedy that can be used and defended both in
negotiations with responsible parties and in litigation.
DEC will take necessary steps, possibly involving a
management study, to determine whether and how the
current system of tracking staff time according to
specified activities can be streamlined.
Region II will consider initiating a pilot meeting
between New York DEC and New Jersey DEP staff to
increase opportunities for exchange of information and
coord inat ion.
*These initiatives are recommended; they have not at present been agreed
to by appropriate State or EPA po1icy-makers. The term "will" is used
throughout, at the request of Region II, to indicate that the recommendations
imply specific commitments.
ICF INCORPORATED
-------
ES-8
PUERTO RICO
Puerto Rico submitted a list of 12 sites to EPA for the National
Priorities List (NPL). Five of the sites appear on the NPL, with rankings
ranging from 215 to 377.
Three of the 12 sites are Federal (Navy) facilities and are ineligible
under CERCLA for remedial action funds. Another four sites are municipally
owned landfills (one of which is still active). There is little likelihood
that any municipalities will be able to afford a 50 percent cost-share for
cleanup of these sites, and funding by the Government of Puerto Rico will be
difficult to obtain. Some possibility exists of finding private parties
responsible for wastes at the municipal landfills (e.g., at the Barceloneta
Landfill). The five remaining sites of the total of 12 are privately owned;
two are closed and three are still active.
The Superfund-related work conducted by the Environmental Quality Board
(EQB) to update the priority list was financed by a $10,000 supplement to RCRA
funds. Two staff members were involved in that effort, which required records
checking, site visits, and scoring of the sites. An additional $88,000 of
RCRA 3012 monies have been made available to EQB.
Recommended Initiatives*
Efforts in the coming year and in the longer-term will include:
Continued efforts to investigate and pursue
enforcement action for the priority sites;
Assistance in monitoring and site work by EQB staff
for remedial planning by EPA at priority sites;
Development by EQB of a quality assurance plan, ^ $
. . , _ , , , - - '
similar to that developed for the RCRA program;
* Consideration given by EQB to community relations
where necessary. x r t > r j
Ž Df o-f of staff and
resource needs over the next several years. EPA Region II will assist Puerto Ł>_.
Rico in this effort and in developing a long-term plan for Superfund
w>
*These initiatives are recommended; they have not at present been agreed ^
to by appropriate state or EPA policy-makers. The term "will" is used Ł
throughout, at the request of Region II, to indicate that the recommendations
imply specific commitments.
ICF INCORPORATED
-------
ES-9
projects. If appropriate, based on the results of EQB resource planning,
Region II will also make provision for additional training to improve the
expertise of EQB legal staff. Because of the limited Superfund program to
date in Puerto Rico, EPA will take the lead in any Superfund remedial actions
in the near future.
ICF INCORPORATED
-------
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 PURPOSE OF REPORT
A major goal of the Environmental Protection Agency in the Superfund
program is to carry out the program in a way that maximizes participation by
the States in program management. Since the States vary in their ability to
manage the many elements of the program, EPA's strategy must be tailored to
meet these variations. To this end, EPA Region II acquired the services of
ICF Incorporated for assistance in evaluating State Superfund capabilities,
with the aim of fostering the State role in the Superfund program in the
Region. This report presents an analytic framework and a preliminary
assessment of opportunities for increasing the State role in the Region II
Superfund program.
The Superfund program, as established by the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), requires substantial State
participation. Remedial actions at hazardous waste sites may be taken only
after consultation with the State in which the site is located. States are
required to share in the costs of remedial action and to make other assurances
and commitments. As trustees over some natural resources, States can take
action against responsible parties Under CERCLA to recover natural resource
damages. Full implementation of CERCLA thus depends on active State
involvement in the program.
1.2 APPROACH
ICF was asked to develop criteria for assessing the potential for
increasing State involvement in the Superfund program. As a first task, we
developed an analytic framework for use in assessing State capabilities and
participation in Superfund activities. The framework is presented in Appendix
A in the form of a questionnaire.
The criteria developed in the framework are grouped into the four major
categories of the Superfund program:
* Remedial activities,
* Enforcement actions;
* Removal activities; and
* Management and technical support.
Within each category, key activities are identified; the specific tasks that
need to be performed under each activity are described; and indicators or
measures are offered in order to guide the research. In addition, for each of
ICF INCORPORATED
-------
- 2 -
the four categories, an outline is provided of data needs for accomplishing
the evaluation.
As discussed in the analytic framework, there are two different ways to
evaluate State capabilities. First, past performance can be examined to
indicate whether patterns of activities seem to occur. Typical evaluative
questions would include, for any given activity, the following:
How efficiently were projects or activities carried out
in the past, in terms of staff and resources used?
What has been the quality of the State's actions to date?
Because the Superfund program is still in its infancy, however, there is
relatively little actual performance under the program to be evaluated. New
York State, for example, is currently addressing only three Superfund remedial
sites. Clearly, no generalizations can be made from so small a sample of
sites. Furthermore, there is so little experience in the technical aspects of
hazardous waste site remediation that it may be too early to evaluate even
those actions that have already been taken.
A second way to evaluate State capabilities is to ask questions about
likely future results. The thrust of the questions would be the following:
Does the State have the capacity, in terms of staff
and resources, to handle the expected workload in the
future?
Is the State likely to be able to perform well in the
future?
The last question could be answered subjectively by considering three
factors: (1) the qualifications of staff and contractors; (2) the quality of
resources available (e.g., laboratory support, data systems); and (3) the
quality and availability of guidance, procedures, and training for carrying
out the activity.
Nevertheless, to evaluate the quality and capabilities of the State
program for future action, it is necessary to have indicators for the optimal
levels of staff, resources, and training needed to carry out a given level of
activity. Without an accumulated record of experience in the Superfund
program, it is difficult to develop such indicators.
The analytic framework developed in the first part of this project is thus
more appropriate for use in several years' time than at present. Because
there has been a lower level of activity in the Superfund program over the
last two years than was expected, there is relatively little on which to base
an evaluation of capabilities. The material in Appendix A should instead be
viewed as a basis for future evaluations.
ICF INCORPORATED
-------
- 3 -
In terms of this study, a somewhat different focus is needed. Rather than
evaluating the performance of the States to date under Superfund, this report
is intended to serve both the States and the Region in viewing, the various
elements of a Superfund program in an integrated fashion, in determining what
elements need further assistance and development, and in planning for
increased capabilities in the future.
The information presented in this report was obtained through a series of
interviews conducted in New Jersey, New York, and Puerto Rico from February to
May, 1983. The Directors and staff of Superfund offices in the Department of
Environmental Protection (NJ), Department of Environmental Conservation (NY),
and Environmental Quality Board (PR) were most helpful and cooperative in
compiling this information, although they are not responsible for,its accuracy.
This report contains three chapters devoted to each of the programs in
Region II: New Jersey, New York, and Puerto Rico. In each chapter, the
details of the program structure are reported in the first section, followed
by a discussion of the problems -currently being faced by the State in
participating in Superfund. Finally, each chapter concludes with a discussion
of the prospects for future particiption by the State in Superfund activities.
ICF INCORPORATED
-------
- 4 -
2. NEW JERSEY
2.1 INTRODUCTION
New Jersey has an experienced and well-financed Superfund program that is
soon to be significantly expanded. There are 65 sites in the state on the
National Priorities List, the greatest number of any state. In addition to
its remedial program, New Jersey maintains an active spill response program.
The basic funding source for responses to releases of hazardous substances
in New Jersey is the State Spill Fund, which was established in 1977 by the
New Jersey Spill Compensation and Control Act. The Spill Fund generates an
estimated $11 million annually, of which a maximum of $3 million may be used
for cleanups of hazardous substance releases that occurred prior to the
enactment of the authorizing statute. A recent $100 million bond issue
provides a reserve that can be used if funding needs for remedial actions
exceed $3 million annually. New Jersey has not had to use these bond funds to
date, but expects that they will be needed by the middle of 1984. Over and
above monies used for the direct costs of cleanup actions and Superfund
cost-shares, New Jersey used approximately $3.4 million from the Spill Fund in
FY 1983 to cover the operating budget of response programs (including staff
salaries, equipment, and other indirect expenses). Approximately $4.8 million
will be needed for the FY 1984 operating budget.
New Jersey's Superfund program is administered by the Division of Waste
Management, which is under the Assistant Commissioner for Environmental
Management and Control in the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP).
There are four subdivisions in the Division of Waste Management. IVo are
responsible primarily for the regulation of the generation, transport, and
disposal of hazardous substances and will not be discussed in this report.
Remedial actions at abandoned hazardous waste sites are managed by the
Hazardous Site Mitigation Administration, which also manages Superfund
immediate removal actions. Emergency spill responses are managed by the
Bureau of Field Operations under the Assistant Director for Enforcement and
Field Operations. Enforcement activities are divided between the Division of
Waste Management, the Office of Regulatory Services, and the State Attorney
General's Office, as explained in Section 2.2.2 below. The "Quantico
Guidelines for Enforcement Litigation" will be used by the enforcement program.
The Division of Waste Management will be expanded significantly in.the
near future. There are at present approximately 100 staff assigned to
programs to respond to hazardous waste releases. The planned expansion, if
approved, will add 50 more staff. The expansion will not affect the
relatively new organization of hazardous substance programs, which was
approved in May 1982. It will, however, cause some organizational shifts
within certain bureaus. Exhibit 2-1 illustrates the proposed organization of
the Division of Waste Management following the expansion. Because the
ICF INCORPOR!
-------
EXHIBIT 2-1
PROPOSED ORGANIZATION OF THE DIVISION OF WASTE MANAGEMENT
I
l/t
I
o
Metro Park Office
(Union)
Sou
1 Protection
-------
- 6 -
proposed expansion seems likely to win approval without alteration, all
discussions of staffing and organization in this chapter included descriptions
of changes under the expansion plans.
In April 1983, the Division of Waste Management issued a draft Four-Year
Plan for the cleanup of hazardous waste sites in the State. The plan
addresses 132 sites, including the 65 sites on the National Priorities List,
23 additional major sites, and 44 minor drum dump sites (of which 33 have
already been cleaned up). Under the plan, responses at 43 of the major sites
will be completed in four years, the remainder to be completed in seven or
eight years. Some 34 major sites were cleaned up by the Department of
Environmental Protection between February 1980 and January 1982; the largest
of these were the Chemical Control site (at a total cost of $27 million, 85
percent of which was State-funded) and the Goose Farm site (at a total cost of
$5.2 million, mostly from Clean Water Act section 311 funds). The proposed
expansion of the Division of Waste Management is tied to the draft four-year
plan.
This chapter is organized as follows. Section 2.2 discusses New Jersey's
current program, divided according to remedial actions, enforcement, removal
activities, and technical support. Section 2.3 discusses some of the problems
being encountered by the State's hazardous waste response programs. Section
2.4 reviews the prospects for New Jersey's participation in the Superfund
program. Appendix B of this report summarizes the contents of remedial action
cooperative agreements between EPA and New Jersey as of May 1983.
2.2 CURRENT STATE PROGRAM
2.2.1 Remedial Action
New Jersey's remedial action program is discussed here in terms of three
components of the remedial action process: (i) preliminary assessments and
site inspections; (ii) listing of sites and cooperative agreements/State
Superfund contracts; (iii) remedial planning and remedial action.
Preliminary Assessments and Site Inspections. Preliminary assessments
and site inspections are managed by the Bureau of Environmental Evaluation and
Risk Assessment in the Hazardous Site Mitigation Administration. This bureau
is divided into three sections. The Investigation and Analysis Section
currently has five staff positions, to be increased to 13 positions in the
proposed program expansion. The Quality Assurance/Technical Services Section
will be expanded from six positions to 14. The Evaluation and Risk Assessment
Section currently has four positions and will be expanded to 14 positions.
The staff to be added to this last section will be highly qualified, with a
substantial percentage of Ph.D.s. The staff in the former two sections are
primarily technicians with bachelors degrees in environmental sciences. Most
staff in the bureau are either relatively young with three to four years of
experience or have been with DEP for at least ten years; there are few staff
that fall between these categories.
ICF INCORPORATED
-------
- 7 -
In addition to conducting preliminary assessments and site inspections,
the Bureau of Environmental Evaluation and Risk Assessment serves as the
scientific core of the Hazardous Waste Mitigation Administration. It is
responsible for site monitoring, sampling, laboratory analysis, quality
assurance, and the preparation of technical reports.
New Jersey's inventory of hazardous waste sites includes 665 sites listed
on EPA's Emergency and Remedial Response Inventory System (ERRIS) and
unconfirmed reports of an additional 200 sites. Site discovery efforts at
this time are limited to the receipt of reports from various sources.
With the aid of Federal funds received under section 3012 of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), New Jersey plans to conduct 200
preliminary assessments of sites in its hazardous waste inventory in the next
15 months and about 40 to 50 site inspections. EPA's Field Investigation Team
(FIT) concurrently plans to conduct 200 preliminary assessments, although this
number may be reduced to permit investigations of possible dioxin sites. The
analysis of all samples taken during the assessments and investigations will
be performed by EPA contract laboratories. New Jersey has received a total of
$430,000 in RCRA section 3012 funds for this purpose, of which about $108,000.
will be used for equipment, the remainder providing salaries for seven
additional staff positions. New Jersey will retain and fund these positions
when the RCRA section 3012 funds are exhausted.
DEP staff stated that out of every four or five sites that receive
preliminary assessments, they expect about one site to require some form of
response. They also suspect that responses will be required even at some of
the sites that have already been investigated by FIT and judged not in need of
response. Some of these sites may be added to the National Priorities List in
the future, although the number cannot be estimated. DEP staff, however, are
confident that they have already identified all of the major sites in New
Jersey and that the sites that are determined by these preliminary assessments
to be in need of response will all be of minor or medium severity.
Listing of Sites and Cooperative Agreements/State Superfund Contracts.
New Jersey was successful in its publicly stated goal of placing more sites on
the National Priorities List (NPL) than any other State. The 65 New Jersey
priority sites are listed in Exhibit 2-2.
The negotiation of cooperative agreements and State Superfund contracts is
the responsibility primarily of attorneys in the Office of Regulatory
Services. In some cases, State staff may be now able to complete an agreement
or contract in as little as 30 work hours because certain provisions have
become standard. To date, New Jersey has signed six cooperative agreements
and seven State Superfund contracts. Brief descriptions of the sites for
which agreements have been signed follow.
ICF INCORPORATED
-------
- 8 -
EXHIBIT 2-2
NEW JERSEY PRIORITY SITES
Site Name Municipality Response Status*
Lipari Landfill
Pitman
V
R
E
Price Landfill
Wellsville
D
Helen Kramer Landfill
Mantua
D
CPS/Madison Industries
Old Bridge Township
E
GEMS Landfills
Gloucester Township
E
Lone Pine Landfill
Freehold
R
E
Bridgeport Rental and Oil
Bridgeport
V
R
E
Burnt Fly Bog
Marlboro Township
R
E
Caldwell Trucking
Fairfield
D
Brick Township Landfill
Brick Township
E
Scientific Chemical Processing
Carlstadt
D
D'lmperio Property
Hamilton Township
R
Krysowaty Farm
Hillsborough
D
Universal Oil Products
East Rutherford
E
Reich Farms
Dover Township
E
South Brunswick Landfill
South Brunswick
V
Ringwood Mines/Landfill
Ringwood
D
Maywood Chemical Sites
Maywood & Rochelie Park
D
Kin-Buc Landfill
Edison
V
R
E
American Cyanamid
Bound Brook
E
N.L. Industries
Pedricktown
E
Metaltec/Aerosytems
Franklin Township
E
Lang Property
Pemberton Township
D
Sharkey Landfill
Parsippany-Troy Hills
D
Goose Farm
Plumstead
R
King of Prussia
Wins low Township
D
Chemical Control
Elizabeth
R
E
Spence Farm
Plumstead
R
Toms River Chemical
Dover Township
D
Combe Fill South Landfill
Chester
D
JIS Landfill
South Brunswick Township
E
Rockaway Township Wells
Rockaway Township
D
Pijack Farm
Plumstead
R
Syncon Resins
South Kearny
E
Bog Creek Farm
Howell Township
D
Chemsol
Piscataway
E
Imperial Oil
Marlboro Township
E
Fair Lawn Wellfield
Fair Lawn
D
Combe Fill North Landfill
Mt. Olive Township
D
ICF INCORPORATED
-------
- 9 -
EXHIBIT 2-2
NEW JERSEY PRIORITY SITES
(continued)
Site Name Municipality Response Status*
Monroe Township Landfill Monroe Township E
Rockaway Boro Wellfield Rockaway Boro D
Beachwood/Berkley Wells Berkley D
Dover Municipal Well #4 Dover D
Roebling Steel Company Florence D
Vineland State School Vineland D
Williams Property Swainton R
Renora Edison D
Denzer and Schafter X-Ray Bayville E
Hercules Gibbstown D
Asbestos Dump Millington D
Jackson Township Landfill Jackson Township E
Montgomery Housing Dev. Montgomery Township D
Rocky Hill Municipal Well Rocky Hill D
U.S. Radium Orange D
Sayreville Landfill Sayreville D
Evor Phillips Old Bridge D
Mannheim Avenue Dump Galloway Township D
Swope Oil and Chemical Pennsauken D
Ellis Property Evesham D
Friedman Property Freehold Township R
Myers Property Franklin Township D
Pepe Field Boonton D
M&T Delisa Landfill Asbury Park D
A.O. Polymer Sparta R
PJP Landfill Jersey City D
* Response Status codes:
R = Federal and State response action expected
E = Federal and State enforcement action expected
V = Voluntary or negotiated response
D = Actions to be determined
ICF INCORPORATED
-------
- 10 -
Price's Landfill. Price's Landfill is a 26 acre
inactive disposal facility located six miles northeast of
Atlantic City. Wastes deposited at the site include
industrial chemicals, sewage, and waste oils. Chemical
wastes were buried in 55-gallon drums or poured directly
into the landfill. Analyses of groundwater samples reveal
the presence of benzene, cadmium, chloroform, vinyl
chloride, and other wastes. Some contaminants have already
shown up in samples of private well water and officials are
concerned that the aquifer that provides Atlantic City's
drinking water could be affected.
Syncon Resins. The Syncon Resins site occupies five
acres of an industrial area adjacent to the Passaic River
in Hudson County. The site has approximately 10,000 drums
and several large storage tanks containing resins and
solvents generated by a now defunct manufacturer of resins
and varnishes. In addition, two unlined lagoons continue
to hold waste water from manufacturing processes. Sampling
at the site has documented significant soil and groundwater
contamination.
