Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
5204G
EPA 500-R-05-001
September 2005
Long-Term Stewardship:
Ensuring Environmental Site
Cleanups Remain Protective Over
Time
Challenges and Opportunities Facing
EPA's Cleanup Programs
A Report by the
Long-Term Stewardship Task Force
September 2005
-------
Page intentionally left blank
September 2005
-------
OFFICE OF
SOLID
RESPONSE
October 11,2005
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Long Term Stewardship Task Force Report and the Development of
Implementation Options for the Task Force Recommendations
FROM: Thomas P. Dunne, Acting Assistant Administrator /s/
Barry N. Breen, Deputy Assistant Administrator /s/
TO: OSWER Office and Staff Directors
Superfund, RCRA, Tanks, and Brownfields Regional Directors
Regional Counsels
Susan Bromm, Office of Site Remediation and Enforcement
Scott Sherman, Office of General Counsel
The attached report, "Long-Term Stewardship: Ensuring Environmental Site Cleanups
Remain Protective Over Time," is a result of a two-year effort by the Long-Term Stewardship
(LTS) Task Force established under the One Cleanup Program. The Task Force was comprised
of representatives from each of OSWER's program offices, OECA, OGC, Regions and the states
of Arizona, Illinois, Missouri, New Jersey and Virginia. The Task Force was charged to identify
and examine the wide spectrum of LTS issues, perspectives, and ongoing activities - and
recommend potential activities for EPA to consider in its planning. We thank the Task Force
members for their time and effort in producing this report. We believe that this document will be
a good point of departure in developing an implementation strategy for LTS issues.
LTS encompasses a broad range of complex issues and many State, Federal and local
programs are dealing with them. The Task Force suggests that EPA work with its regulatory
partners to determine the strategic priority for activities to be implemented. Therefore, we have
asked the Land Revitalization Office to work with your offices, Region 6 (as the sub-lead region
for land revitalization), OECA, OGC, and the states to identify and analyze implementation
options to address the LTS Task Force recommendations. We would like to have the
implementation options available to share with ASTSWMO, ECOS and other Federal agencies
by January 31, 2006. We have also directed the Land Revitalization Office to ensure that the
implementation options address LTS issues at federal facilities, as agreed to in the Memorandum
of Understanding (MOU) between EPA, ECOS, the Department of Defense, the Department of
Interior, and the Department of Energy.
September 2005 n
-------
We look forward to your continuing involvement in LTS planning and future
collaborative efforts. Please provide the name of your staff lead for this project to Ellen Manges
(Land Revitalization Office staff lead) by October 18.
cc: Long-Term Stewardship Task Force:
Jennifer Anderson, OGC, Solid Waste and Emergency Response Law Office
Michael Bellot, OSWER, Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation
Erica Dameron, Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
Dan Forger, Region 2, Emergency and Remedial Response Division
Robert Geller, Missouri Department of Natural Resources
Steven Hirsh, Region 3, Hazardous Site Cleanup Division
Tracy Hopkins, OSWER, Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation
Gary King, Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Carlos Lago, OSWER, Office of Solid Waste
Ellen Manges, OSWER, Land Revitalization Office
Monica McEaddy, OSWER, Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse Office
Cindy Parker, Region 6, Compliance Assurance and Enforcement Division
Nancy Porter, OSWER, Office of Brownfields Cleanup and Redevelopment
Bob Soboleski, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
Amanda Stone, Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
Greg Sullivan, OECA, Office of Site Remediation and Enforcement
Kristin Underwood, OSWER, Office of Underground Storage Tanks
Joseph Vescio, OSWER, Office of Underground Storage Tanks
Attachment
September 2005 in
-------
Acknowledgments
For more information or questions concerning this report, contact the project leader:
Ellen Manges
Land Revitalization Office
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
U.S Environmental Protection Agency
Ariel Rios Building
1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 566-0195
manges.ellen@epa.gov
This report would not have been possible without the contribution of the many individuals listed
below who participated in EPA's Long-Term Stewardship Task Force. The Task Force was
organized and chaired by EPA's Land Revitalization Office (Edward Chu, Acting Director) within
the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
Jennifer Anderson, OGC, Solid Waste and Emergency Response Law Office
Michael Bellot, OSWER, Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation
Erica Dameron, Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
Dan Forger, Region 2, Emergency and Remedial Response Division
Robert Geller, Missouri Department of Natural Resources
Steven Hirsh, Region 3, Hazardous Site Cleanup Division
Tracy Hopkins, OSWER, Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation
Gary King, Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Carlos Lago, OSWER, Office of Solid Waste
Ellen Manges, OSWER, Land Revitalization Office (Task Force Chair)
Monica McEaddy, OSWER, Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse Office
Cindy Parker, Region 6, Compliance Assurance and Enforcement Division
Nancy Porter, OSWER, Office of Brownfields Cleanup and Redevelopment
Bob Soboleski, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
Amanda Stone, Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
Greg Sullivan, OECA, Office of Site Remediation and Enforcement
Kristin Underwood, OSWER, Office of Underground Storage Tanks
Joseph Vescio, OSWER, Office of Underground Storage Tanks
This report was prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency by SRA
International, Inc., under Contract No. 68-W-01-048.
September 2005 iv
-------
Page intentionally left blank
September 2005 v
-------
Disclaimer
This report is a work product of the Long-Term Stewardship Task Force. The report is intended
to provide information to EPA management, program staff, and other stakeholders for their
consideration and to inform and encourage discussion on the topic. The statements in this
document do not constitute official Agency policy, do not represent an Agency-wide position, and
are not binding on EPA or any other party.
September 2005 vi
-------
Page intentionally left blank
September 2005 vn
-------
Table of Contents
Executive Summary 1
Task Force Recommendations Summary 2
Introduction 4
What is Long-Term Stewardship? 6
Why is Long-Term Stewardship Important? 9
What Are EPA and Others Doing about Long-Term Stewardship? 10
Challenges and Recommendations 14
Challenge: Ensuring that Stakeholder Roles and Responsibilities Are Clearly Understood
14
Recommendation #1: EPA should continue to review its decision documents,
agreements, and other tools as appropriate, to ensure that site-specific Long-Term
Stewardship (LTS) roles and responsibilities are clearly delineated 16
Recommendation #2: EPA should continue to develop guidance addressing LTS
implementation and assurance across its cleanup programs, as appropriate 17
Recommendation #3: EPA, State, and Tribal cleanup programs and other Federal
agencies should invest more time working with and building stronger relationships with
local governments, and conduct more training and outreach to help them better define
and understand their potential specific LTS roles/responsibilities 17
Recommendation #4 (Cross-Cutting): EPA should partner with other Federal agencies
and State, Tribal, and local government organizations to sponsor one or more "summits"
in which representatives from Federal, State, Tribal and local agencies can share their
perspectives and insights on LTS 18
Challenge: Ensuring that LTS Information Is Managed and Shared Effectively 19
Recommendation #5: EPA should continue to facilitate the maintenance and exchange
of LTS information through existing grants and other resources, and by establishing and
promoting data standards (e.g., data element registries and XML schema and tags) 20
Recommendation #6: EPA should continue to support the development of mechanisms
for sharing information to prevent breaches of institutional and engineering controls. . 20
September 2005 vin
-------
Challenge: Understanding and Considering the Full, Life-cycle Costs of Long-Term
Stewardship When Making Cleanup Decisions 22
Recommendation #7: EPA should evaluate current LTS costing guidance and, if
appropriate, either revise them or develop new guidance to improve the Agency's ability
to produce more consistent and reliable cost estimates. As appropriate, EPA should draw
on existing governmental and non-governmental studies and information for estimating
LTS costs 22
Challenge: Ensuring the Effective Implementation of Institutional Controls 24
Recommendation #8: EPA should develop mechanisms and criteria across its cleanup
programs for evaluating the effectiveness of institutional controls (ICs) at sites 25
Recommendation #9: EPA should support the development of an analysis of ICs to
determine the reliance on (and burden to) State, Tribal, and local governments 25
Recommendation #10: To enhance the availability and reliability of ICs, EPA should
encourage States to review and consider the Uniform Environmental Covenants Act or
similar legal provisions for potential State applicability 26
Challenge: Ensuring the Effective Implementation and Evaluation of Engineering
Controls 27
Recommendation #11: EPA should adopt a flexible approach for re-evaluating the
effectiveness of engineering controls (ECs) and, if appropriate, modifying ECs to optimize
remedial system performance and minimize LTS costs 28
Challenge: Ensuring that Funding and Other Resource Needs Are Adequate and
Sustainable 29
Recommendation #12: EPA should work with outside organizations to explore adequate
and sustainable funding sources and mechanisms at the Federal, State, and local level to
monitor, oversee, and enforce LTS activities 30
Recommendation #13: EPA should continue to explore the role of the private sector in
supporting the LTS of sites and foster their involvement, as appropriate 30
Appendix A: Key Long-Term Stewardship Themes Gathered from Other Agencies and
Groups 31
Appendix B: Long-Term Stewardship Studies and Initiatives 34
September 2005 ix
-------
Executive Summary
The cleanup remedies for contaminated sites and properties often require the management and
oversight of on-site waste materials and contaminated environmental media for long periods of
time. Long-Term Stewardship (ITS) generally refers to the activities and processes used to
control and manage these material and media, and ensure protection of human health and the
environment over time. Clear and effective ITS allows for beneficial and protective use of these
properties. The EPA and its regulatory partners rely on ITS after construction of the remedy and
for as long as wastes are controlled on site. ITS can last many years, decades, or in some cases,
even longer. ITS involves ongoing coordination and communication among numerous
stakeholders, each with different responsibilities, capabilities, and information needs. The
importance of ITS is even clearer when you consider that thousands of contaminated sites
throughout the U.S. may now or in the near future require post-cleanup monitoring and
maintenance.