The remaining four cooperative agreement sites are among the seven sites
referred to collectively as the "Plumstead sites," located in or near
Plumstead Township. (The Friedman property is in Upper Freehold Township,
Monmouth County, within two miles of the other three sites.) The sites had a
common owner during the time when hazardous waste disposal is thought to have
occurred, though three of the sites were subsequently sold. Contaminants from
all four sites threaten shallow aquifers, Crosswicks Creek, and the Delaware
River. Each of these bodies of water provides drinking water for New Jersey
residents. The following are the four Plumstead sites for which cooperative
agreements have been signed:
Friedman Property a half acre site used in the
1950s and 1960s as a dump for drums and free-flowing
streams of toxic liquid wastes;
Goose Farm used for disposal of 4,800 drums and
additional quantities of free-flowing liquids during the
1960s and early 1970s; contaminants include benzene,
toluene and phenols;
Pijak Farm a five acre area, currently used as a
feed com field, contaminated with organic chemicals
including benzene and toluene; and
Spence Farm -- a 12 acre area of wooded marshland used
as a dump for liquid and drummed wastes from the 1950s to
early 1970s, known to contain benzene, toluene,
dichlorophenol and dinitrophenol.
ICF INCORPORATED
-------
- 11 -
In contrast to New York, New Jersey has elected to have EPA assume lead
management responsibility at about half of its remedial action sites. Seven
Superfund state contracts, at the following sites, have been executed to
govern these actions.
Bridgeport Rental and Oil Services. Bridgeport Rental
and Oil Services is a 27.2 acre site that was operated from
1969 until 1980. Little Timber Creek, a tributary of the
Delaware River, borders the site on the eastern side.
Approximately 50 private residences are located nearby. An
11.8 acre lagoon on the site contains an estimated 75
million gallons of oil, contaminated water, and sludge.
Above-ground storage tanks are located to the north of the
waste oil lagoon. Overflow and leaching from the waste oil
lagoon have been documented. The presence of benzene,
vinyl chloride, and toluene has been documented in the oil,
water, and sediment of the lagoon and in groundwater
samples. ~
D'lmperio Property. The D'lmperio Property is a one
acre lot, bordered by wooded property, in Hamilton
Township, Atlantic County. The site is believed to hold a
large quantity of buried 55-gallon drips containing liquid
wastes. Fifty corroded drums were found on the surface of
the site, which is located within a quarter mile of a major
residential development. Groundwater contamination has
been confirmed; contamination of the Cohansey Aquifer (a
major potable water supply) is possible.
Kin-Buc Landfill. Kin-Buc is 20-acre landfill site
which accepted large quantities of chemical and municipal
wastes from 1971 through 1976. The primary environmental
concern is the discharge of leachate into Edmund's Creek, a
tributary of the Raritan River. Oil, heavily laden with
polychorinated biphenyls (PCBs)., has accumulated in a
natural depression adjacent to the landfill and seeped into
Edmund's Creek. Groundwater contamination has also been
detected.
Krysowaty Farm. The Krysowaty Farm site is a five
acre inactive disposal area in Hillsborough Township,
Somerset County. Disposal of various chemicals, including
paint and dye wastes, occurred intermittently from 1965
through 1970. Tests indicate contamination of both ground
and surface water. Local residents, the nearest of whom
lives 500 feet from the site, depend on wells for drinking
water.
Lipari Landfill. The Lipari Landfill is an inactive
landfill located in Gibbsboro and Pitman Townships. From
1958 to 1971, domestic and industrial wastes, including
ICF INCORPORATED
-------
- 12 -
methanol, benzene, toluene, xylene, isoprophanol, butanol,
bis(2-chloroethyl) ether, and mercury were deposited on the
site. Groundwater, surface water and air-pollution have
been documented. Groundwater wells serve a population of
approximately 20,000 in the area.
Lone Pine Landfill. Lone Pine Landfill is an inactive
85-acre landfill that was operated from 1958 until 1979,
adjacent to the headwaters of the Manasquan River. It has
been alleged that 50,000 drums of chemical wastes were
illegally disposed of at the site within the last three
years. On-site sampling of leachate detected the presence
of benzene, toluene, vinyl chloride, lead, and zinc.
Downstream sampling of the river indicated lower levels of
the same chemicals, while samples from groundwater
monitoring wells also showed a variety of organic compounds
in both the surface Vincentown aquifer and in the deeper
Red Bank aquifers.
Price's Landfill. Thip site is described above in
connection with the New Jersey-EPA cooperative agreement.
A State Superfund contract, signed on January 6, 1982 and
amended on four subsequent occasions, governs remedial
investigation, feasibility studies, and some phases of
remedial construction. The May 18, 1982 cooperative
agreement governs certain other remedial actions.
New Jersey plans to complete 12 new cooperative agreements or state
Superfund contracts by October 1, 1983. Exhibit 2-3 lists the sites involved.
Remedial Planning and Remedial Action. The Bureau of Site Management in
the Hazardous Site Mitigation Administration is responsible for managing all
stages of remedial planning and remedial action. Its responsibilities include
both Superfund remedial actions and remedial actions at unlisted sites,
financed by the State Spill Fund. As explained in Section 2.2.3 below, this
bureau also oversees Superfund immediate removal actions.
The Bureau of Site Management currently has 12 staff in two sections.
Most have engineering degrees. Under the proposed expansion, the bureau would
have 32 positions, 24 of which would be for site managers.
All of DEP's on-scene coordinators are assigned to the separate Bureau of
Site Operations. This currently small bureau would be significantly expanded
under the proposed expansion to a total of 32 positions. The on-scene
coordinators would be divided into sections for operations and maintenance,
minor projects, and major projects, with the most experienced staff assigned
to the last section.
New Jersey's approach to the management of remedial actions is to form a
management team for each site. These teams ordinarily consist of six people:
CF INCORPORATED
-------
- 13 -
EXHIBIT 2-3
SITES TARGETED FOR SIGNING OF COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS/
CONTRACTS BY OCTOBER 1, 1983
Site Name
Beachwood/Berkeley Wells
Bog Creek Farm
Chemical Control Corporation
Combe Fill North Landfill
Combe Fill South Landfill
Fairlawn Wellfield
GEMS Landfill
Kramer Sanitary landfill
Reich Farms
Rockaway Boro Wellfield
Sharkey's Farm Landfill
Swope Oil and Chemical
Municipality
Berkeley Township
Howell Township
Elizabeth
Mt. Olive'Township
Chester Township/Washington Twp.
Fairlawn Boro
Gloucester Township
Mantua Township
Dover Township
Rockaway Boro
Parsippany-Troy Hills Township
Pennsauken Township
ICF INCORPORATED
-------
- 14 -
A site manager, from the Bureau of Site Management;
A technical coordinator, to review data, from the
Bureau of Environmental Evaluation and Risk Assessment;
An on-scene coordinator, from the Bureau of Site
Operations;
A legal coordinator, from the Office of Regulatory
Services or the Attorney General's office;
A coordinator from the Division of Water Resources to
provide geological expertise and to review effects on
sewerage and on potable water;
A coordinator from the Office of Cancer and Toxic
Substances Research to conduct health reviews in
conjunction with the New Jersey Health Department.
The management approaches used in Federal-lead and State-lead remedial
actions are substantially the same. The only major differences are that in a
State-lead action, State staff must prepare the first draft of the cooperative
agreement and procure contractors. In addition, a State on-scene coordinator
must be at the site five days a week, compared to only one or two days for a
Federal-lead action.
The goal of the Bureau of Site Management is to limit the responsibility
of each site manager to one major site, or two to three minor sites, which
should be possible under the proposed expansion. At present, however, site
managers are responsible for two to four large sites and are said to be
working upwards of ten to twelve hours a day.
2.2.2 Enforcement Activities
Enforcement responsibilities are divided between attorneys in DEP's Office
of Regulatory Services and technical staff in the various DEP program
offices. Litigation is handled by the State Attorney General's Office. DEP
has been provided by EPA with the "Quantico Guidelines for Enforcement
Litigation" to aid the strengthening of State enforcement efforts.
Case preparation is performed, to a large extent, by technical staff in
the DEP program offices. Staff with special expertise in offices outside the
Division of Waste Management may become involved. For example, geologists
from the Division of Water Resources will assist in preparing cases involving
groundwater contamination attributable to an abandoned industrial plant.
Within the Division of Waste Management, under the Assistant Director for
Enforcement and Field Operations, there is a Bureau of Compliance and
Enforcement that is responsible for identifying regulatory violations,
determining (from a technical and legal standpoint) whether there is enough
evidence to build a case, and (if so) preparing cases. This bureau is
ICF INCORPORATED
-------
- 15 -
currently comprised of seven people with backgrounds in environmental science,
program analysis, and administration.
Negotiations with responsible parties are conducted by attorneys in the
Office of Regulatory Services, in which all of DEP's attorneys are located.
There are about 12 attorneys in the Office of Regulatory Services (out of a
total staff of 24) who work almost full-time on Superfund and related
hazardous waste cases, the highest priority in the office at this time. Two
attorneys will be added to the office to work on Superfund (out of a total of
four additions) under the proposed expansion. The responsibilities of these
staff include not only negotiations with private parties, but also the
development of legislation, intergovernmental relations, cost recovery, the
negotiation and review of contracts, and the development of site access
agreements. The site access work is said to be especially time-consuming.
The Environmental Protection Section in the Attorney General's Office has
about 10 attorneys (out of a total of 29) available to conduct litigation on
hazardous waste cases. There is also a claims section in the Attorney
General's Office to handle claims against the New Jersey Spill Fund.
Coordination between the Attorney General's Office and DEP is reported to have
been less than satisfactory at times, resulting in a backlog of cases in the
Attorney General's Office.
At the time of this report, New Jersey is conducting negotiations in
connection with about 30 NPL sites. Eight or nine NPL cases are in
litigation. The Attorney General's Office is working on a total of about 40
to 45 hazardous waste cases (including sites not on the NPL).
The enforcement workload in New Jersey is divided roughly equally between
the State and EPA Region II, similar to the division of the response program
workloads. Responsibility for enforcement cases is assigned on the basis of
continuity the office that has done the most work on the case will retain
responsibility -- and an equitable distribution of work.
Both the program office and the enforcement office work concurrently on
any Superfund site. New cases are initially referred to enforcement to
attempt to identify responsible parties. If none can be identified, the case
is sent to the program office. These procedures are not formal, however. The
site manager will be informed of enforcement activities and the program office
may conduct site work while enforcement efforts continue. Because of the time
needed to plan a response action, enforcement searches for responsible parties
do not generally delay responses. The amount of time allowed for enforcement
work prior to initiating a response is limited by the schedule for action
specified in the four-year plan.
2.2.3 Removal Activities
New Jersey's spill response program is managed by the Bureau of Field
Operations under the Assistant Director of Enforcement and Field Operations in
the Division of Waste Management. Superfund immediate removal actions, as
ICF INCORPORATED
-------
- 16 -
noted earlier, are overseen by the Hazardous Site Mitigation Administration,
which also manages remedial actions. This section will first focus on the
spill response program before reviewing immediate removal actions.
The Bureau of Field Operations is responsible for RCRA facility
inspections as well as spill response. Its spill response capabilities,
formerly centralized, were distributed among three regional offices in the
August 1982 DEP reorganization. The northern field office in Parsippany Troy
Hills has three staff assigned to spill response; the central field office in
Yardville has four; and the southern field office in Red Lion has five. In
addition, there are 26 staff in the bureau who work primarily as facility
inspectors but have some background in spill response and could provide
assistance if needed. Under the proposed expansion, about 60 staff would be
added to the total of 72 staff currently in the bureau, but all will be
assigned to RCRA-related work. An additional field office, however, will be
created, to be located in Metro Park.
Staff assigned to spill response have a minimum of five years experience
with DEP. About three-quarters of the personnel in the bureau have college
degrees, the remainder being experienced technicians. All have taken EPA's
Emergency Responders Course. Considerable emphasis is placed by the bureau on
training. The bureau maintains four-wheel drive vehicles, grade one
protective clothing, and other necessary equipment. It is responsible for all
quality assurance work for sampling related to spill responses and has one
specialist assigned to this function.
Funding for the spill response program comes from the State Spill Fund.
About $1 million was expended in 1982 on spill response activities. State
staff say that this level of funding is adequate. They also note that their
staffing levels and equipment are adequate and that they do not need EPA
assistance in these areas.
The Bureau of Field Operations receives about 200 emergency calls per
month. Most come from police and fire departments, although DEP maintains a
spill hotline. Calls are received by a duty officer (on rotating assignment),
either directly or by a pager. The duty officer notifies a supervisor if, in
the officer's judgment, a response may be required. The bureau responds in
some manner to about 30 percent of the emergency calls. In about 10 percent
of these responses, someone from the bureau must be assigned to work on-site
for more than a day. Bureau staff state that they notify EPA of all emergency
calls they receive.
Up to $2,500 may be expended for emergency actions without obtaining the
approval of top-level managers in the Division of Waste Management or
procuring contractors through competitive bidding. The Bureau of Field
Operations is supposed to refer any action that lasts over five days or costs
over $50,000 to the Hazardous Site Mitigation Administration. In practice,
the bureau immediately refers any case that is likely to exceed these limits.
ICF INCORPORATED
-------
- 17 -
The percentage of emergency calls to which the Bureau of Field Operations
must respond is being reduced by the increasing capabilities of county
governments and hazardous waste carriers in the State to conduct spill
responses. In addition, EPA Region II conducts a limited number of spill
responses in the State. The division of responsibility between the State and
the Region is based either upon who is notified first, or (following mutual
notification), a determination of which agency is best fit to respond. State
staff ordinarily do not go to the scene of a spill if EPA has responded.
There have been six Superfund immediate removal actions in New Jersey to
date. All have been at NPL sites. Only one request for an immediate removal
has been denied. Brief descriptions follow for the sites at which immediate
removals have been conducted.
Burnt Fly Bog. In January 1982, EPA approved New
Jersey's request for CERCLA funding to ensure that the
public would not be exposed to PCBs, heavy metals, and
organics found at this site. The funding ceiling was
set at $35,000.. Remedial planning has since been
undertaken at the site.
Bridgeport Rental. In June 1982, EPA approved
funding to lower the level of liquid waste in a lagoon
located in Bridgeport. The waste, which included
about 50 million gallons of contaminated oil and water
(with 800 ppm of PCBs in the oil component) and 25
million gallons of sludge, was threatening to break
through or overflow a protective dike. In March 1983,
a restart of removal action was approved at the site
to allow installation of filtration systems for a
number of households. The current spending limit for
the entire removal action is $310,000.
Lipari Landfill. EPA also approved, in June
1982, New Jersey's request for a CERCLA immediate
removal to construct a security fence around the
Lipari Landfill in Pitman. The fence was needed to
prevent direct contact with leachate from an estimated
2.9 million gallons of liquid chemical wastes and
12,000 cubic yards of solid wastes. EPA has
authorized expenditures of up to $185,000 for
construction of the fence.
GEMS Landfill. An immediate removal request was
filed by New Jersey for this site to avert imminent
threats to public health and welfare resulting from
the possibility of direct contact with hazardous
wastes. The request for $170,000 was approved on
February 8, 1983.
ICF INCORPORATED
-------
- 18 -
Kin-Buc. Approximately $1 million in removal
funds were used for the collection and containment of
leachate to prevent contamination of the Raritan River.
Goose Farm. Removal funds were used to stage and
remove drums from this site.
New Jersey uses the same management procedures for Superfund immediate
removals as for EPA-lead remedial actions. The DEP site manager heads a
management team that oversees all aspects of the response action.
2.2.4 Management and Technical Support
Fund Management. Fund management, contract accounting, and personnel
activities related to Superfund are currently centralized in DEP under the
Assistant Commissioner for Management and Budget. There are plans, however,
to move these functions to the Division of Waste Management because of the
volume of work related to Superfund. At present, Superfund procurement
contracting requires about five and one-half workyears of effort annually.
Four personnel are assigned full-time to fiscal activities and accounting for
the State Spill Fund and the Superfund program.
New Jersey establishes a separate account for each Superfund project. The
administrative cost and indirect cost rates are negotiated separately for each
project. Because all direct State funds currently come from one source (the
Spill Fund), fund management in New Jersey is less complicated than in New
York.
Contracting. Procurement contract awards are made by a five-person
committee comprised of representatives of the Treasury Department, the Spill
Fund, DEP Purchasing, the Hazardous Site Mitigation Administration, and a DEP
office outside of the Division of Waste Management. As noted in Section 2.3
below, current contracting procedures are a major impediment to the prompt
initiation of response actions.
DEP has been subjected to considerable criticism for the high cost of the
response to the Chemical Control release in Elizabeth. Most State staff
believe that the contracting procedures used at that time (now under
investigation) were legitimate and that the high cost was simply the result of
having to use emergency contracts. Nonetheless, this case is still a matter
of extreme sensitivity, having contributed to the reorganization of the
department a year and a half ago, and staff exhibit caution with regard to
contracting and audits.
Laboratory Capacity. New Jersey staff indicate that there is no shortage
of qualified contract laboratories to meet anticipated needs under the four-
year plan. State laboratory capabilities are currently being upgraded. DEP
now uses laboratory facilities at the New Jersey Department of Health, but
these laboratories are insufficient for the volume of work related to
Superfund and do not have the instrumentation needed. In response, additional
instrumentation will be installed at DEP's pesticides laboratory.
ICF INCORPORATED
-------
- 19 -
New Jersey does have problems with laboratories, but they concern
monitoring, auditing, certification, and quality assurance, rather than
capacity. These problems will be discussed in Section 2.3.
Community Relations. The intense public awareness of hazardous waste
problems in New Jersey has resulted in considerable demands for community
relations. DEP has assigned staff full-time to community relations for
hazardous waste responses since the August 1982 reorganization. At present,
there are two people'working on community relations in the Hazardous Site
Mitigation Administration (responsible both for Superfund and for State-
financed response actions). Two additional staff will join the community
relations office under the proposed expansion. Certain functions related to
community relations are performed by other offices in DEP. Although the
community relations staff writes press releases, the releases are issued by
the DEP press office. Legislative liaison is handled by the Office of
Regulatory and Governmental Affairs. Most community relations
responsibilities for spill responses are assumed by the Bureau of Field
Operations. State staff say that they should have sufficient resources
following expansion to handle anticipated responsibilities under the four-
year plan.