ITS is increasingly presenting challenges and issues to EPA and other regulatory agencies
responsible for ensuring its implementation, oversight, and enforcement. In response, EPA
identified and gathered State and EPA staff with a broad perspective of views to form the Long-
Term Stewardship Task Force in spring 2004. The ITS Task Force consists of representatives from
EPA and States in the Brownfields, Superfund, RCRA, Federal Facilities, and Underground Storage
Tank (UST) cleanup and enforcement programs. The Task Force was asked to identify and
examine the wide spectrum of ITS issues, perspectives, and ongoing activities - and recommend
potential activities for EPA to consider in its planning. ITS encompasses a broad range of
complex issues and many State, Federal and local programs are dealing with them. The Task
Force recognized that not all of the report recommendations may be acted upon or appropriate
for every program, and suggests that EPA work with its regulatory partners to determine the
strategic priority for activities to be implemented.
The purpose of this report is to present the particular ITS challenges and opportunities for
improvement identified by the Task Force, and to make recommendations for how EPA and its
State, Tribal, and local partners should proceed in addressing them. This report also includes a
definition of long-term stewardship, why long-term stewardship is important, and what EPA and
others are currently doing to address ITS issues.
The Task Force addressed a variety of challenges facing EPA and its partners when they select,
implement, monitor, and enforce ITS responsibilities. These challenges generally fall into the
following six categories: roles and responsibilities, institutional controls (ICs), engineering
controls (ECs), costing, funding and resources, and information management. Within these
categories, the Task Force identified recommendations that EPA pursue to respond to the
challenges most seriously impacting Federal, State, Tribal, and local government abilities at ITS
sites. While these recommendations are focused on EPA activities, many of them may be
beneficial to other Federal, State, Tribal, and local program activities. In addition, the Task
Force recognizes that EPA's cleanup programs operate under different authorities, may approach
the cleanup and stewardship of sites differently, or may already be addressing the challenges
identified in this report. For this reason, certain challenges or recommendations may not apply
to every cleanup program.
September 2005
-------
Task Force Recommendations Summary
Roles and Responsibilities (page 14)
/. EPA should continue to review its decision documents, agreements, and other tools as
appropriate, to ensure that site-specific LTS roles and responsibilities are clearly
delineated, (page 16)
2. EPA should continue to develop guidance addressing LTS implementation and assurance
across its cleanup programs, as appropriate, (page 17)
3. EPA, State, and Tribal cleanup programs and other Federal agencies should invest more
time working with and building stronger relationships with local governments, and
conduct more training and outreach, to help them better define and understand their
potential specific LTS roles/responsibilities, (page 17)
4. EPA should partner with other Federal agencies and State, Tribal, and local government
organizations to sponsor one or more "summits" in which representatives from Federal,
State, Tribal and local agencies can share their perspectives and insights on LTS. (page
18)
Information Management (page 19)
5. EPA should continue to facilitate the maintenance and exchange of LTS information
through existing grants and other resources, and by establishing and promoting data
standards (e.g., data element registries and XML schema and tags), (page 20)
6. EPA should continue to support the development of mechanisms for sharing information
to prevent breaches of institutional and engineering controls, (page 20)
LTS Costs (page 22)
7. EPA should evaluate current LTS costing guidance and, if appropriate, either revise it or
develop new guidance to improve the Agency's ability to produce more consistent and
reliable cost estimates. As appropriate, EPA should draw on existing governmental and
non-governmental studies and information for estimating LTS costs, (page 22)
Institutional Controls (ICs) (page 24)
8. EPA should develop mechanisms and criteria across its cleanup programs for evaluating
the effectiveness of ICs at sites, (page 25)
9. EPA should support the development of an analysis of institutional controls to determine
the reliance on (and burden to) State, Tribal, and local governments, (page 25)
10. To enhance the availability and reliability of ICs, EPA should encourage States to review
the Uniform Environmental Covenants Act or similar legal provisions for potential state
applicability, (page 26)
September 2005
-------
Engineering Controls (ECs) (page 27)
//. EPA should adopt a flexible approach for re-evaluating the effectiveness of ECs and, if
appropriate, modifying ECs to optimize remedial system performance and minimize LTS
costs, (page 28)
LTS Funding and Resources (page 29)
12. EPA should work with outside organizations to explore adequate and sustainable funding
sources and mechanisms at the Federal, State, and local level to monitor, oversee, and
enforce LTS activities, (page 30)
13. EPA should continue to explore the role of the private sector in supporting the LTS of
sites and foster their involvement, as appropriate, (page 30)
September 2005
-------
Introduction
Long-term stewardship (ITS) of contaminated
sites is taking on greater significance as an
increasing number of these sites are cleaned
up and put back into beneficial use. Many
sites cleaned up under Federal and State
programs involve restrictions or limits on their
use to ensure long-term protection of human
health and the environment. Long-term
cleanup requirements and any subsequent
restrictions at these sites should be monitored,
maintained, and enforced to ensure that the
integrity of the remedy is protected and the
site remains protective of people and the
environment. Federal, State, Tribal, and local
governments, responsible parties, and other
site stakeholders serve as long-term stewards
for many cleaned up sites.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
formed the Long-Term Stewardship Task Force
to evaluate the current state of long-term
stewardship across its cleanup programs and to
make recommendations for where EPA should
focus its efforts to address particular issues or
opportunities for improvements. The Task Force
includes representatives from each of EPA's
cleanup programs, including the Superfund,
Resource Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA),
Underground Storage Tank (UST), Brownfields,
Federal facilities, and enforcement programs,
and several State cleanup programs. The Task
Force examined a variety of aspects associated
with LTS, with an emphasis on the following six
elements:
• Roles and responsibilities—Who is or
should be responsible for implementing
and overseeing LTS activities, and are
these responsibilities understood and
clearly communicated?
• Information management—Is there
adequate information on LTS activities,
is it effectively communicated, and is
there a need for improved information
and training?
• Institutional Controls—Are there
problems with implementation and
effectiveness of ICs and are there
opportunities for improving how they
are selected, implemented, monitored,
and enforced?
• Engineering controls/remedies - Are
there problems with engineering
controls and opportunities for re-
evaluating them and the physical
remedies to reflect changing science
and technology, improve performance,
and optimize operation and
maintenance without minimizing
human health and environmental
protection.
• Life-cycle costs—Are there effective
methods for determining the costs of
LTS activities and are cleanup programs
consistently applying them when
making cleanup decisions?
• Resources and funding mechanisms-
Are there adequate resources to
effectively carry out LTS activities and
are there mechanisms to ensure
funding is sustained over time?
The purpose of this report is to present
particular challenges and opportunities for
improvement identified by the Task Force
and to make recommendations that EPA
and its State, Tribal, and local partners
should consider in addressing them. This
report represents the first effort by the
Task Force to identify and address the
challenges that EPA's cleanup programs are
facing. As the state of LTS evolves across
the different cleanup programs, new or
different issues may emerge that may
result in additional recommendations.
Similarly, as the Task Force and EPA's
cleanup programs continue to address the
many issues inherent in LTS, lessons
learned and new solutions may be
identified and shared with other programs.
September 2005
-------
The remainder of the report provides the currently doing to address it, and the
background or context of ITS (including a specific ITS challenges and
definition and explanation of its recommendations of the Task Force.
importance), what EPA and others are
September 2005
-------
What is Long-Term Stewardship?