DEP conducts all community relations activities in State-lead response
actions, although in coordination with EPA Region II. State staff are
thoroughly, familiar with EPA Superfund community relations policy and guidance
and intend to comply with all requirements. They expect soon to be up-to-date
in the preparation of community relations plans; the EPA REMFIT contractor
prepared two recent plans but State staff would prefer to do the work
themselves. The community relations office now has complete background
information (obtained through a questionnaire) for every State community with
a site in the four-year plan, including the names of local officials, State
representatives, civic and community leaders, radio stations, and local
newspapers.
Intergovernmental Affairs. The Office of Regulatory Services is
responsible for intergovernmental affairs, including support for State
legislative initiatives, presentations on State programs to the State
legislature and municipalities, and the provision of information on New Jersey
programs to other States. Despite New Jersey's pending suit against EPA on
the National Contingency Plan (NCP), filed in August 1981, State staff assert
that they have good working relationships with EPA Region II.
2.3 OBSTACLES TO FURTHER PROGRAM PARTICIPATION
This section discusses a number of problems that may hinder New Jersey's
participation in the Superfund program or hamper timely and effective
responses to releases of hazardous substances. It also considers points of
divergence between the State and Federal Superfund programs. Most of the
problems discussed were identified by State staff in interviews conducted for
this report.
CF INCORPORATED
-------
- 20 -
(1) Contractor Procurement. Procedures for procuring contractors are
identified by DEP staff as the greatest current bottleneck in the program.
Under State law, open bidding must be used for any procurement over $2,500.
Management contracts like EPA's REMFIT contracts are not permissible, nor may
DEP prequalify contractors -- i.e., develop a limited list of contractors
approved to bid on certain kinds of projects. The procurement of contractors
for a remedial action, in consequence, requires DEP to solicit bids, review
the proposals submitted in response, and negotiate an award, a process that
now takes between two-and-a-half and four months. Because contractors cannot
be prequalified, a large number of proposals may be received from a
solicitation; the most recent DEP solicitation attracted 26 proposals. DEP
staff must devote a substantial portion of their working time to proposal
review.
The amount of time consumed by contractor procurement may be the result of
New Jersey's management procedures. Any contract award requires the review
and signature of numerous DEP officials; there is minimal delegation of
authority for approving contracts. Delays in developing technical
specifications for requests for proposals may also be a contributing factor.
Contractor procurement and purchasing in New Jersey are centralized in the
State's Treasury Department. DEP staff, however, must develop technical
specifications before requests for proposals for cleanup projects can be
issued. Treasury Department staff assert that they can complete their
responsibilities and award a contract in six to eight weeks following issuance
of a request for a proposal.
The open bidding requirement can be waived in cases of "public exigency"
or the availability of a sole qualified contractor, but waivers are rarely
requested. It may be difficult to construe remedial planning as a public
exigency. Moreover, the State maintains a list of contractors on immediate
call lander special contracts for emergencies. These emergency contracts
provide an alternative to seeking waivers. These contracts can be very
costly, however, and State staff are reluctant to use them. The high cost of
the Chemical Control response is at least partly attributable to the use of
emergency contracts.
New Jersey's response to this problem to date has been to allow EPA to
take the lead in half of the remedial actions in the State, since EPA can
initiate work quickly by tasking its zone contractor. The State Attorney
General's Office is supporting legislation to permit the prequalification of
contractors, or to increase the limit before open bidding is required to
$7,500, but no estimates are available on the prospects of enacting such
legislation. To speed contracting under current procedures, staff experienced
in contracting for Federally-financed projects are being added to the program
offices. In addition, procurements will be initiated on a phased schedule in
accordance with the four-year plan so that contracts will be in place when
needed. DEP staff are hopeful that the average time required to procure a
contractor for remedial planning will be reduced by these means to five to six
weeks.
ICF INCORPORATED
-------
- 21 -
It should be noted that despite the time and work involved in the open
bidding process, there are sound reasons for requiring open bidding; not all
DEP staff would like to see the present requirements changed. Open bidding is
intended to ensure competition. The evaluation criteria used do not give
preference to minority firms, small businesses, or firms located within New
Jersey.
(2) Policy Issues. New Jersey is in disagreement with EPA over
several points of Superfund policy. Most of these points are raised in New
Jersey's suit against EPA on the NCP, but they are still voiced consistently
by State staff in most areas of the program. The following are the major
points of disagreement:
DEP staff argue that States should not have to begin
to cover all costs of operation and maintenance six
months after completion of a Superfund response.
DEP staff object to the lack of criteria in the NCP
for determining the appropriate extent of remedy.
They do not necessarily support the concept of uniform
national standards, arguing that a site-specific
determination of the appropriate extent of remedy is
preferable, but they say that the lack of any criteria
makes it difficult to justify to the public why any
remedy other than the most expensive should be
selected for a site.
DEP staff say that the NCP should specify when a
State cost-share greater than 50 percent will be
required.
The suit against EPA raises objections to the
requirement for State cost-sharing for planned removal
actions.
Many of these criticisms may be softened over the next several months as
EPA reviews Superfund policies and implements the initiatives of the new
Agency leadership.
(3) Quality Assurance. The main problems presently being experienced
in conducting preliminary assessments and site inspections concern quality
assurance. These problems are expected to continue. DEP staff find that the
methods used by State or contract laboratories to analyze samples are subject
to question in judicial proceedings, and are difficult to defend, because of
the absence of standard analytical methodologies. While there are standard
methodologies for analyzing priority pollutants in water, there are not
similar standard methodologies for analyzing priority pollutants in other
environmental media. Consequently, the methodologies used are open to
contention in judicial proceedings. In addition, State staff cannot prescribe
a methodology when soliciting bids from contract laboratories. The State
therefore may receive bids that propose differing methodologies, which are
ICF INCORPORATED
-------
- 22 -
difficult to evaluate. DEP staff state that they are unable to develop
standard analytical methodologies on their own and look instead to EPA's
national laboratories for guidance.
DEP is in the process of developing a quality assurance plan. The focus,
however, is on management, rather than analytical methodology and technique.
Completion of the plan has been delayed; at the time of this report, a draft
is awaiting EPA Region II's review.
A related problem is the lack of standard procedures for approving
laboratories. State staff must monitor and audit contract (and State)
laboratories, ensure that proper quality control techniques have been used,
and review all data returned by the laboratories. According to DEP staff,
however, standardized procedures for performing these responsibilities are not
available.
(4) Cooperative Agreements/State Superfund Contracts. State staff
assert that the negotiation of cooperative agreements and State Superfund
contracts is unnecessarily complex and time-consuming, for the following
reasons:
EPA has not developed standard language for State
assurances required under the statute, requiring the
development of new language for" similar provisions in
each agreement or contract. New Jersey and EPA Region
11 have been able informally to standardize spme
language, but the negotiation process could be further
simplified if EPA would propose uniform language for
common provisions.
Agreements and contracts are subject to review by
EPA Headquarters, increasing the time required to
complete an agreement or contract, and limiting the
ability of the EPA Region II staff with whom DEP must
negotiate to make firm commitments.
EPA attorneys, according to New Jersey staff at all
levels, are sometimes adversarial and "hair-splitting"
in negotiations over cooperative agreements and State
Superfund contracts. State staff complain that EPA
attorneys try to settle every detail and cover every
contingency in writing before signing.
The difficulties that arise in negotiating cooperative agreements seem to
be caused, to some extent, by substantive policy disagreements, in particular,
concerning operation and maintenance requirements. They also reflect the need
of EPA attorneys to avoid jeopardizing their defense against New Jersey's
lawsuit.
DEP staff are concerned that EPA Region II may assign responsibility for
developing a cooperative agreement or State Superfund contract to the regional
ICF INCORPORATED
-------
- 23 -
attorney assigned to the site,.rather than (as at present) having one person
in the Regional Office handle all agreements and contracts. They say that
through experience in dealing with this individual, they have been able to
achieve some common understanding and are consequently able to develop
agreements and contracts more efficiently. Until the regional attorneys
acquire familiarity with New Jersey's procedures, expectations, and needs,
there could be some loss of efficiency in producing agreements and contracts.
EPA Region II expects, however, that following the initial education period,
the availability of a number of attorneys to develop agreements will mean that
more agreements can be negotiated in a shorter period of time.
(5) Staff Salaries. Under New Jersey's civil service system, DEP
cannot pay its employees salaries comparable to those of EPA staff. For
example, a DEP engineer with five years of experience receives the same salary
that EPA pays a starting engineer. DEP has, in consequence, experienced some
difficulty in attracting staff with the qualifications desired. Special civil
service provisions for the proposed expansion will provide DEP with greater,
though not sufficient, flexibility in the salaries it can offer. Attempts to
use contractors for technical assistance in areas where staff qualifications
are limited may be hampered somewhat by the problems with contractor
procurement in New Jersey, as explained above.
(6) Off-Site Disposal. Under the Superfund statute, New Jersey must
assure the availability of a satisfactory disposal facility for any hazardous
wastes removed from the site of a response. At present, however, New Jersey
does not have any facilities that can be used for this purpose. Wastes
removed during response actions are currently sent to private facilities in
New York and Alabama. DEP has not made projections of the volume of hazardous
material that would need to be removed from sites on the four-year plan, but
State staff do not anticipate any problems, because the operators of the
disposal facilities now being used have given no indication that their ability
to accept shipments from New Jersey in the future will be limited. If EPA
requires in-State disposal facilities to be used to meet the statutory
assurances, however, remedial actions in New Jersey could be severely
constrained. New Jersey is taking steps to develop in-State disposal
facilties; a siting commission has been formed.
(7) Dioxin. DEP and EPA Region II are currently investigating the
possibility of dioxin contamination at a number of industrial sites in New
Jersey. The intense public concern over dioxin is likely to give special
urgency to the cleanup of these sites. The dioxin sites are not included on
the NPL or in New Jersey's four-year plan at present. State staff may not
have given adequate consideration to the possibility of uncovering these
sites, or similar problems in the future, when estimating resource needs.
Because of the high cost of cleaning up these sites, resource needs for dioxin
sites could be a serious problem if the sites do not score high enough on
EPA's Hazard Ranking System to be included on the NPL.
(8) Operation and Maintenance. New Jersey, similar to other States,
may encounter constitutional difficulties in attempting to meet the cost-share
requirements for remedial action under CERCLA. CERCLA Section 104(c)(3)
ICF INCORPORATED
-------
- 24 -
requires that remedial actions be preceded by contracts or cooperative
agreements in which the affected State provides assurances for all future
maintenance of remedial actions for the expected life of such actions. New
Jersey's constitution, however, contains language that may restrict the powers
of the legislature to provide the necessary assurances, to the extent that
they involve binding future legislatures. New Jersey's constitution states:
No general appropriation law or other law appropriating
money for any State purpose shall be enacted if the
appropriation contained therein, together with all prior
appropriations made for the same fiscal period, shall
exceed the total amount of revenue on hand and anticipated
which will be available to meet such appropriations during
such fiscal period, as certified by the Governor.
Resolution of this issue will be necessary in order to implement remedial
actions in the State.
2.4 PROSPECTS FOR FUTURE PROGRAM EFFORTS
New jersey is in a better position than most States to finance its
anticipated share of Superfund remedial action costs. It presently has
sufficient funds to plan to conduct remedial actions at non-Superfund sites
and to maintain a spill response program. In addition, it has developed a
draft four-year plan that should permit the orderly initiation of response
actions at the major sites in the State and facilitate the projection of
resource needs. If the proposed expansion of its staffing levels for
hazardous waste response programs is approved, New Jersey should have
sufficient personnel to conduct the actions scheduled on the four-year plan.
Thus, the prospects for New Jersey's participation in the Superfund
appear, on the whole, to be relatively favorable. Recently, however,
questions have been raised about the adequacy of New Jersey's financial
capabilities. Some DEP- staff predict that if the State's expenses for
remedial action operation and maintenance continue to equal the initial
capital costs of the projects, currently available funds may be insufficient
to meet cost-share requirements for Superfund sites. Moreover, the State
would be unable to conduct cleanup actions at non-Superfund sites. Vigorous
cost-recovery efforts could redress the shortage of funds, but New Jersey does
not have legal staff dedicated to cost recovery and, as yet, has not recovered
substantial amounts of money. In addition, questions have been raised about
whether New Jersey has adequate legal authorities to pursue successful cost-
recovery actions against generators.
A further cause for concern is that the four-year plan's schedule for
initiating remedial actions has had to be revised several times already. DEP
is upwards of 11 months behind the current schedule. In part, the schedule
revisions may be the result of the limited information available on most sites
at the time they are listed in the plan, which makes projections of cleanup
schedules difficult.
ICF INCORPORATED
-------
- 25 -
These problems notwithstanding, New Jersey officials would prefer to take
the lead in a greater percentage of Superfund remedial actions than at
present. To date, New Jersey and EPA Region II have divided responsibilities
for the management of remedial actions and for enforcement activities roughly
equally. Preliminary projections in the draft four-year plan are that about
20 percent of the remedial actions scheduled will be conducted by responsible
parties; of the remainder, the State will take the lead in 57 percent of the
actions and EPA in A3 percent. DEP staff assert, and the Region concurs, that
ultimately, they would like New Jersey to take the lead in 70 percent of
Superfund remedial actions. They are confident that if the proposed expansion
of staffing levels is approved, they will have sufficient personnel to assume
this greater share of the Superfund program in the State.
To carry this greater share of the Superfund program, however, it may also
be necessary for New Jersey to address the problems discussed above in Section
2.3. Some of these problems originate in State laws and regulations. In
particular, New Jersey's contractor procurement problems result partly from
statutory requirements for open bidding; DEP's salary levels are set by the
State civil service system. There is a limited amount that EPA Region II can
do to assist New Jersey in addressing such problems.
Nonetheless, in response to questions on this point, DEP and Region II
staff did identify a number of ways in which EPA-Region II could be of
assistance to New Jersey in implementing the Superfund program. There are
also a number of actions that DEP can consider taking to bolster its program.
The following actions are recommended:
To reduce the time required to procure contractors,
DEP will pursue the following initiatives:*
Review its management structure to determine whether
the number of approvals required for a contract can
be reduced by delegating responsibilities for
approval;
Speed the development of technical specifications
for requests for proposals;
Further explore the possibility of seeking waivers
from open bidding requirements in certain cases;
Further explore the feasibility of prequalifying
construction contractors;
-- Examine New York State's proposal review process
and, if suitable for New Jersey's purposes, adopt it;
*These initiatives are recommended; they have not at present been agreed
to by appropriate State or EPA policy-makers. The term "will" is used
throughout, at the request of. Region II, to indicate that the recommendations
imply specific commitments.
CF INCORPORATED
-------
- 26 -
Continue to develop specialized capabilities within
the DEP program office for procuring contractors;
-- Make available training in contract management
techniques for staff; and
-- Support legislative proposals for increasing the
flexibility of the contractor procurement
requirements without detracting from competition and
fiscal accountability.
EPA Region II will continue to assume the lead in
remedial actions when necessary to avoid delays that
would result from the procurement of contractors by New
Jersey. Region II will also assist New Jersey to
identify ways to speed the review of proposals.
- To further the standardization of analytical
methodologies, in order to facilitate the procurement of
contract laboratory services and to minimize the
questioning of methodologies in judicial proceedings,
DEP and Region II will resolve any impasses delaying
completion of New Jersey's quality assurance plan. DEP
will give additional consideration to the use of Region
II's plan as a model. Region II will communicate New
Jersey's need for assistance in formulating standard
analytical methodologies to the appropriate EPA national
laboratories.
To ensure that dioxin sites in New Jersey receive
appropriate responses, DEP will reevaluate its
allocation of resources to factor in possible needs for
dioxin sites. Region II will bring to the attention of
EPA Headquarters the need for a national policy on
dioxin sites that appear unlikely to receive high scores
on EPA's Hazard Ranking System. Region II will continue
to assist DEP in investigating possible sites.
To reduce delays in developing cooperative agreements,
Region II will work with DEP to develop standard
indirect cost and administrative cost rates for New
Jersey Superfund projects. Region II will also convey
to EPA Headquarters the need for standardized language
for cooperative agreements.
To improve coordination between DEP and Region II, DEP
will increase the involvement of its site team manager
in EPA-lead remedial actions in New Jersey.
Region II will develop criteria for the data required
to list a site in a management plan such as New Jersey's
four-year plan, and the procedures to follow in
ICF INCORPORATED
-------
- 27 -
scheduling actions, to facilitate adherence to such
plans and minimize the need for repeated revisions to
schedules. New Jersey will ensure that its plan meets
these criteria.
In response to the possibility that New Jersey will
lack sufficient funds to address all sites in its
four-year plan, Region II and DEP will jointly take
steps to strengthen cost-recovery efforts. New Jersey
will dedicate staff to cost-recovery. Region II will
coordinate its cost-recovery efforts "with New Jersey.
As a further response to the problems caused by
operation and maintenance assurances, Region II and DEP
will periodically review remedial- action plans to
explore options for meeting these assurances, including
whether remedies can be designed to lessen operation and
maintenance requirements.
To ensure the availability of adequate technical
capabilities despite a low State salary scale, DEP will
consider obtaining additional technical assistance by
contract. DEP will also consider the use of experts in
a voluntary advisory capacity to supplement staff. In
addition, DEP will consider the use of contracting for
the documentation of site histories, title searches, and
similar enforcement work.
To provide for adequate off-site disposal capacity
within the State, New Jersey will accelerate the efforts
of its siting commission.
Region II will continue to provide technical
assistance, as needed, for community relations.
The extensive training that EPA Region II already
provides DEP staff will be supplemented as necessary,
including courses in conducting preliminary assessments
and site inspections.
Following review by EPA Region II and DEP, these recommendations can be
incorporated in the next State-EPA Agreement. This document can also state
for the public record that contingent upon resource availability, New Jersey
intends to assume management responsibility for a greater percentage of
Superfund remedial actions.
ICF INCORPORATED
-------
- 28 -
3. NEW YORK
3.1 INTRODUCTION
New York State is generally considered to be one of the leaders in State
Superfund programs and in Superfund-related experience. The State has 26
sites on the National Priorities List and a program that has been active in
hazardous waste site response for several years. New York State has seen a
flurry of legislative activity recently relating to hazardous waste control.
Bills have been passed to regulate or improve through incentives virtually
every aspect of hazardous waste management.
In the period from 1980 through 1982, the New York Legislature enacted
laws that, among other purposes, revise existing penalties for improper
disposal of hazardous wastes, impose permit requirements on transporters of
wastes to or from locations in the State, authorize State-wide regulation of
hazardous materials transportation, establish new priorities for the review
board that oversees the siting of waste facilities in the State, and establish
a fund for site cleanups.