The Task Force established the following
definition of ITS:
Long-term stewardship applies to sites
where long-term management of
contaminated environmental is
necessary to protect human health the
environment. Long-term stewardship
generally includes the establishment and
maintenance of physical legal
controls, implementation entities,
authorities, accountability mechanisms,
information management
systems, and resources that are
to ensure that these sites remain
protective of human health the
environment.1
ITS activities typically center on physical and
legal controls to prevent inappropriate
exposure to contamination left in place at a
site. Physical or "engineered" controls are the
engineered physical barriers or structures
designed to monitor and prevent or limit
exposure to the contamination. Certain
engineered cleanups will involve ongoing O&M,
monitoring, evaluation, periodic repairs, and
sometimes replacement of remedy
components. Legal or "institutional" controls
are non-engineered instruments, such as
administrative and/or legal controls intended
to minimize the potential for human exposure
to contamination by limiting land or resource
use. Institutional controls may be used to
supplement engineering controls and also must
be operated, monitored, and evaluated for
effectiveness as long as the risks at a site are
present. Informational devices, such as signs,
state registries and deed notices, are
commonly used informational, non-
enforceable tools.
Examples of Engineering Controls
Landfill soil caps
Impermeable liners
Other containment covers
Underground slurry walls
Fences
Bioremediation
Groundwater pump-and-treat and
monitoring systems
Examples of Institutional Controls
Zoning
Notices and warnings
Easements
Restrictive covenants
Other land or resource use restrictions
Permits/Governmental Controls
Administrative Orders
1 This definition should not in any way infringe
upon or limit the authority of any party to carry
out its responsibilities under various Federal
and State laws.
The functions of institutional controls,
engineering controls, and other tools are to
protect human health and the environment
and to preserve the integrity of the selected
remedy.
ITS helps ensure the ability of people to reuse
those sites in a safe and protective manner.
While reuse of a site is beneficial to the
affected community, site reuse can also help
ensure the protection of the remedy itself.
For example, sites with active users can help
ensure that ITS requirements or activities are
occurring, as well as ensure that inappropriate
uses of the site are not occurring (i.e., vacant
sites that can be targets for trespass,
vandalism, or inappropriate uses that may
damage the remedies). In addition, because
the use or condition of a site can change over
time, it is important that ITS activities adapt
to those changes and that adjustments to ITS
activities are made.
ITS typically involves numerous public and
private stakeholders who are responsible for
implementing, monitoring, and enforcing the
September 2005
-------
engineering and institutional controls. These
stakeholders may include government agencies
at the Federal, State, Tribal, and local levels;
private parties who either own the land or
otherwise have an interest in the property;
communities and local groups living near or
affected by the site; as well as a potential range
of other parties, such as land developers,
financial institutions, insurance companies, and
land or other third party trusts. Each
stakeholder involved at a site plays a particular
role and has certain responsibilities for carrying
out stewardship activities.
Even though the various cleanup programs have
different authorities and mechanisms for
addressing ITS, there are common elements
inherent to all ITS efforts. As part of its
research, the Task Force has compiled a set of
themes/ideas that may be of interest to other
ITS programs (see Appendix A).
Because the authorities and responsibilities for
carrying out these activities vary across the
different cleanup programs, each program may
approach ITS differently and face different
types of issues. For example:
• Under the Superfund program, ITS
activities are performed as part of the
operation and maintenance (O&M) of a
remedy. Responsibility for O&M is
contingent upon whether the cleanup
was conducted by a potentially
responsible party (PRP), including
Federal facilities, or whether EPA
funded the cleanup. For PRP-lead
remedies, the PRP continues to operate
and maintain the remedy during O&M,
and EPA provides oversight to ensure
that it is being performed adequately.
At federal facilities, ITS may be
transferred to another entity, such as
another Federal agency, State, or
Tribe. For fund-financed remedies,
States are required to pay for or assure
that O&M is completed; EPA can only
fund the oversight of O&M. EPA retains
responsibility for determining when
O&M is complete and for conducting a
review and evaluation of the remedy at
least every five years. For fund-lead,
long-term response actions involving
treatment or other measures to restore
groundwater or surface-water quality,
EPA funds the operation of those
activities for a period up to ten years
after the remedy becomes operational
and functional. After ten years,
responsibility for O&M is transferred to
the State. EPA requires five-year
review at sites that cannot support
unlimited use and unrestricted
exposure. In some cases, even sites
deleted from Superfund's National
Priorities List include an ITS
component.