The Hazardous Waste Remedial Fund bill (Chapter 857), which was enacted in
1982, is particularly relevant to the State's Superfund program. The State
fund it establishes is derived from appropriations, penalties, and taxes on
generators and disposers of hazardous wastes. The fund may be used to finance:
* Identification and classification of inactive waste
sites;
* Responses to hazardous waste emergencies and spills;
* Remedial programs at sites where responsible parties
cannot be located; and
* The State's cost share of responses taken under CERCLA.
The response authorities created by Chapter 857 both complement and
supplement the parallel Federal Superfund program. Specifically, the
legislation requires:
* Classifying and placing relative priorities on sites
for a hazardous waste registry;
* Establishing procedures for including sites on the
registry;
* Establishing a State inactive hazardous waste remedial
plan detailing the recommended strategy, methods, and
time frame for remediation of sites included in the
registry;
ICF INCORPORATED
-------
- 29 -
Creating a State Superfund management board
responsible for, among other things, reviewing and
approving the remedial plan and making recommendations
to the Governor and legislature on how the plan should
be funded and implemented; and
Setting procedures for establishing and implementing a
remedial program at specific sites posing imminent
threats to the environment.
The Superfund program in New York State is administered by the Division of
Solid and Hazardous Waste of the Department of Environmental Conservation
(DEC). Enforcement actions are handled by the Division of Environmental
Enforcement and by the Attorney General's office. New York State DEC is
divided internally into nine State regional offices, each of which has some
staff assigned to hazardous waste problems. Exhibit 3-1 illustrates the
organization of the Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste within DEC.
This chapter is organized in the following manner: Section 3.2 discusses
the current State program in remedial action, enforcement, removal activities,
and technical support. Section 3.3 discusses some of the problems faced by
New York State in assuming a larger role in Superfund and the comparability of
the State program to the EPA Region's. Section 3.4 discusses the prospects
for future Superfund development in New York State.
3.2 CURRENT STATE PROGRAM
3.2.1 Remedial Action
The remedial action process is discussed here in terms of its four
component stages: (i) preliminary assessments and site discoveries;
(ii) listing of sites and cooperative agreements; (iii) remedial
investigations/feasibility studies; and (iv) design, construction, and
maintenance.
Preliminary Assessments. About 750 sites are listed on New York's
inventory of sites. State officials believe that this amount represents most
of the sites in the State; however, the seriousness of the threat posed by
many of these sites is not known. Of the 750 sites, officials believe that
approximately 100 are not serious enough to warrant remediation. About 100
are either currently under construction or have been cleaned up by industry;
26 of the sites are on the National Priorities List.
New York has recently selected 100 of these sites for investigation (using
State Superfund monies), in order to obtain the data necessary for ranking the
sites with the Hazard Ranking System. Five consulting firms were hired in
February 1983, each to prepare preliminary evaluations of 20 sites, at a cost
of $3,000 per site, and workplans for more detailed inspections. The owners
of each site will be asked to carry out the workplans prepared by the
contractors. The more in-depth inspections, about 60 to 80 of which may be
needed, are expected to cost about $25,000 to $30,000 per site. An additional
ICF INCORPORATED
-------
EXHIBIT 3-1
ORGANIZATION OF DEC'S DIVISION OF SOLID
AND HAZARDOUS WASTE
o
-------
- 31 -
100 sites are targeted for assessments using federal monies under RCRA Section
3012. New York was slated to receive about $667,000 in Section 3012 funds.
Listing. Cooperative Agreements. New York State has *26 priority sites
listed on the National Priorities List (NPL). A brief description of each of
the 26 sites is provided in Exhibit 3-2. As a result of the assessments to be
performed over the next year, New York officials expect that some number of
additional sites will be ranked high enough to be submitted and listed on the
NPL. Officials would guess only that the number to be added would likely be
less than 50.
New York State officials express positive support for the National
Priorities List; citing cases such as Facet and Fulton Terminals (PAS-
related), officials note that listing a site on the NPL can encourage a
private party to clean up. New York officials believe, however, that without
rapid EPA action on listed sites, the effect of listing diminishes over time.
Furthermore, New York believes that EPA ought to assume 100 percent of the
remedial action costs for any site placed unilaterally on the NPL without
State consent.
The negotiation of cooperative agreements appears to be' one of the
bottlenecks in the Superfund program. As was discussed in the previous
chapter on New Jersey, the lack of standardized provisions for inclusion in
cooperative agreements is considered to be a chief source of delay by New York
staff in completing negotiation of cooperative agreements. New York officials
submitted six applications for cooperative agreements on April 29, 1982,
requesting 100 percent federal funding of investigations and feasibility
studies. Only one of the six, Olean, was approved.
New York State now has three cooperative agreements with EPA at the
following sites: Love Canal, PAS Oswego, and Olean. For two additional
sites, Marathon and Sinclair Refinery, applications for cooperative agreements
have been submitted to EPA. EPA is committed to executing seven additional
cooperative agreements with New York before the end of FY 1983. In May 1983,
EPA eliminated any requirements for State cost-sharing for remedial planning
activities. This policy change should facilitate future negotiations of
cooperative agreements. New York intends to manage all Superfund remedial
actions conducted in the State.
Brief descriptions of the three sites for which cooperative agreements
have been signed follow.
* Love Canal. Love Canal is located in the southeast
corner of the City of Niagara. Sixteen acres of the
canal site were used between 1942 and 1952 as a dump
site for 21,000 tons of chemical wastes generated by the
Hooker Electrochemical Corporation. In the late 1970s,
waste contained in the canal began to seep into the
surrounding environment. The "Love Canal site" includes
ICF INCORPORATED
-------
- 32 -
EXHIBIT 3-2
NEW YORK PRIORITY SITES
Site Name Municipality Response Status*
Old Bethpage Landfill Oyster Bay E
Wide Beach Development Brant R
Syosset Landfill Oyster Bay E
Hooker -- S Area Niagara Falls E
Love Canal Niagara Falls R E
GE Moreau Site South Glen Falls E
American Thermostat South Cairo E
York Oil Company Moira R
Facet Enterprises Elmira Heights E
Port Washington Landfill Port Washington E
Ramapo Landfill Ramapo E
Mercury Refining Albany E
Olean Well Field Olean R
Batavia Landfill Batavia E
Vestal Water Supply Vestal R
Niagara County Refuse Wheatfield E
Kentucky Avenue Wellfield Horseheads R
Brewster Wellfield Brewster R
Ludlow Sand and Gravel Clayville D
Fulton Terminals Fulton E
Solvent Savers Lincklaen E
Hooker -- Hyde Park Niagara Falls V E
Hooker -- 102nd Street Niagara Falls E
Marathon Battery Cold Springs R
* Response Status Codes:
R = Federal and State Response action expected
E = Federal and State Enforcement action expected
V = Voluntary or Negotiated Response
D = Actions to be determined
ICF INCORPORATED
-------
- 33 -
the canal itself and the nearby storm drains and creeks
that have served as pathways for chemical migration.
Olean Wellfields. Located within the Town and City
of Olean, in Cattaraugus County, the site encompasses
approximately one square mile and contains three public
water supply wells, numerous private water supply wells,
and municipal and industrial dumps. Excessive levels of
trichloroethylene (TCE) were discovered in private and
municipal wells in the eastern section of Olean in 1980.
The source of contamination has not been identified;
however, it is suspected that the contaminants are
migrating from municipal and/or industrial dumps in the
adjacent areas.
PAS Oswego. The Pollution Abatement Service (PAS)
facility is an inactive waste site occupying
approximately 15 acres of land. Two small streams flow
adjacent to the property; Wine Creek flows along the
western border and White. Creek borders the property to
the east. The creeks converge just north of the
property and flow into Lake Ontario approximately 1,800
feet to the north. PAS operated a high temperature
liquid waste disposal facility during the period from
1970 through 1976, when New York State closed the
operation due to the continuing failure to meet air
standards. Surface cleanup has now been completed at
the site. A groundwater study is expected to be ready
shortly for use in the remedial investigation/feasi-
bility study of alternatives for subsurface cleanup.
Appendix B provides some details on the contents of the cooperative
agreements signed between New York and EPA for these sites.
Remedial Investigations/Feasibility Studies. The remedial action program
is divided organizationally within the Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste
into two bureaus. The Bureau of Hazardous Site Control handles preliminary
assessments, ranking of sites, inspections, cooperative agreements,
investigations, and feasibility studies. The design and construction phases
of remedial action are handled separately by the Remedial Action bureau.
The Bureau of Hazardous Site Control is in the process of staffing and
reorganization. The new organization will have four sections: the Eastern
Site Investigation Section and Western Site Investigation Section, each of
which will have six or seven staff members who will handle Federal Superfund
sites as well as enforcement and investigations at sites prior to their
becoming Superfund sites; the Site Control Section, which will also have six
or seven staff members, handling State Superfund projects; and a five member
Special Projects section, devoted largely to Love Canal projects. The Bureau
is currently staffed at about two-thirds of this projected level (about 20
ICF INCORPORATED
-------
- 34 -
people not counting clerical support). (By contrast, the EPA Regional Office
Hazardous Waste Site Branch has about 25 to 30 staff in-house.)
The mix of staff qualifications in the Bureau of Hazardous Site Control is
expected to include, for each section, an Associate Sanitary Engineer, two
other engineers, an engineering geologist, and two chemists. The Division of
Solid Waste is insistent that engineers are required to fill almost all staff
positions. The experience level in this bureau varies, but the two new
section chiefs being hired have 12 to 14 years of experience each in the
Department of Environmental Conservation.
New York State officials believe that with a complete organization as
outlined above, the Bureau could handle about 10 sites (in the remedial
investigation/feasibility study phase) over the course of a year. Officials
believe that another three or four sites will actually receive remediation in
the next year, and at current staffing, this may represent a larger workload
than can be comfortably handled.
Up until the construction phase of remedial action, New York State
officials believe that 1 to 1.5 staff are needed per site. During the
constructidii phase, the range of that ratio can widen, possibly to .5 to 2
staff members per site, depending on whether a staff member is required to be
at the site at all times.
New York staff expressed a high degree of confidence in their own quality
assurance and quality control (QA/QC) programs, a feeling which is not,
however, shared by the Region. EPA Region II believes that the State has no
formal QA program and may not be performing certain QA activities, including
auditing contractor labs, establishing data validation criteria, and using
standardized EPA-approved analytic and sampling methods. New York State
officials would probably agree that QA/QC requirements still need to be more
standardized. The State is experiencing no problems with chain of custody
procedures (although there may have been some in the past with transporters
under contract to the State).
Design, Construction, and Maintenance. The Remedial Action Bureau
handles design and construction for sites from the following sources:
Sites for which consent orders have been signed by enforcement
officials;
-- Federal and State Superfund sites; and
Sites for which settlements have been reached by the Attorney
General's office.
This bureau currently has 16 staff members, including clerical support,
and expects its staff to increase to a level of 25 over the next few months.
At any given time, the bureau has eight to ten projects under review of
construction; this level is expected to double that level when the number of
staff on-board increases.
ICF INCORPORATED
-------
- 35 -
The staff consists primarily of engineers and senior technicians', with one
or two engineering geologists. Most are experienced in design and
construction from the private sector. Project management experience is
considered an important job qualification. As an example, at the level of
senior engineer, officials would look for someone who had worked in consulting
for 5 or 6 years, had substantial field work experience, and performed many
feasibility studies.
In general, New York sites at which remedial action has been undertaken
have not required New York State permits, although a RCRA permit was needed at
Love Canal. If a site is cleaned up under an enforcement action, it is exempt
by law from permitting requirements by virtue of the feasibility study
accompanying cleanup.
New York has several large facilities for disposal of wastes removed from
remedial sites. The State also has two EPA-permitted landfill disposal
facilities for PCBs, which are found at a number of priority sites, possibly
including: Wide Beach Development, G.E. Moreau Dump Site, Mercury Refining in
Colonie, Ludlow Sand and Gravel, Fulton Terminals, and Solvent Savers.
The types of remedies that have been considered to date at New York sites
may or may not be typical of sites in the future. They include: a surface
cleanup at PAS Oswego; encapsulation in response to soil and groundwater
contamination; and for well projects, identification of the source of
contamination and either treatment of groundwater or provision of alternative
water supplies, or both. New York officials believe that, in terms of the
types of remedies to be selected, the technical aspects of State versus
Federal Superfund projects will not vary significantly.
New York State uses OSHA and EPA guidance on worker safety and health
plans. Full worker safety and health plans are developed for each site at
which remediation is undertaken.
3.2.2 Enforcement Activities
The Division of Environmental Enforcement handles both Superfund and RCRA
enforcement, i.e. both inactive and active waste disposal cases. Three
offices are maintained by the Division (in Buffalo, Albany, and White Plains);
each has attorneys, technical staff, and support personnel as well as
investigators. Officials state that they try to give equal time to both
active and inactive site cases. As discussed below in Section 3.3, some
enforcement cases are also handled by the State Attorney General's Office.
Each suboffice has approximately 15 active site cases on-going at any one
time, in investigative and prosecutive stages, as well as another seven or
eight inactive site cases. This brings to a total of about 65 to 70 cases
conducted at any time in the State of New York. At any given time, the
breakdown of cases may vary; one official currently estimates that about 50
inactive-site cases are pending at various stages in the enforcement process,
with some 15 cases receiving the bulk of the office's attention.
ICF INCORPORATED
-------
- 36 -
The cases are handled by 22 staff members in the Division, of whom nine
are attorneys. Each suboffice also has an investigative staff, consisting of
a Captain and six to ten investigative officers. All of the investigative
staff are sworn state police officers and report*to the Bureau of
Environmental Conservation Investigation in the Division of Law Enforcement,
rather than to the Division of Environmental Enforcement.
About one-third of the 26 priority list sites are currently being handled
by enforcement. EPA and New York State recently divided up the enforcement
sites, although in a few cases, it is still undetermined who will take the
lead. The Division also regularly meets with the Bureau of Hazardous Site
Control to determine whether or not a site should proceed with remedial action
or enforcement.
New York State's enforcement offices historically have negotiated consent
orders with responsible parties rather than pursued the judicial route.
Enforcement staff indicated that they are shortening the time frame allowed
for negotiation, but do not feel it is necessary to set a specified time
period to apply to all sites for deciding whether to proceed with enforcement
or cleanup.
New York appears to have sufficient legal authority to handle hazardous
waste cases, both active and inactive disposal sites. For inactive sites, for
example, New York has to show only a "significant threat to the environment."
In general, Federal Superfund sites are given priority over State Superfund
sites in determining where to pursue enforcement actions.
3.2.3 Removal Activities
New York State is in the process of training staff and developing a
program to assume responsibilities for emergency response to hazardous
substance releases. Officials estimate that about one year will be required
before the program is on-board.
Currently, spills of hazardous substances are dealt with by the following
mechanisms:
The State Department of Transportation handles oil
spills, some of which also involve hazardous waste or
materials.
Responsible parties (transporters of hazardous waste
are required to carry $1 million in insurance for
environmental restoration).
The Region II Emergency Response staff or U.S. Coast
Guard are involved at larger spills.
Localities are responsible for cleaning up spills if
the responsible party does not.
ICF INCORPORATED
-------
- 37 -
Examples of these spill responses include, in the last few yfears: a
facility release in Poughkeepsie cleaned up by the U.S. Coast Guard; a spill
on a thruway which cost the highway authority $600,000 in cleanup costs; and a
spill on an interstate highway, cleaned up by the local government.
The planned new capability in emergency response will allow New York State
to replace, to some extent, the Region II Emergency Response staff on smaller
releases. The State expects the new team to complement EPA's current
capability, by handling the smaller spills that EPA does not usually respond
to.
The new emergency response team will likely consist of one or two teams in
each State region, with two to four staff members on each team. The State
Superfund, which allows emergency spill response to be funded, will be used if
responsible parties do not clean up their releases. The Department of
Environmental Conservation will have cleanup contractors on call, with the
requirement that they must respond within two hours of a call.
The State is currently having staff trained for the team by the EPA
Environmental Response Team. State officials would prefer to have double the
number of staff trained if EPA had more extensive facilities.
New York State has made several immediate removal requests for site-
related emergencies. .Examples of requests both approved and denied by EPA are
the following:
A $25,000 request for an immediate removal action at
Olean was approved in January 1982 to install carbon
filters for 16 private and commercial water users to
protect them from acute levels of trichloroethylene.
* In December 1982, EPA denied New York's request for
$750,000 to prevent groundwater and soil contamination,
vapor releases, and a-possible explosion that threatened
to result from a spill of methylethyl ketone in
Hicksville. Responsible party cleanup was pursued
instead.
Berncolor, Inc. An explosion and fire at a dye
manufacturing plant in January 1981 killed two workers
and injured 11 others. An immediate removal request for
$600,000 was approved. Under direction of the Coast
Guard, contaminated runoff was removed, unstable drums
taken away, and the building leveled. All hazardous
materials were transported to a landfill.
* PAS Oswego -- A $150,000 immediate removal request was
approved in 1981 to overpack 1,200 leaking drums and
install surface runoff controls.
ICF INCORPORATED
-------
- 38 -
EPA denied New York's request for $335,000 in January
1983 to take immediate removal action to prevent waste
acids, alkalies, waste oil, pesticides, and heavy metals
from the Sinclair Refinery from contaminating surface
and drinking water around Wellsville, New York.
3.2.4. Management and Technical Support
Fund Management. Fund management for New York's Superfund program is
highly complex. Hundreds of codes must be used by employees in filling out
timesheets in order to identify the sites and activities they worked on. The
reason for this is that the Superfund program currently is run under nine
separate funding sources, each of which must be accounted for separately. The
fund sources include the Federal Superfund, State Superfund, monies devoted
only to Love Canal, RCRA funds, monies from the Clean Water Act, Section 205g,
etc.
Data Support. New York State receives PTS and ERRIS reports from EPA,
but does not currently have a computerized data system for tracking Superfund
sites. Most of the information on the 750 sites on the inventory is manually
kept, although some minimal amount of information is computerized.
Contracts. New York State is particularly satisfied with the contracting
system used for Superfund work. The State prepared a list of qualified
contractors, which is now being updated, and the list is used when the State
wishes to request proposals for a project. State officials believe they have
received "excellent proposals on projects to date." A panel of five is used
(including an EPA representative) for evaluating the technical proposals.
New York officials feel that a single "zone contractor" would not meet
their needs, partly because a single contractor is unlikely to have all the
qualifications required to do all the necessary work in-house and partly
because the State values its ability to work directly with a variety of
firms. Although the contracting process developd appears to be working well,
delays in the process of hiring both personnel and contractors in New York
have affected the Superfund program.
Community Relations. New York has a variety of people involved in
community participation: two people handle public participation full-time;
nine people in the State regions spend up to 30 percent of their time on
Superfund community relations, and there are a few others scattered in
different offices with responsibilities in this area. Nevertheless, no single
employee works exclusively on Superfund community relations.
The community relations staff, though small in number, have received
training sessions in citizen participation. Mailing lists are well developed
and used for public hearings. The State has routine procedures for scheduling
and giving public notice of meetings: 45 days in advance of the meeting,
notice is given publicly (e.g., through a newspaper advertisement); 30 days
in advance, documents are made available to the public; and 7 days before the
meeting, another notice is given.
CF INCORPORATED
-------
- 39 -
Laboratory Capacity. New York State has four laboratories on contract
for Superfund work as well as other work, among them the New York State Health
Department Laboratory. State officials note that turn-around time has been a
problem, as have funds for sample analysis, although the funding situation
recently has improved. Another problem with laboratories has been the
consistency of results; State staff say they have sometimes received poor
quality work, but they feel that the major problems have been resolved. New
York State has also recently purchased a mobile laboratory and hopes to add
another one soon; the State feels that mobile laboratories are absolute
essentials in remedial response, because of the need for rapid results on
sample analysis.
3.3 OBSTACLES TO FURTHER PROGRAM PARTICIPATION
The discussion in this section is organized around major functional
areas: number and experience of staff, funding levels, policies, and
coordination. This section discusses the problems identified by State and
Regional staff as hindering further assumption of Superfund activities by the
State. This section also discusses the comparability of the State and
Regional programs.
It is worth noting that New York's Superfund program has a rather
different mixture of strengths and weaknesses than the New Jersey program.
New York is pleased with its contractor procurement procedures and has
off-site disposal capacity available. By contrast, New York has funding
difficulties and problems with hiring additional staff, two problems that New
Jersey does not now face.
(1) Number and Experience of Staff. The difficulty in hiring staff
has been one of the most pressing problems faced by the New York State
Superfund program. The difficulties arise from two sources: (1) the State
hiring freeze that applied to DEC, and (2) the Federal Superfund program has
not made available monies to the States for hiring Superfund staff. DEC has
had to hire staff using State monies, since Superfund monies are made
available only on a site-specific basis after a cooperative agreement has been
signed. The problem is both one of cash flow and of funds shortage. New York
State officials strongly indicated their desire for a Superfund mechanism,
such as an up-front grant, that could be used by States for administrative
costs necessary to gear up an effective Superfund program. On the other hand,
DEC staff also noted that hiring at DEC had also been slowed by the lack of
experienced candidates for positions; that problem will only be solved over
the course of time.
By and large, the New York State and EPA Region II programs are comparable
in terms of the relative numbers of staff that each program believes should be
devoted to each major Superfund function, and in terms of the output normally
expected of each staff member. The main area of difference is that New York
has not yet been able to achieve full staff levels. The State and Region also
appear to have roughly comparable staff qualifications, although the State may
place more emphasis on hiring licensed engineers for almost all remedial
action staff positions.
ICF INCORPORATED
-------
- 40 -
(2) Policy Issues. New York State has major differences with EPA over
several issues of policy, which affect the philosophies with which the State
program is conducted. These are discussed below.
Enforcement. New York State feels that the shift to remedial action from
enforcement efforts should happen after a maximum of six months effort has
been devoted to enforcement without substantial success. New York believes
that the "dual standard" approach to enforcement and response cannot operate
as intended. As an example of how disturbing this process is, New York
officials cite the Love Canal case where, after detailed design work was
completed, EPA decided to allow Hooker Chemical another chance to clean up.
Although the delay caused by this move was not lengthy, New York feels that it
gave the government agencies a poor image.
New York's general approach is to seek consent orders rather than using
the judiciary process. Regional staff criticize this approach, feeling that a
more balanced distribution of efforts between litigation and negotiation is
desirable. However, without additional experience with both systems and a
full record of results to compare, it is not possible to evaluate the relative
efficacy of the two different approaches.
Finally, New York enforcement officials believe that EPA should more
aggressively pursue enforcement at the municipal landfills.
Extent of Remedy. New York insists that the issue of "how clean is
clean is crucial and remains to be satisfactorily resolved by EPA. There are
two elements to this issue, according to State officials. First, over the
last two years, New York staff questioned EPA's commitment to full cleanup.
As an example, in the case of PAS Oswego, after $1.5 million was spent on
surface cleanup and subsurface investigation, New York State was unsure
whether EPA would amend the cooperative agreement to fund subsurface cleanup.
New York believes that once EPA starts a project, and further remediation is
needed to clean up the site, EPA should commit itself to the full cleanup.
The second issue relating to the appropriate extent of remedy is the
technical issue of how to choose the contamination level at which to stop
response. New York State appears at present to rely on relatively rough
measures, along with guidance from the State Health Department. There is, of
course, a strong potential for conflict between the State and Region over this
issue in the future. New York State officials believe that guidance from EPA
on this issue would be extremely helpful. New York would also favor using
minimum standards.
Contracts. New York State prefers its own method of selecting
contractors from a list of qualified firms, to the Region's use of zone
contractors. New York officials are adamant that contracts for design of
remedial action must include oversight of construction, and that it is
virtually impossible to operate a program if one contractor is required to
implement another contractor's design. The result of such a situation,
according to New York staff, is that neither contractor accepts any
responsibility for the remedy. (New York officials feel it is less important
ICF INCORPORATED
-------
- 41 -
to have the same contractor perform both the remedial investigation/
feasibility study and the design/construction work.)
(3) Coordination. Given the several levels of government involved in
Superfund activities, coordination can prove to be a key factor in the success
of a program. Following is a brief overview of issues arising in coordination.
Intra-State Coordination. The primary area of difficulty in coordination'
of offices at the State level appears to have been between the Department of
Environmental Conservation and the Attorney General's Office. Although there
have been differences over tactics and selection of sites for enforcement
between DEC and the Attorney General's Office, the effect of these differences
is difficult to evaluate. Officials in DEC indicate that attempts are being
made to strengthen the relationship between the two offices, and that the two
offices have worked closely in several cases.
Inter-State Coordintion. New York staff noted that the EPA Regional
Office used to set up meetings between New York and New Jersey officials which
were helpful in some specific cases as well as in establishing general lines
of communication. Some interest existing in having the Region reestablish
such meetings, despite differences in the roles and problems of the two States
in Superfund. New York staff would also extend these meetings to include New
England States, because of shared handling of wastes generated in these states
and New York.
State-EPA Coordination. By and large, New York State officials had
nothing but praise for the efforts of the. EPA Regional staff. In one of the
few criticisms directed at the EPA Regional Office, New York officials noted
that some problems of coordination had arisen between the State and Region on
enforcement; Olean was one example where the State had not been adequately
informed beforehand that EPA enforcement staff would be on site. The other
major criticism of the Region is on the pace of completion and the quality of
RAMPs prepared by contractors for the Region.
In general, the State believes that it has the advantage over the Region
in conducting Superfund activities, in a number of ways. New York staff feel
that the State in general has a good deal of experience and is closer to the
scene. The Region, they believe, is one step removed and operates in a
"review mode," while the State is in both a review and project management
mode. New York State also believes that its enforcement efforts can proceed
much more smoothly than in EPA, where Regional cases must be approved by two
offices in EPA Headquarters, as well as by the Department of Justice and the
U.S. Attorney. Procedurally, the State has the advantage of speed: New York
attorneys make more up-front decisions than EPA attorneys in a typical case.
Moreover, several attorneys in New York have been allowed to handle the
prosecution of cases.
(4) Funding. In 1982, New York created its own "Superfund" to cleanup
hazardous wastes -- both to provide the State share for NPL sites and to clean
ICF INCORPORATED
-------
- 42 -
up sites for which there is no identifiable responsible party and which
receive no Federal cleanup funds.
The New York tax scheme which ultimately emerged from the legislature
combined two purposes: first, to raise substantial revenues to finance
cleanup efforts (an estimated $10 million annually) and, second, to tax those
disposal methods considered least desirable (primarily land disposal of
wastes). Land disposal is taxed at $12 per ton; wastes incinerated on-site
are taxed at $2 per ton; all other forms of waste disposal, such as chemical
treatment, are taxed at $9 per ton.
The tax was expected to generate $10 million annually, based on an
estimated 1.34 million tons per year of hazardous wastes generated or disposed
of in the State. Revenue collections during the first quarter of the tax
(September-November 1982), however, were only $717,000 and total revenues for
the year are expected to reach only $2.7 million, or 73 percent less than
projected. The total volume of wastes the State expects to collect taxes on
is only 550,000 tons.
Several explanations have been offered to explain the revenue shortfall.
These include:
(1) The decline in economic activity due to the recession
has substantially reduced the volume of wastes
generated;
(2.) Waste volumes upon which the original revenue estimates
were based were either inaccurate or not reflective of
average annual waste activity levels;
(3) Wastes originally shipped into the State for disposal
are going elsewhere (this is substantiated by the
manifests and by reports from commercial operators);
(4) The tax has created an incentive for alternative
disposal (such as recycling) which is not subject to
taxation; and
(5) There is extensive non-compliance with the waste
reporting requirements and underreporting is going
undetected.
It is difficult to assess with any accuracy which factors or combination
of factors are the most significant, or what the ultimate impact of this first
year's experience will be on the State's remedial program. The extent to
which funds will be available to meet the statutory cost-share requirements on
remedial construction is unclear. New York also has six municipal landfills
on the list of 26 priority sites that could require a 50 percent cost share.
CF INCORPORATED
-------
- 43 -
However, four of the six are currently in litigation and might thus not
require public flanding.
3.4 PROSPECTS FOR FUTURE PROGRAM EFFORTS
There are several potential sources of the increased level of Superfund
activity expected in the New York State program over the next few years.
First, New York State is expecting a substantial increase in staff levels over
the next few months, mostly as a result of State funds. This should result in
a faster pace for the remedial action program. New York officials would not
speculate too closely on the number of remedial actions that would likely be
undertaken in the next two years, although officials believed that as many as
25 or more could be started under certain conditions.
A second source of increased activity is the spill response program, due
to be brought on-board in the coming year. This new emergency function should
add significantly to New York's response capability.
A third major area of emphasis appears to be the completion of preliminary
assessments of 100 to 200 of the sites on the State inventory. This effort
will help determine the scope of the problem State-wide and assist in planning
future needs for response.
Enhanced State participation in the short-term could probably be achieved
as a result both of changes in EPA policy and procedures and of changes in
State actions. The following list contains suggestions* from discussions held
with both the State and' EPA Region II of possible methods of increasing the
pace of activity in Superfund efforts in New York State over the next two
years.
In response to the differing approaches towards
enforcement action and differing emphases placed on
negotiation and litigation, both New York State (NYS)
and EPA Region II agree that more in-depth understanding
of the relative successes of each approach would be
useful. To achieve that goal and to attempt to reduce
problems in coordination between DEC and the NYS
Attorney General's Office, a representative of the New
York State Attorney General's Office will attend
meetings to be held between EPA Region II and DEC to
establish a protocol for coordination. Coordination
among all three groups will be discussed and
incorporated in this protocol.
*These initiatives are recommended; they have not at present been agreed
to by appropriate State or EPA policy-makers. The term "will" is used
throughout, at the request of Region II, to indicate that the recommendations
imply specific commitments.
ICF INCORPORATED
-------
- 44 -
In response to DEC's criticism of the pace of
completion and the quality of Remedial Action Master
Plans (RAMPs) prepared by contractors for EPA, Region II
staff will evaluate the source of delays and problems
with RAMPs to date and take appropriate action to
improve the pace and quality of contractor work on
RAMPs. Region II will also consider, in consultation
with EPA Headquarters, whether the requirement to
prepare a RAMP should be eliminated.
To ameliorate the current lack of full-time staff
assigned to Superfund community relations in New York
State, and the resultant problems, DEC will designate a
Superfund community relations coordinator. Region II
will continue to make technical assistance available for
community relations planning and activities.
* EPA will develop greater standardization of
cooperative agreement provisions, particularly with
respect to special grant conditions, in order to reduce
the delay involved in negotiations.
DEC will continue efforts to develop a stable source
of revenue to meet the State's cost-share requirements.
DEC will work with Regioh II staff to develop internal
guidelines for determining the appropriate extent of
remedy that can be used and defended both in
negotiations with responsible parties and in litigation.
* DEC will take necessary steps, possibly involving a
management study, to determine whether and how the
current system of tracking staff time according to
specified activities can be streamlined.
* Region II will consider initiating a pilot meeting
between New York and New Jersey staffs to increase
opportunities for exchange of information and
coordination.
* In order to permit accurate planning and resource
allocation, a multiyear Superfund plan for New York
State is essential. DEC will adapt the State plan to be
developed under Chapter 857 to meet Federal Superfund
purposes as well. EPA Region II will develop minimum
criteria for the amount of data required on sites listed
in the plan and for the procedures to follow in
preparing a schedule for initiating action at listed
sites. The remediation plan developed under Chapter 857
ICF INCORPORATED
-------
- 45 -
will be used by New York State and EPA Region II as a
basis for further discussions of the State's role in the
Superfund program over the next several years.
Basic to the goal of fostering the role of New York State in the Superfund
program is the furtherance of a good working relationship between DEC and EPA
Region II. That relationship will become increasingly important as the
program is more fully implemented and additional controversial issues arise.
Emphasis on routine meetings, exchange of data, informal contracts, and a good
working knowledge of the issues and situations facing both organizations will
be invaluable in the coming years.
ICF INCORPORATED
-------
- 46 -
4. PUERTO RICO
4.1 INTRODUCTION
The Superfund program in Puerto Rico is not comparable either in size,
experience, or level of effort or need to either New York or New Jersey, as
will be seen from the description that follows. Both the size of the problem
and the availability of staff are an order of magnitude lower than in either
of the large States. Within the Environmental Quality Board (EQB),
Superfund-related activities are conducted in the Hazardous Waste Program
(Subtitle C) division. The division contains two branches: Technical Aid and
Permit Section and the Inspection, Monitoring and Surveillance Section. The
division almost exclusively concentrates on RCRA-related work, with only a
limited involvement in some Superfund activities.
Only one person, in the permits section, has been consistently involved in
Superfund work for an extended period of time. For a variety of reasons,
discussed below, it appears that until recently, Superfund activities in
Puerto Rico occupied a lower priority ranking among the environmental problems
of concern.
4.2 CURRENT PROGRAM
Remedial Action. Puerto Rico submitted to'EPA a list of 12 sites for
the National Priorities List (NPL), of which five appear on the List, with
rankings ranging from 215 to 377. Staff of the EQB seemed to feel at the time
that the 12 sites represented the bulk of the problem in Puerto Rico, and that
although one or two more sites might come to light, the universe of sites was
fairly well known. However, with further activity in site discovery efforts,
that assessment may be subject to change.
To what extent the 12 sites, or even the five sites listed on the NPL,
will be cleaned up is unclear. Three of the 12 sites are federal (Navy)
facilities and are ineligible under CERCLA for remedial action funds. Another
four sites are municipally owned landfills (one of which is still active).
EQB staff indicated that the likelihood of any municipalities being able to
afford a 50 percent cost-share for cleanup of these sites was exceedingly
remote, nor would the Government of Puerto Rico be able to contribute the
necessary funds either. Some possibility exists of finding private parties
responsible for some of the wastes at the municipal landfills (e.g., at the
Barceloneta Landfill). The five remaining sites of the total of 12 are
privately owned; two are closed and three are still active. Exhibit 4-1 gives
an indication of the types of problems posed by the five Puerto Rico sites on
the National Priorities List.
The Superfund-related work that EQB conducted to update the priority list
was financed by a $10,000 supplement to RCRA funds. Ttoo staff members were
involved in that effort, which required records checking, site visits, and
scoring of the sites. An additional $88,000 of RCRA 3012 monies have now been
made available to EQB.
ICF INCORPORATED
-------
- 47 -
EXHIBIT 4-1
PUERTO RICO PRIORITY SITES
General Electric Wiring Devices, Juana Diaz -- open dumpsite
contaminated with mercury.
Frontera Creek, Rio Abajo -- creek located near an endangered
species region, contaminated with mercury and pesticides from
industrial discharges; creek drains into Caribbean Sea.
Barceloneta Landfill, Florida Afuera -- landfill containing
industrial wastes; located in a Karst topography area which provides a
mechanism for leachate migration.
Juncos Landfill, Juncos,-- soil contaminated with mercury from
mercury thermometers disposed of at "the site; small underground fire
burning continually; occupied housing development recently built
partially on the landfill.
RCA Del Caribe, Barceloneta hazardous wastes containing lead and
chromium were disposed of in four lagoons and subsequently migrated
through sinkholes.
ICF INCORPORATED
-------
- 48 -
At the time that interviews for this study were conducted (February 1983),
the EQB Hazardous. Waste Division had neither the funding nor the number of
staff necessary to assume a much large role in Superfund remedial actions even
if the prerequisites to remedial action (funding and assurances) were met.
The one staff member, a chemist, working on Superfund at the time was a Junior
Specialist in Environmental Sciences and was also carrying a workload in the
RCRA program. Staff members in the permits section have backgrounds in
chemistry, biology,- and geology. However, much of the technical expertise
needed in the Superfund program came from and will continue to come from EPA
and EPA's contractors.
Removal Action. Spill response is handled by the Inspections section
of the division. Staff estimated that fewer than 10 spills of 50,000-80,000
gallons occur annually in Puerto Rico. Spills of hazardous substances are
cleaned up by the generators responsible for them. In general, staff
interviewed for this study were unaware or unfamiliar with the concept of
removal action. Although to date, responsible parties have been able to clean
up in typical removal situations, it would appear prudent to further
familiarize EQB staff with the authority and policies relating to removal
action under CERCLA.
The results of a chlorine gas release last year in Dorado, P.R. which
caused the death of one woman may have helped make.EQB reexamine its emergency
response procedures. Responses to the release, by an emergency response team
from the Coast Guard, and fire and police departments, were apparently not
we11-coordinated.
Enforcement Action. Most of the industries with which the Superfund
program in Puerto Rico will deal with are pharmaceutical companies. The State
development agency, Fomento Economico, owns a great deal of the land on the
island and rents buildings to companies. Although Fomento is legally
responsible as an owner under CERCLA, it is difficult to imagine that Fomento
will ever bear that responsibility without obtaining funds from the private
party. At the General Electric site, for example, only G.E. will be taking
action to remedy the problem.
Puerto Rico does not have specific statutes establishing liability for
past actions explicitly; however, enforcement staff feel they have sufficient
authority using EQB laws rather than state regulations. EQB laws (June 1970)
give the authority to take action against anyone damaging the environment.
EQB has two attorneys currently working on both water and waste
enforcement. One is paid from federal funds, the other from state. As of
January 1983, the intention was that EQB would take over new Puerto Rican
enforcement cases, rather than having the Region handle the cases.
Enforcement staff indicated that standard procedures were to send a notice of
moratorium to the potentially responsible party, and to send only one notice
of violation within a thirty day limit. At the time of interviews (February
1983), only one case was pending.
ICF INCORPORATED
-------
- 49 -
Management and Technical Support. The Puerto Rican program appears to
have sufficient support in some areas, and some problems in others. For
example:
An in-house laboratory for EQB was almost ready in
February 1983, which could eventually handle Superfund
samples, if funding were received. All samples until
that time are sent to the EPA Region, although private
companies in Puerto Rico do make use of laboratories
located on the island. EQB has apparently not yet
developed a quality assurance plan for Superfund,
despite having a QA plan for its RCRA hazardous waste
program.
* Community relations do not appear to be
well-developed with regard to hazardous waste
problems. Staff at EQB noted that the level of
awareness of hazardous waste sites was low; however,
some development of information on the program is
probably warranted.
4.3 PROSPECTS FOR FUTURE INVOLVEMENT
The pro'spects for future involvement of Puerto Rico's EQB in Superfund
efforts appear to depend to a great extent on the continued availability of
funding from EPA to support the development of a Superfund program staff.
Until recently; staff efforts on Superfund activities represented efforts
diverted from other work; the program has been and will likely remain highly
reliant on EPA contractors for technical expertise and qualifications. Staff
salary scales are a great deal lower than salaries for comparable positions in
any of the Region II States or EPA. EQB staff suggest that the use of grant
mechanisms will be necessary to stimulate the development of the Puerto Rico's
Superfund capability.
Even with funding available for administrative costs of staff hiring and
developing, it is difficult to see a high level of activity on remedial
actions on the island. As one official noted, if a municipal landfill needs
cleanup, there is no money available for Puerto Rico to share in the costs.
Recommendations* for EQB efforts in the coming year and in the longer-term
include:
* Continued efforts to investigate and pursue
enforcement action for the priority sites;
*These initiatives are recommended; they have not at present been agreed
to by appropriate state or EPA policy-makers. The term "will" is used
throughout, at the request of Region II, to indicate that the recommendations
imply specific commitments.
ICF INCORPORATED
-------
- 50 -
Assistance in monitoring and site work by EQB staff
for remedial planning by EPA at priority sites;
Development by EQB of a quality assurance plan,
similar to that developed for the RCRA program;
Consideration given by EQB to community relations
where necessary.
The primary focus of EQB planning should be the determination of staff and
resource needs over the next several years. EPA Region II will assist Puerto
Rico in this effort and in developing a long-term plan for Superfund
projects. If appropriate, based on the results of EQB resource planning,
Region II will also make provision for additional training to improve the
expertise of EQB legal staff. Because of the limited Superfund program to
date in Puerto Rico, EPA will take the lead in any Superfund remedial actions
in the near future.
ICF INCORPORATED
-------
APPENDIX A
ICF INCORPORATED
-------
APPROACH TO EVALUATING STATE
SUPERFUND CAPABILITIES
The attached product presents ICF's proposed approach to evaluating State
Superfund capabilities in Region II. The areas for evaluation are grouped
into four major categories: remedial activities, enforcement actions, removal
actions, and management and support tasks. Within each category, separate
papers have been prepared for key activities. Each paper describes the
specific tasks that need to be performed under each activity, and presents the
questions that will guide our research. For each of the four categories, we
have prepared summary charts outlining our data needs for accomplishing the
evaluation.
The proposed approach to evaluating State Superfund capabilities has two
major components. The first is an examination of State capacity and
efficiency (relative to the Federal program) in conducting Superfund
activities. The second is an evaluation of the quality of State activities.
Because the Superfund program is relatively new, it is unlikely that
sufficient experience will have been accumulated in every area by the time
this study is conducted. It is therefore necessary to differentiate between
an evaluation of activities and projects that have already been completed, and
the capability of the State to accomplish its goals in the future.
Our approach therefore, is to ask the following types of questions,
tailored to the particular activity under consideration:
Efficiency/Capacity:
How efficiently were projects or activities carried out in the
past, in terms of staff and resources used?
Does the State have the capacity (in terms of staff and
resources) to handle the expected workload in the future?
Quality:
What has been the quality of the State's actions in the past?
Is the State likely to be able to do a good job in the future?
As mentioned, it is not expected that we will be able to answer all four
questions for each Superfund function. The different questions will require
different types of data to be answered. Question 1 will require data on the
time, cost, and resources used in projects (or parts of projects) already
completed. Once the data are collected, ratios of input and output can be
developed to compare "the efficiency of State actions with similar Federal
actions.
ICF INCORPORATED
-------
-2-
Question 2 involves gathering information about, projected resources (from
budget documents, for example), developing a realistic scenario about the
expected workload, and comparing the resources expected to be available with
the amount of work expected to be needed. To make such comparisons, we will
build on the efficiency measures developed under Question 1 to estimate the
amount of resources needed to accomplish different tasks. The result of
Question 2 will be an estimate of the adequacy of State resources to
accomplish Superfund goals.
Question 3 involves a qualitative examination of the results of projects
or parts of projects already completed. Very often, such an evaluation cannot
be made until the next step in the chain of events is also completed. For
example, a qualitative measure of the worth of a remedial investigation could
be the necessity for conducting further sampling during the feasibility study
phase. That measure can only be assessed once the feasibility study is
completed. Similarly, one can only assess the true merits of a Superfund
remedy once it has been in place for some time.
Nevertheless, despite these caveats, we expect it should be possible to
evaluate, at least in comparison with the Federal experience, the quality of
some of the work that has already been performed. For other key activities,
at the very least, this task should provide us with a useful basis for
choosing case studies for further in-depth analysis.
Question 4 asks whether the State is likely to continue to perform at the
level already evidenced, or, if the State has not yet been involved in a
particular task, whether it is likely that the State could do as good a job as
the Federal government. Predicting the quality of future actions is not an
easy task. Our approach is to evaluate and compare three factors (when
appropriate) in order to assess the likely quality of State actions: (1) the
qualifications of staff and contractors; (2) the quality of resources
available (e.g., laboratory support, data systems); and (3) the quality and
availability of guidance, procedures, and training for carrying out the
activity.
One of the primary purposes of this initial effort has been to develop
detailed workplans for conducting the evaluation. The four charts appearing
at the end of each section represent workplans for data collection and
analysis. In each chart, we have suggested the type of data needed, the type
of documents we expect will furnish the required data, and the positions of
individuals who are likely to provide us with necessary information.
Reviewers of this package are requested to fill in, in the columns provided,
the names and phone numbers of staff who can be contacted to obtain the
documents indicated, and of staff who should be interviewed. We would also
appreciate it if reviewers would add to the charts any additional subjects
for data collection and evaluation, additional documents, and additional
contacts whom they feel should be interviewed in the course of conducting
this evaluation.
ICF INCORPORATED
-------
I. REMEDIAL ACTIVITIES
1. Negotiate Cooperative Agreement and Contract
Description
CERCLA specifies that a cooperative agreement or contract must be
finalized before any remedial activities are undertaken at a site. A
cooperative agreement is prepared when the State has the lead responsibility
for remedial activities at a site; a State Superfund contract is used when EPA
has the lead. Finalizing a cooperative agreement or contract involves
negotiations between State and EPA officials to clarify State and EPA roles in
financing and implementing remedial actions.
Included in a cooperative agreement or contract must be assurances that
the State will:
Assume operation and maintence (O&M) responsibility
for all remedial measures implemented at the site;
Provide for a facility for off-site disposal if
necessary; and
Share in the costs of the remedial action.
The cooperative agreement or contract must be submitted to EPA Headquarters
for approval.
Research Questions
Efficiency/Capacity:
1. How much staff time is required to negotiate a cooperative agreement
and/or contract?
2. Vill the agency have sufficient staff to negotiate agreements and
contracts in the future?
Quality:
3. What is the extent of any jurisdictional or cost-sharing disputes
encountered between State and Region?
4. Does the staff have appropriate experience and sufficient guidance to
negotiate agreements and contracts?
ICF INCORPORATED
-------
1-2
2. Remedial Investigations
Description
The National Contingency Plan, Subpart F, includes remedial investigation
as a necessary first step in the process of analyzing remedial alternatives
and selecting an appropriate extent of remedy for sites on the National
Priority List. The objective of the remedial investigation is to accurately
assess the magnitude of the problem involving the site and to develop possible
remedial alternatives. Activities undertaken during a remedial investigation
may include the following:
* Data collection;
* Sampling of all affected media;
* Analysis of samples; and
* Installation of a monitoring system.
Contractors are generally used to conduct remedial investigations. After a
contractor is hired for a remedial investigation, It is the lead agency's
(either Federal or State) responsibility to oversee and monitor the
contractor's activities.
Research Questions
Efficiency/Capacity:
1. What has been the average staff time spent on preparing for and
conducting remedial investigations?
2. What has been the cost of contractors, laboratory services, and
equipment required per remedial investigations in the past?
3. Does the agency have sufficient staff and resources to meet the
number of remedial investigations expected in the future? What
average monthly backlog of remedial investigations is expected?
Quality
4. How often and to what extent did the remedial investigation master
plan or contract have to be revised during implementation?
5. What has been the quality of analyses performed at State-approved
labs?
6. Do the staff and contractors have the appropriate qualifications and
sufficient experience to conduct remedial investigations?
7. Are the resources available for remedial investigations of sufficient
quality?
8. What is the quality and availability of necessary guidance,
procedures, and training for conducting remedial investigations?
ICF INCORPORATED
-------
1-3
3. Feasibility Study
Description
Feasibility studies are initiated after completion of the remedial
investigation. The objective of the feasibility study is to screen, analyze,
and refine the remedial alternatives developed during the'investigation and to
recommend a cost-effective alternative to be implemented at the site. The
alternatives are analyzed on the basis of cost-effectiveness, engineering
feasibility, and health and environmental effects.
Contractors are generally used to conduct a feasibility study. During
performance of the feasibility studies, the lead agency is responsible for
overseeing and monitoring contractor activities.
Research Questions
Efficiency/Capacity
1. What is the average staff time that has been required per feasibility
study in the past? How many feasibility studies can be supervised or
conducted at any given time?
2. What resources (cost of contractors, lab time, equipment, etc.) were
required per feasibility study in the past?
3. Does the agency have sufficient staff and resources to meet the
expected workload in the future? What average monthly backlog of
feasibility studies is expected?
Quality
4. Was the analysis effective in identifying the costs, health and
environmental effects, and technical feasibility of the alternative
selected?
5. Was the alternative that was recommended by the State approved by CPA
Headquarters without major revisions?
6. What revisions, if any, were made to the recommended alternative
during site construction?
7. Do the agency and their contractors have appropriate qualifications
and sufficient experience to conduct a feasibility study?
ICF INCORPORATED
-------
1-4
4. Remedial Design and Implementation
Description
After selection of the cost-effective alternative, the next phase of
remedial activity involves the design and implementation of the alternative.
Design and implementation steps include developing plans detailing the
engineering design, technical schedule, safety procedures and other steps to
be undertaken during site construction.
Contractors are generally used for the actual design and subsequent
construction work at the site. At sites where the federal government has lead
responsibility, the Army Corps of Engineers will manage this phase of the
response action.
Research Questions
Efficiency/Capacity
1. How much staff time has been required to design and implement past
remedies? How many ongoing remedial design and implementation
projects can be supervised at any given time?
2. What was the cost of resources required for past remedial designs
(cost of contractors, equipment used or leased, laboratory services,
etc.)?
3. What is the backlog of remedial designs and implementation projects
that are waiting to be done? Does the agency have sufficient staff
and resources to meet the expected workload in the future?
Quality
4. What revisions to the remedial design were required during site
construction?
5. What is the extent of problems encountered during and after
implementation of the remedial action?
6. Do the staff and contractors have appropriate qualifications and
sufficient experience to prepare and implement a remedial design?
7. What is the quality and availability of necessary guidance,
procedures, and training for the remedial design and implementation
activities?
ICF INCORPORATED
-------
1-5
5. Quality Control
Description
A variety of activities come under the heading of quality control,
including:
* approval of project design changes during
implementation of a remedy;
review of requests for major cost increases and
schedule changes;
* certification of payment for completed work; and
inspection and acceptance of completed project.
The basic purpose of quality control activities is to ensure that projects
are completed within approved budgets and on schedule and that the remedy
operates as intended.
Research Questions
Efficiency/Capacity:
1. What is the average amount of staff time required for quality control
per project?
2. How often do quality control activities delay projects, and what is
the average duration of the delay?
3. Does the agency have sufficient staff and appropriate financial
control systems to conduct quality control activities for the
expected workload of projects?
Quality:
4. What percentage of projects are completed without delays or cost
overruns?
5. Are the staff members performing quality control functions qualified
to evaluate the acceptability of contractor performance?
ICF INCORPORATED
-------
1-6
6. Development of Long-Term O&M Capability
Description
Many of the remedial actions that will be undertaken at priority sites
will require some form of operation and maintenance activities during the
period following implementation of the remedy. States will be required to
assume both the cost and the responsibility for conducting O&M activities.
This will require both expenditures of funds, and a capability for hiring
contractors, monitoring contractor performance, monitoring the situation at
the site, and determining what further actions are needed as the site status
changes over time.
To ensure the capability of assuming responsibility for O&M activities,
States will need to overcome constraints on three levels:
Legal (sometimes constitutional) constraints on
making binding assurances for expenditures in future
years;
Financial constraints on the amount of funds
available for O&M activities; and
Institutional constraints on dedicating staff and
resources to activities associated with O&M.
Research Questions
Efficiency/Capacity:
1. What is the likelihood that the State will be able to overcome legal,
financial, and resource constraints in order to meet its O&M
r espons ib i 1 it ies ?
Quality:
2. What are the essential factors in-ensuring that a State will be able
to adequately perform its O&M responsibilities, and to what extent is
it likely that the State will meet these criteria?
ICF INCORPORATED
-------
CATEGORY OF ACTIVITY: REMEDIAL ACTIVITIES
Data Needed
Document
Appropriate Documents
Source
(Name and Phone #)
Individuals to Interview
Posi tion
Name and Phone H
Staff capab(11ty
in negotiating
cooperative
agreements and
contracts
Staff resumes, personnel
f i les
Staff responsible for
negotiating agreements
with EPA
2. Staff time spent
on negotiating
cooperative
agreements or
contracts
3. Extent of juris-
dictional or
cost-sharing
disputes encoun-
tered during
remedial actions
Management plans on staff
assignments to negotiating
tasks
Records of remedial
actions
Project manager, OSC
for remedial action
<1. Extent of estab-
lishcd procedures
for negotiating
a cooperative
agreement or
contract
Guidance, handbooks on
negotiating cooperative
agreements and contracts
6.
o
Staff and con-
tractor experi-
ence in remedial
action si te work
(investigation,
feasibiIi ty
study, remedial
design arid site
construct ion)
Staff time spent
on each phase of
remedial action
s i te work
Staff resumes, personnel
files, qualifications of
contractors
Records, management plan
for staff assignments to
remedial investigation,
feasibility study, reme-
dial design, and imple-
mentation
Staff responsible for
conducting remedial
act i v i t i es
-------
CATEGORY OF ACTIVITY: RENEOIAL ACTIVITIES fcontinued)
Data Needed
Appropriate Documents
Document
Source
Individuals to Interview
(Name and Phone
Position
Name and Phone H
o
7. Average cost of
conducting reme-
dial investiga-
tions, FeasibiI-
ity studies,
remedial design,
and implementa-
tion
8. Amount and quali-
ty or resources
avaliable Tor
remcdI a I s i te
act Ivi t ies
9. Starr and equip-
ment budgeted
Tor FY'8U
10. Qua Ii ty or guid-
ance, training
on remed i a I
action site work
11. Qua Ii ty or sam-
ples
12. Quality or reme-
dial investiga-
tions and feasi-
biIi ty stud ies
13. Qua Ii ty or reme-
dial design and
implementation
act i vities
14. Number or staTT
workdays spent
on qua I i ty con-
trol per project
Financial records detail-
ing costs or contractors,
equipment, and laboratory
services
List of contractors,
equipment, lab services
ava ilabia
Budget projections for
FY184
Guidance, training manu-
als on sampling, analyz-
ing alternatives and
designing and implement-
ing remedial plans
Record of sampling acti-
vities conducted and
final report or sample
analysi s
Completed remedial inves-
tigations and reasibility
stud ies
Remedial design plans and
completed remedial si-te
work
Internal management plan,
budget
Technical starr involved
in past remedial actions
Head or state
Tor Suporfund
act ions
program
rcmed iaI
Starr involved in reme-
dial action sito acti-
vi ties
Technical porsonnel, lab
technicians, others,
involved in sampling or
s i te
Starr involved in
investigations and in
screening and analyzing
a Iternat ives
OSC and technical staTf
involved in designing
and implementing reme-
dial plans
nt
o
-------
CATEGORY OF ACTIVITY: REMEDIAL ACTIVITIES (continued!
Data Needed
Document
Appropriate Documents
Source
(Name and Phone ff)
Individuals to Interview
Pos i tIon
Name and PhOne H
15. Starr qua Ii fica-
t ions in qua Ii ty
control activi-
ties
Personnel files, resumes
16. Existence, capa-
bilities of
financial con-
trol system
17. Evidence of qua-
Ii ty control or
problems with
QC: delays, cost
overruns, mid-
course correc-
tions
18. Legal constraints
on undertaking
O&M responsibil-
ities
19. Financial
constraints on
assuming O&M
costs
20. Institutional
capnb iIi t ios to
manage O&M
act i vi ties
21. Other
User manuals, handbooks
on recordkeeping
Print-outs or files on
projects completed or
wo 11 underway
State constitution,
state hazardous waste
laws
State budget plans and
project ions
Out Iine of state
agencies' responsibili-
ties, Jurisdiction
Other documents
Financial control
officers
Project managers,
contractors
State legal officials
Program budget officials
Senior level state pro-
grain offic iaIs
Other staff
o
Śn
-------
II. ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
1. Coordination with Cleanup Efforts
Description
The Superfund program contains two mechanisms for achieving cleanup of
priority sites. One is the expenditure of Superfund monies for remedial
action at the site; the other is application of enforcement authorities
(including negotiation for voluntary private action, use of administrative
orders, and litigation) to achieve private cleanup. Use of enforcement
efforts where promising is preferred prior to expending Superfund monies.
However, where it is determined that enforcement efforts will not produce
private party cleanups, either because the responsible party cannot be found,
or is unwilling or unable to clean up, an expeditious shift to remedial action
is necessary (with the option of seeking cost recovery).
Coordination between enforcement efforts and remedial action is therefore
necessary during the planning stages for action at a site. The shift from
enforcement to remedial action can occur at a variety of stages, from the
earliest identification of (or failure to identify) responsible parties to the
selection of the appropriate remedy. Moreover, any individual site can shift
back again from the remedial action mode to enforcement, if responsible
parties are later identified or become willing to reach a settlement.
Coordination can be achieved in a variety of ways, from informal routine
contacts between enforcement and response personnel, to specific procedures
(such as a "dual track" approach) to be followed at each step in the process.
Research Questions
Efficiency/Capacity:
1. How quickly did the agency proceed with Fund-financed cleanups after
enforcement efforts were exhausted?
2. Does the agency have in place the necessary data systems to track the
progress of enforcement or remedial actions at each site?
Quality:
3. Have any problems surfaced in coordination between enforcement and
remedial action staff?
4. What is the nature and quality of available guidance on coordination,
procedures to follow (e.g., time limitations placed on each
activity), and established policies on when to shift from enforcement
to remedial action?
ICF INCORPORATED
-------
11 - 2
2. Chain-of-Custody and Document Control
Description
In order to ensure that enforcement and cost recovery actions can be
successfully won, it is essential that chain-of-custody and document control
procedures be established and rigorously followed. Carelessness in managing
the control of documents, samples, and other potential evidence can prevent
the government from recovering costs or bringing a successful enforcement
action.
To accomplish the proper control of documents and evidence, staff and
contractors need clear guidance, training in the necessary procedures, and
continual monitoring.
Research Questions:
Efficiency/Capacity:
1. Does the agency have the necessary records systems and staff time to
handle the expected workload?
Quality:
2. How many cases have been lost to date as a result of failure to
conduct procedures properly?
3. What is the extent of guidance, procedures, and training for staff
and contractors dealing with this activity?
ICF INCORPORATED
-------
11 - 3
3. Negotiation for Cleanup
Description
This activity is intended to achieve site cleanups by private parties
through negotiations. The private parties may or may not admit responsibility
for the site although agreeing to voluntarily clean up the site. The
negotiations may result in either the party cleaning up a particular site or
agreeing to pay some or all of the costs of government cleanup.
Competent negotiators are needed during the negotiations, during
subsequent reviews of the cleanup plans submitted by the parties, and during
on-going monitoring of the private cleanup progress. Negotiators also need a
strategy for settling with responsible parties, based on assessments of their
financial capabilities and degree of culpability, among other factors.
Negotiators also need to be aware of the various incentives, both legal and
financial, that can be offered to private parties to achieve their consent to
cleanup.
Research Questions:
Efficiency/Capacity:
1. What average time and staff hours are required to achieve agreement
from date of response to notice letter until signing of the consent
agreement?
2. Do the agency's available resources (staff workdays, legal
authorities and financial incentives available) match the number of
sites for which negotiation might be successful? What average
monthly backlog could be expected?
Quality:
3. What percentage of negotiations entered into resulted in success
(i.e., reached a consent agreement)?
4. How does the extent of cleanup or size of contributions achieved
through negotiation compare to that achieved at the Federal level?
5. How often have the responsible parties defaulted on their obligations
to clean up sites under a negotiated agreement?
6. If negotiations broke down and litigation became necessary in certain
instances, why did this occur?
7. What are the qualifications and experience of agency staff?
ICF INCORPORATED
-------
II-4
4. Litigation
Description
Where negotiation with a responsible party fails, and the government feels
that a satisfactory case can be brought against the party, litigation may be
undertaken. Under this activity are included such tasks as sending
administrative orders to responsible parties, preparing cases for litigation,
litigating the cases, and monitoring the progress of responsible parties in
cleaning up the site (or performing other required activities) if so ordered
by the court.
The extent to which the government will win its case against a private
party depends not only on the strength of the evidence but also on the legal
authorities and cause of action available. This is particularly important for
State enforcement efforts, where legal authorities may be narrower than in the
Federal context, in areas pertaining to assessment of penalties and punitive
damages, the liability standard used, the defenses and limits to liability,
the breadth of liability, etc.
Research Questions
Efficiency/ Capacity:
1. What average length of time elapsed between each step in the
order/litigation process?
2. How many cases of what average size and length were handled by each
litigator?
3. How many litigators will be available compared to the expected number
of cases? - What is the expected average monthly backlog?
Quality:
4. What percentage of cases brought to court were successful?
5. What extent of remedy was ordered by the court in cases successfully
won and what quality of cleanup was performed by responsible parties?
6. How experienced are agency litigators, compared to their federal
counterparts?
7. Where cases had "unsuccessful" outcomes, were the results due to
insufficient legal authorities or to other factors?
ICF INCORPORATED
-------
II-5
5. Cost Documentation and Cost Recovery
Description
During all phases of response action, proper documentation of costs must
be kept to ensure the success of cost recovery efforts. Cost recovery may be
taken after all or part of a response action is completed. The government
will prepare an assessment of how much is owed by the responsible party,
notify the party of liability for the costs, and seek recovery in the courts
if necessary. To evaluate the effectiveness of a State's cost recovery
efforts, analysis must be made both of the amount of costs recovered and the
time required to recover those costs.
In general, the Federal Government will undertake cost recovery actions
for Superfund expenditures. It is possible that States will wish to develop
their capabilities to carry out cost recovery actions for State funds expended
at non-priority sites. If such is the case, the following research questions
would be relevant to evaluating the States' capabilities in this regard. If
not, only question 4 below would be relevant to evaluating the State role in
Federal cost recovery actions.
Research Questions
Efficiency/Capacity:
1. What average length of time elapsed between when costs were incurred
and cost recovery notice letter sent?
2. What number and size of cost recovery cases were prepared or
completed per staff?
3. Does the agency have sufficient staff devoted to this activity to
meet the expected workload?
Quality:
4. What percentage of cost recovery cases were lost because of
inadequate cost documentation?
5. What is the number and size of cost recovery cases won by the State
compared to the number and cost of cleanup actions undertaken? How
does this compare to the experience of the Federal government?
6. What are the qualifications and experience of staff performing this
function?
ICF INCORPORATED
-------
CATEGORY OF ACTIVITY:. ENFORCEMENT
Data Needed
Document
Appropriate Documents
Source
Individuals to Interview
(Name and Phone #)
Pos i t ion
Name and Phone M
Staff
I.
Starr budgeted
for FY'8'i
Budget plans and
project Ions
Head or state Superrund
enforcement orrice
2. Starr qualifi-
cations and
experience
3. Average stafr
time spent on
each unit of
activity (e.g.,
negotiation or
consent agree-
ment )
1. Number or Starr
workdays budget-
ed per activi ty
5. Size and length
or cases per
Ii 11gator, nego-
t iator
Resumes, personnel files,
171 rorms
Enrorcement records,
internal management plans
Budgets
Enrorcement records
Starr involved in Super-
fund enrorcement activi-
ties
Starr responsible Cor
SuporTund enforcement
atft ions
Resources
1. Legal authorities
and incentives
avai table
2. EstnbIi shed
poIicies and
procedures Tor
coordination
or enforcement
arid cleanup
State laws and regulations
Guidance, memoranda
Starr in State Attorney
Ccneral's orrice and
Superrund enrorcement
program
fnforcemont orrice
personnel
-------
CATEGORY OF ACTIVITY: ENFORCEMENT (continued!
Data Needed
Resources (continued)
3. Tracking system
for monito ring
site status
<Ť. Tracking system
ava iIabIe for
recording chain-
of-custody and
use or documents
5. Established pro-
cedures Tor
chai n-of-custody
and document
control Tor
starr and con-
tractors
Time
1. Length or time
between exhaus-
tion or enforce-
ment efforts and
resumption or
cleanup
2. Length or time
Tor each step in
negotiation and
I i t igat ion
process
3. Length or time
between when
costs are incur-
red and cost
recovery notice
letters sent
Appropriate Documents Individuals to Interview
Document Source
(Name and Phone ff) PositIon Name and Phone M
User manuals, procedures
for accessing, updating
system
User manuals, procedures,
guidance on using and
maintaining records sys-
tem
Starr responsible ror
tracking system
Starr responsible ror
tracking system
Guidance, training manu-
al s on procedures Tor
handling site samples,
documents, and other site
evidence
Starr responsible for
collecting and handling
site evidence
Record or actions at
individual sites
Enrorcement records Enrorcement personnel
responsible ror negoti-
ation and Ii tigation
act ivi ties
Site and enrorcement
records
-------
Data Needed
Restil ts
1. Number of cost
recovery cases
initiated
2. Number or
enforcement
casus underway
and anticipated
3. Number or si tes
voluntarily
denned up
through
negotiations
1. Number and per-
centage or cases
success Till ly
I i t igated
Qua Ii tv of Results
1. Number and size
or private con-
tributions to
cleanup costs
2. Extent, cost,
and time Iiness
of cleanup
achieved through
negotiations
0
-n
1
CATECORY OF ACTIVITY: ENFORCEMENT fcontinued>
Document
Appropriate Documents
Source
Individuals to Interview
(Name and Phone #) Position
Name and Phone 0
Enforcement records,
budget plans
Superfund enforcement
personnel
Enforcement records
Site and enforcement
records
Enforcement records
Enforcement records
Monitoring records of
site activities,
enforcement records
Starr responsible for
overseeing responsible
party cleanup
I
-------
CATEGORY OF ACTIVITY: ENFORCEMENT tcontinued!
Data Needed
Document
Appropriate Documents
Source
(Nome and Phono ff)
Individuals to Interview
Position
Name and Phone U
3. Number or cases
where negotia-
tions broke down
and litigation
became necessary
t|. Qua I i ty or
remedy achieved
in Ii tigated
cases
5. Reasons Tor
unsuccessful
outcomes or
Ii t igated cases
6. Number and per-
centage or cases
lost due to in-
adequate cost
documentation
Enforcement records
Enforcement records
Court opinions
Enforcement records
Staff responsible for
negot iat ions
Project manager of site
for which litigation
has been successful
Li t igators
Number and cost
of cleanup
act ions
undertaken
Records of site
activities
8. Other
Other documents
other staff
o
iil
o
-------
III. REMOVAL ACTIVITIES.
I. Receive Notification of Releases
Description
Section 103(a) of CERCLA requires that the National Response Center (NRC)
be notified immediately of all reportable releases of hazardous substances.
The NRC generally contacts either EPA or the Coast Guard office in that
region, depending on the nature of the release. In addition, most states have
similar requirements that an appropriate state agency be notified of all
hazardous substance releases or incidents (as defined by state law).
To carry out this requirement, both the regional office and the states
must maintain 24-hour telephone lines to receive notifications, advise the
responsible party on initial response and safety measures, and coordinate
response by state, federal, and/or local authorities. In addition, they may
also have to ensure that other key agencies are alsd informed of the release
and are kept advised of on-scene developments.
Research Questions
Efficiency/Capacity:
1. Has the agency taken responsibility for receiving notifications in
the past? If so, how many notifications are received for each year,
and how efficiently has the system functioned? How many
notifications can be handled simultaneously?
2. Does the agency have the necessary equipment (24-hour telephone
lines, "beepers" for key response staff, reference and technical
materials, lists of other key officials) and guidance to receive
reports of releases and notify other officials?
3. Does the agency have sufficient numbers of trained personnel to
handle the potential increase in notifications?
Quality:
4. What percent of total notifications received have been handled
smoothly; how many have resulted in delays or miscommunication of
information?
5. What types of technical guidance are available to agency personnel,
who may have to give immediate advice over the telephone?
6. Are agency staff appropriately qualified?
ICF INCORPORATED
-------
111 - 2
2. Off-Scene Monitoring
Description
For many types of immediate removal actions, it may not be necessary to
dispatch agency personnel to the scene provided the removal is being carried
out by another party (either a separate state or local authority, the
responsible party, or a private contractor). In such cases it is nonetheless
important to monitor the progress of the response and to advise and coordinate
the efforts of the on-scene parties until the emergency has abated and the
removal is completed. Specific tasks include frequent communications with
on-scene officials; coordination with other appropriate authorities (e.g.,
civil defense officials, state police,, responsible parties) as needed; and
advising on-scene authorities on any technical issues with which they are not
familiar.
To successfully monitor a release situation off-scene, agency staff must
be trained in emergency response techniques and should have had some actual
on-scene experience. In addition, the staff will need to have adequate
technical and guidance documents in-house as they monitor the clean-up.'
Research Questions
Efficiency/Capacity:
1. Based on past experience, how many off-scene monitorings can be
handled at one time?
2. Does the agency have sufficient trained personnel to maintain current
level of off-scene monitoring, or increase the level, should it be
required?
3. Does the agency have adequate communications equipment (extra
telephone lines, radio equipment) to enable it to maintain contact
with emergency personnel on-scene at the expected workload level?
Quality:
4. What is the extent and quality of the agency's in-house techincal
guidance and access to experts from other agencies?
5. Have problems, errors, or delays arisen in any cases where the agency
has been responsible for off-scene monitoring?
6. Are agency staff appropriately qualified?
ICF INCORPORATED
-------
II1-2
2. Off-Scene Monitoring
Description
For many types of immediate removal actions, it may not be necessary to
dispatch agency personnel to the scene provided the removal is being carried
out by another party (either a separate state or local authority, the
responsible party, or a private contractor). In such cases it is nonetheless
important to monitor the progress of the response and to advise and coordinate
the efforts of the on-scene parties until the emergency has abated and the
removal is completed. Specific tasks include frequent communications with
on-scene officials; coordination with other appropriate authorities (e.g.,
civil defense officials, state police, responsible parties) as needed; and
advising on-scene authorities on any technical issues with which they are not
familiar.
To successfully monitor a release situation off-scene, agency staff must
be trained in emergency response techniques and should have had some actual
on-scene experience. In addition, the staff will need to have adequate
technical and guidance documents in-house as they monitor the clean-up.
Research Questions
Efficiency/Capacity:
1. Based on past experience, how many off-scene monitorings can be
handled at one time?
2. Does the agency have sufficient trained personnel to maintain current
level of off-scene monitoring, or increase the level, should it be
required?
3. Does the agency have adequate communications equipment (extra
telephone lines, radio equipment) to'enable it to maintain contact
with emergency personnel on-scene at the expected workload level?
Quality:
4. What is the extent and quality of the agency's in-house techincal
guidance and access to experts from other agencies?
5. Have problems, errors, or delays arisen in any cases where the agency
has been responsible for off-scene monitoring?
6. Are agency staff appropriately qualified?
ICF INCORPORATED
-------
111 - 3
3. On-Scene Monitoring
Description
Depending on the severity or complexity of a hazardous substance release,
it may be necessary to send agency staff on scene-either to participate in the
immediate removal or to enable them to coordinate the response at first hand.
On-scene monitoring also enables the agency to ensure that the appropriate
level of cleanup is performed and that proper health and safety precautions
are followed.
Specific tasks may include approving the removal strategy selected;
reviewing the removal team's plans for evacuating nearby residents (should
that be necessary); ensuring that necessary equipment is available to the
response personnel and that they know how to operate it properly; and
reviewing the completed response action to ensure its adequacy.
Research Questions
Efficiency/Capacity:
1. On average, what level of agency staff and resources are expended in
on-scene monitoring?
2. Does the agency have sufficient personnel trained to carry out
on-scene monitoring to meet the expected workload?
3. Does the agency have adequate transport and communications equipment
to enable its personnel to arrive on-scene quickly and maintain
contact with the agency?
Quality:
4. To what extent have errors, delays, or poblems arisen in any cases
where the agency has been responsible for on-scene monitoring?
5. What is the extent and quality of the agency's technical information
and access to other experts?
6. How much on-scene experience have agency personnel had, and in what
capacity?
CF INCORPORATED
-------
III-4
4. Direct Immediate Removal Actions
Description
In the most complex and potentially threatening cases, agency on-scene
coordinators may be required to direct the actual removal themselves. This
responsibility includes overseeing and coordinating all response activities;
ensuring that adequate health and safety precautions are followed;
coordinating with local police, fire, and other emergency authorities;
approving and implementing evacuation and other contingency plans; overseeing
media briefings; ensuring that the local government and affected community are
kept informed; disposing of recovered hazardous materials; and conducting or
reviewing soil and water sampling efforts.
To successfully direct an immediate removal, agency staff need both
sufficient technical equipment (booms, respirators, two-way radios, etc.) and
adequate prior training and experience.
Research Questions
Efficiency/Capacity:
1. On average, what levels of staff time and resources have been
required for each immediate removal?
2. Do.es the agency have sufficient staff and adequate equipment
(communications, safety, transport, containment, etc.) to meet the
expected workload? How many immediate removals can be directed at
one time?
Quality:
3. Have any problems arisen in past immediate removals directed by the
agency or during follow-up actions?
4. Are agency staff experienced in managing contractors and personnel
from other agencies? Is the staff capable of managing complex as
well as straightforward immediate removals?
5. What is the nature and quality of available guidance on safety
procedures, emergency contingency plans, media and community
relations, and emergency response procedures?
ICF INCORPORATED
-------
CATEGORY OF ACTIVITY
Data Needed
Appropriate Documents
Document
Source
(Name and Phone /
Ava iI able
personneI
Exporience and
qua Ii f icat Ions
or personnel
Communications,
transport, con-
tainment, and
saTcty equip-
ment
State
not i ficatIon
requi ruments
Average number
or removal
activi ties per
year
Guidance on
documentat ion
Procedures for
transmi tt ing
information to
nccessa ry
parties
Technical infor-
mation base and
degree of acqess
other exports
Staffing plans
Budget
Resumes or 171 forms
Personnel records
Equipment inventory
Files on response actions
directed by Agency
State hazardous substance
laws and regulations
Agency records
In-house guidance documents
In-house call-out list
In-house manuals and
references
Guidance on access to
personnel from other
agencies
Past experience Records of previous
with on- and experience
orr-sccne
moni toring
REMOVAL
Individuals to Interview
Posltion Name and Phone H
Key staff, emergency
response office
Key staff, emergency
response office
Personnol officer
Key staff, emergency
response officer
Head, public affairs
or intergovernmental
relations office
Agency counsel
Key staff, emergency
rcsponsu office
hoy staff, emergency
response office
Key staff, emergency
response office
Key staff, emergency
response office
Personnel from other
agencies that
participate in emer-
gency response
Key staff, emergency
response office
-------
CATEGORY OF AO I IVITY: REMOVAL tcontinued)
Data Needed
Document
Appropriate Documents
Source
(Name and Phone tt)
Individuals to Intorvlew
PosItIon
Name arid Phone U
10. Laboratory
capacIty
11. Ilea I th and
safety proce-
dures
12. Media relations
13. Contractor
management
l
-------
IV. MANAGEMENT AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT ACTIVITIES
1. Budget Planning and Management
Description
The objective of budget planning and management is to ensure that
available monies are used efficiently. Activities that may be involved
include:
Implementing and updating the current year's budget;
Developing program plans for the coming year;
Formulating budget projections; and
Coordinating State and EPA contributions to the budget.
Research Questions
Efficiency/Capacity:
1. What is the average staff time spent preparing and managing budget
plans?
2. Does the agency have sufficient trained staff and data processing
capacity to conduct future budget planning and management activities?
Quality:
3. Has the agency experienced budget-related problems, errors, or
overruns in the past?
4. How often has it been necessary to revise the budget during the
fiscal year for which it is in effect?
5. What types and quality of guidance are available to the staff to
assist in preparing and managing budgets?
ICF INCORPORATED
-------
IV-2
2. ADP and other Data Support
Description
The automated data processing (ADP) and other data support systems are
used to support information requirements regarding Superfund operations and
finances. This activity is necessary to keep track of the numerous activities,
and expenditure likely to be taking place simultaneously during Superfund
financed actions.
Research Questions
Efficiency/Capacity:
1. What has been the average amount of staff time devoted to ADP-related
activities?
2. Does the agency have sufficient trained staff to handle the expected
ADP workload? What is the average monthly backlog of ADP-related
work that is waiting to be done?
3. Will the agency's existing ADP system have the capacity to handle the
expected types and volume of activities?
Quality
4. How reliable has the ADP system been in the past?
5. Does the staff have appropriate qualifications and sufficient
experience to conduct the necessary ADP work?
6. How frequently have errors or delays resulted from an equipment or
software malfunction?
ICF INCORPORATED
-------
IV-3
3. Fund Management
Description
Throughout all removal and remedial actions, fund management activities
are undertaken to ensure that monies provided for response actions are used
effectively. Fund management activities involve both on-site and office
support tasks such as the following:
Preparation and processing of financial documents including
timesheets, invoices, daily logs, cost ledgers, vouchers, data
reconciliations, etc.
Production of financial reports such as tracking reports for
expenditures and labor, and variance reports;
Accountant support for enforcement in cost-recovery actions.
Research Questions
Efficiency/Capacity:
1. How much staff time has been required for fund management activities
in the past?
2. What is the lag time between expenditures and availability of
financial reports?
3. What is the monthly backlog of financial reports that are waiting to
be prepared? Does the agency have sufficient staff to meet the
expected workload in the future?
Quality:
4. What is the amount and extent of cost overruns?
5. Are the financial reports useful in the general management of the
Fund? How often are they updated?
6. Does the staff have appropriate qualifications and sufficient
experience to effectively manage the Fund?
ICF INCORPORATED
-------
IV-4
4. Contracts
Description
During any stage of a removal or remedial action, it may be necessary to
hire contractors to complete work already started or to undertake a particular
phase of the response action. In hiring contractors it is important that the
firm selected is best able to perform the specific tasks required at a
reasonable cost. Obtaining contractors may involve activities such as the
following:
* Evaluating technical plans and cost figures;
* Negotiating and awarding contracts;
* Reviewing delivery schedules; and
* Awarding fees.
In emergency situations it is important that the agency be able to obtain
contractor services without delay, at any hour of the day.
After contractors are obtained and work is begun, the hiring agency is
responsible for overseeing and monitoring the contractor activities.
Monitoring is important to ensure that the contract is properly implemented
and that cost overruns are minimized.
Evaluation of capabilities to hire contractors will examine the timeliness
of contractor procurements and will not evaluate the selection of contractors.
Research Questions
Efficiency/Capacity:
1. How much staff time has been required in the past for negotiating and
working with contractors? How many contracts can be supervised at
any given time?
2. Does the agency have sufficient staff to adequately negotiate and
monitor contracts?
Quality:
3. What is the average time lag between the time when it is determined
that a contractor is needed and the time the contract is awarded?
4. Does the staff have the appropriate qualifications and sufficient
experience to negotiate, award, and monitor contracts?
5. Does the agency have established procedures for obtaining
contractors, particularly during emergency actions?
ICF INCORPORATED
-------
IV-5
5. Community and Media Relations
Description
EPA has stated that community relations activities must be an integral
part of every Superfund-financed remedial or removal action, whether managed
by EPA or a State. The objectives of these activities are:
to gather information about the community in- which a
site or incident is located;
to inform the public of planned or ongoing activities;
to give the public the opportunity to be involved in
decisionmaking; and
to focus and resolve any controversies that develop.
Specific tasks are likely to include conducting on-site assessments to
identify community concerns; preparing community relations plans for all
planned removal and remedial actions and "short-form" plans for all immediate
removals lasting more than a few days; conducting public meetings, workshops,
press conferences, site tours, and hearings as needed; and preparing fact
sheets, briefings, and press releases. The agencies also will be expected to
submit periodic reports to EPA headquarters on the status of their community
relations efforts.
Research Questions
Efficiency/Capacity:
1. On average, what levels of staff time and resoures have been required
to carry out community and media relations activities?
2. Does the agency have sufficient trained personnel to carry out all
aspects of an effective community and media relations program?
3. Does the agency have in place an effective system for preparing and
distributing information (press releases, fact sheets, briefing
materials) and for contacting other officials and media
representat ives ?
Quality:
4. How effective have the agency's past media and communications efforts
been? Have any problems arisen because these activities were
mishandled or not given adequate attention?
5. Does the agency have in-house guidance materials on carrying out an
effective community or media relations effort?
6. Is the available staff appropriately trained to meet the expected
workload?
ICF INCORPORATED
-------
IV-6
6. Intergovernmental Coordination
Description
An important element in ensuring that both technical and community
relations activities proceed smoothly and on schedule is maintaining
coordination among all of the governmental units with a role in the site
action. In general it is the responsibility of the lead agency to coordinate
activities and ensure that all government authorities are informed about
ongoing site developments. Depending on Che nature of the site, a number of
local officials (including the mayor, fire chief, public health officer,
public works official) as well as several State authorities may need to be
kept informed about key developments at the site.
Coordination can be achieved through various formal and informal
mechanisms. A key element is the agency's ability to ensure a timely and
orderly flow of information to all relevant officials. For example, most
Regional offices have assembled "call out" lists of local and State offices
who must be notified in the event of a major development at a site. A formal,
well-established system of this type provides a good indication of an agency's
ability to maintain intergovernmental coordination during potentially lengthy
and multi-faceted Superfund actions.
Research^Questions
Efficiency/Capacity:
1. On average, what levels of staff time and resources have been
required to coordinate efforts with other government agencies?
2. Does the agency have personnel available to handle coordination
efforts with other government officials?
3. Has the agency developed formal or informal mechanisms for ensuring
that information is conveyed to these officials?
Quality:
4. Have any problems arisen in the past in coordination with other
government officials?
5. How effective has the agency been in the past in coordinating
intergovernmental activities?
6. Is the available staff appropriately trained to meet the expected
workload?
ICF INCORPORATED
-------
IV-7
7. Ensure Laboratory Capacity and Quality
Description
During removal and remedial actions it is essential that the Agency
overseeing the site operations has access to laboratories capable of analyzing
samples from the site. Often these analyses must be performed under tight
deadlines and with important decisions dependent on the accuracy of the
results. Agencies must therefore assess the availability and quality of
laboratory capacity in advance, to ensure that time and funds are not wasted
trying to locate qualified laboratories during a removal or remedial action.
Research Questions
Efficiency/Capacity:
1. On average, what levels of staff time and resources have been
required to ensure adequate monitoring of laboratory activities?
2. Does the agency have adequate staff to handle the anticipated
workload?
3. Does the agency have the resources to cover laboratory costs during a
remedial or removal action?'
Quality:
4. Has the agency experienced any problems, errors, or delays in
receiving laboratory reports?
5. Has the agency kept records on the quality and timeliness of work
done by laboratories in the past? Is a list of approved facilities
available? How often is it confirmed and updated?
6. Does the agency have staff with sufficient scientific training and
experience to enable them to carry out laboratory quality control
activities?
ICF INCORPORATED
-------
CATEGORY OF ACTIVITY: MANAGEMENT AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT
Data Needed
I. Ava iI able
pcrsonneI
2. Level or
training and
experience
3. Number and
extent of bud-
get-related
prob leins
Frequency of
budget revi-
s i ons
5. Quali ty of
guidance
ava ilablo
6. Mechanisms Tor
ensuring infor-
mation f I ow
7. Problems that
arose in past
management and
technical sup-
port
8. Potential
capac i ty of ADP
system
9. Monthly backlog
of ADP work
10. Number and ex-
tent of problems
in hardware or
softwa re
Document
Appropriate Documents
Source
(Name and Phone H)
Individuals to Intorview
Posi tion
Name and Phone H
Staff plans
Budget
Key starr, orrice
of intergovern-
mental affairs
Resumes or 171 forms
Personnel records
Key starr, orrice
or intergovern-
mental arrairs
Personnel officer
Financial and budget
records
Accountant, staff
responsible for managing
budget
Budget records
Guidance, manuals, train-
ing available to staff-
CaI I out
Ma I Ii ng
I i sts
I sts
Staff responsible for
preparing and managing
budget
Key starr, public
arra i rs orrice
Records on past inter- Key staff, orrice
governmental activities or intergovern-
mental affiars
Manual of hardware and
software capabilities and
capac i ty
Records of ADP work wait-
ing to be done
orrice records or break-
downs, repair work needed
Starr responsible for
ADP work
Staff responsible for
maintaining ADP system
-------
CATEGORY OF ACTIVITY: MANAGEMENT AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT tcontinued!
Data Needed
Document
Appropriate Documents
Source.
(Name and Phone ff)
Individuals to Interview
Pos11 ion
Name and Phone U
11. Effectiveness
of fund manage-
ment in assist-
ing cost recov-
ery actions
12. Overall effec-
tiveness of
fund management
act i vi t ies
13. 7 imuliness and
effect iveness
or contracting
procedures
I<4. Communications
abiIi ty
15. Previous com-
munity relations
act ivities
16. Relationship
with technical
staff
Enforcement reports on
cost recovery activities
Lists of media and
government contacts
CIippIng fiIes
In-house guidance
m:i te r I a I s
Files on completed
site actions
Guidance on negotiating
cooperative agreements
Accountant responsible
for tracking expendi-
tu res
OSCs for sites in which,
contractors have been
used
Key staff, public
affairs office
Key staff, public
jiffa i rs off ico
Key staff, emergency
response office
Key staff, public
affa i rs office
o
H
17. Budget for
laboratory
work
18. Previous
experience
wi th
laboratories
19. Laboratory
capac i ty and
qua Ii ty
21. Other
Agency budget
Agency files on laboratory
act ivi ties
Special studies or reports
Lists of approved
faciI ities
Other documents
Key staff, budget
office
Key staff, office
of pub Iic heaIth
Key staff, emergency
response office
Key staff, office
of pub Iic heaIth
Other staff
iil
o
-------
APPENDIX B
SUMMARY OF COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS AND STATE SUPERFUND CONTRACTS
NEW YORK/EPA AND NEW JERSEY/EPA
Cooperative agreements and State Superfund contracts are required by EPA
under CERCLA to include assurances under the following five areas:
* Operation and maintenance (O&M) of remedial measures;
* Off-site disposal of hazardous substances;
* State cost share;
* Community relations; and
* Site access.
Assurances relating to each of these topics are required in all
cooperative agreements and Superfund state contracts. (See EPA's "Revised
Guidance: Remedial Cooperative Agreemens and Contracts with States under the
-Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980
(P.L. 86-510)," January 1983 Draft, Volume 1 at pages 33, 35, 37, 58, and
59-62.)
The first three of these assurances (i.e., O&M, off-site disposal and
state cost sharfe) are required by Section 104(c)(3) of CERCLA. Community
relations provisions and states' commitments to provide site access are
required to be included in cooperative agreements by EPA policy. Each of
these assurances is briefly discussed below.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Before a remedial action can be initiated, CERCLA requires that EPA enter
into an agreement with the State in which the release is located providing,
among other things, that:
the State will assure all future maintenance of the removal
and remedial actions provided for the expected life of such
actions as determined by the President; ... (Section
104(c)(3)(A))
Current EPA policy regarding O&M provides that the Agency will fund O&M
activities (less the States' cost share) for up to six months after site
construction is completed. After the initial period, the State must fund 100
percent of O&M costs for the life of the remedy.
CF INCORPORATED
-------
B-2
OFF-SITE DISPOSAL
A second statutory prerequisite to remedial action is the requirement that
each State
assure the availability of a hazardous waste disposal
facility acceptable to the President and in compliance with
the requirements of Subtitle C of the Solid Waste Disposal
Act for any necessary off-site storage, destruction,
treatment, or secure disposition of the hazardous
substances. (Section 104(c)(3)(B)).
Current EPA cooperative agreement policy guidance requires assurances of
off-site disposal availability in all cooperative agreements regardless of
whether the response actions gbverned by the agreement, entail disposal of
hazardous substances.
STATE COST SHARE
The third and final assurance required by Section 104(c)(3) concerns
States' contributions toward the costs of response actions. In particular,
CERCLA requires that States pay or assure payment of
(i) 10 per centum of the costs of the remedial action,
including all future maintenance, or (ii) at least 50-per
centum ... of any sums expended in response to a release at
a facility that was owned at the time of disposal any
disposal of hazardous substances therein, by the State or a
political subdivision thereof.
In addition, the statute mandates that States receive credits against
their cost share obligations for documented State expenses incurred between
January 1, 1978 and December 11, 1980.
COMMUNITY RELATIONS
Current EPA policy requires that a community relations plan accompany each
cooperative agreement application. (See January 1983 Draft Revised Guidance
at page 37.)
SITE ACCESS
EPA policy also allocates to States the responsibility to secure all
easements and rights of way needed to carry out response actions. (See
January 1983 Draft Revised Guidance at page 35.)
Exhibit B-l presents summaries for the three New York sites (Love Canal,
Olean Veil Fields, and PAS Oswego), of dates and funding figures pertaining to
each document included in the cooperative agreement (i.e., assistance
application, assistance agreement, and where relevant, amendments to the
assistance agreement). Exhibits B-2 and B-3 summarize the provisions in the
cooperative agreements and State Superfund contracts between New Jersey and
EPA.
ICF INCORPORATED
-------
B-3
EXHIBIT B-1
NEW YORK/EPA COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS
Cooperative Agreement Documents
Love Canal
* Assistance application
* Assistance award
* Amendment
Olean Well Fields
* Assistance application
* Assistance award
Date
7/6/82
7/12/82
9/24/82
8/16/82
12/29/82
Amount Requested
or Approved
$6,995,000
$6,995,000
$ 892,800
$500,000
$500,000
(The assistance award finances a remedial investigation and feasibility
study.)
PAS Oswego
Assistance application
Assistance award
2/1/82
3/12/82
$3,000,000
$3,000,000
(The award finances short-term remedial action (principally drum removal)
and a feasibility study for a "complete site closure system.")
ICF INCORPORATED
-------
B-4
EXHIBIT B-2
NEW JERSEY/EPA COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS
Cooperative Agreement Documents Date Amount
Friedman Property
Assistance Application 8/17/82 $ 270,000
Assistance Award 9/3/82 $ 270,000
(The assistance award finances a feasibility study.)
Goose Farm
Assistance Application 8/17/82 $ 189,000
Assistance Award 9/3/82 $ 189,000
(The assistance award finances a feasibility study.)
Pijak
Assistance Application 8/17/82 $ 292,500
Assistance Award 9/3/82 $ 292,500
(The assistance award finances a feasibility study.)
Price's Landfill
Assistance Application 5/12/82 $ 302,150
Assistance Award 5/18/82 $ 302,110
. Amendments 6/28/82 0
(The assistance award finances remedial actions.)
Spence Farms
Assistance Application 8/17/82 $2,538,000
Assistance Award 9/3/82 $2,558,000
(The assistance award finances a feasibility study and initial remedial
actions.)
Syncon Resins
Assistance Application 10/25/82 $2,115,000
Assistance Award 12/20/82 $2,115,000
(The assistance award finances a feasibility study and initial remedial
actions.)
ICF INCORPORATED
-------
B-5
EXHIBIT B-3
NEW JERSEV/EPA STATE SUPERFUND CONTRACTS
Document
Date
Amount
Bridgeport Property
Remedial Investigation
Remedial Design
D'lmperio Property
Feasibility Study
Initial Remedial Measures
12/7/82
1/5/83
9/30/82
9/30/82
$ 50,000
$ 80,000
$344,000
$ 24,000
Kin-Buc Landfill
Remedial Design 7/15/82
Remedial Construction 7/16/82
Feasibility Study 7/24/82
Remedial Construction 8/2/82
Feasibility Study 9/21/82
Krysowaty Farm
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility 2/16/83
Study
Price's Landfill
Remedial -Investigation/Feasibility 1/6/82
Study
Remedial Design 4/9/82
Remedial Construction 5/28/82
Remedial Construction* 9/18/82
Feasibility Study* 12/7/82
Lipari Landfill
Remedial Design 9/29/82
Lone Pine Landfill
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility 7/15/82
Study
$250,000
$ 30,000
$ 31,000
$270,000
$ 27,139
$300,000
$445,000
60,000
98,700
13,279
20,000
$100,000
$700,000
^Amounts set forth in them amendments to the initial Superfund state
contract supplement earlier disbursements for the same response phase.
ICF INCORPORATED
------- |