Under the RCRA program, cleanups are
conducted in connection with the
closure of regulated units and in
facility-wide corrective action either
under a permit, imminent hazard, or
other order or agreement. While not
all facilities are subject to the post-
closure requirements—only land
disposal facilities and any facility that
cannot "clean close" are subject to the
post-closure care requirements-LTS is
particularly important at those sites
during post-closure. For instance,
information submission requirements
for post-closure permits specify a
performance monitoring program to
include, among others: information
regarding protection of groundwater
monitoring data, groundwater
monitoring system design, etc. If the
institutional control is being imposed
through a RCRA corrective action
permit, remedy performance
monitoring (often long-term) is
necessary to measure progress towards
remedial goals and ensure that
remedial objectives are met, especially
when waste is left in place and
institutional and engineering controls
are employed to guarantee the
integrity of the final remedy.
September 2005
-------
Responsibility for overseeing corrective
action and post-closure activities
belong to the authorized States. EPA
maintains responsibility for monitoring
and enforcing corrective action and
post-closure activities in non-
authorized States, on Tribal lands, and
where corrective actions are carried
out under Agency enforcement
authority. In terms of monitoring, all
RCRA permits allow authorized
representatives to inspect the facility
upon presentation of credentials. They
also require the facility to report any
non-compliance that may endanger
health or the environment within 24
hours and to maintain and report all
records and monitoring information
necessary for compliance.
Under the Brownfields program, EPA
provides cleanup grants to State and
local governments and non-profit
organizations to carry out cleanup
activities, including monitoring and
enforcement of institutional controls.
Specifically, a local government that
receives a grant for site remediation
can use up to ten percent of that grant
to monitor and enforce any
institutional control used to prevent
human exposure to any hazardous
substance from a brownfield site.
States can use grant funds to establish
or enhance their response program,
including O&M or long-term monitoring
activities. However, EPA does not have
direct responsibility for ITS activities
at brownfield sites and its authority to
oversee cleanups and collect
information is subject to the terms and
operating period of the grant
mechanism.
Pursuant to the Underground Storage
Tanks (UST) program, when a release
has been detected or discovered at a
UST, the UST owner/operator must
perform a corrective action to clean up
any contamination caused by the
release from the UST. Under
cooperative agreements between EPA
and States, States are largely
responsible for overseeing corrective
actions in connection with these USTs.
EPA is generally responsible for
overseeing the corrective actions,
including ITS activities on Tribal lands.
Typically, UST owners/operators
prepare a corrective action plan that
the State reviews and modifies and/or
approves. In some cases, the
corrective action approved for a
release at a UST may not achieve
complete cleanup (i.e., a risk-based
corrective action is undertaken).
Depending on known or anticipated
risks to human health and the
environment, appropriate action may
include site closure, monitoring and
data collection, active or passive
remediation, or institutional controls.
In these cases, residual contamination
may remain in the environment and
must be monitored and/or contained to
prevent further migration of the
contamination.
Under EPA's Removal program, it is
estimated that over 7,000 removals
have occurred. Because the overarching
premise of the removal program is
stabilization, it is likely that on-site
contamination remains and that ITS is
key to the proper management of these
sites.
September 2005
-------
Why is Long-Term Stewardship
Important?
ITS activities are critical at sites with
contamination remaining and are used by
EPA and its Federal and State partners to
ensure:
• the ongoing protection of human health
and the environment;
• the integrity of remedial or corrective
actions so they continue to operate
properly; and
• the ability of people to reuse sites in a
safe and protective manner.
With several decades of experience, EPA
and State cleanup programs have evolved
and matured to a point where ITS is an
ever increasing portion of their
responsibilities. The nation's cleanup
programs have cleaned up thousands of
sites. Many of these sites have on-site
contamination that requires
implementation, monitoring, and
enforcement of engineering and
institutional controls.
ITS of contaminated sites also takes on
greater importance with the increased
demand for cleaned-up properties for
beneficial reuse. The success of the
Brownfields program in responding to-and
even bolstering-market demand for
properties with known or suspected
contamination has led to increased demand
for contaminated properties that are
cleaned up under the other EPA programs
(e.g., Superfund, Base Realignment and
Closure). The demand and use of such
sites includes those properties where some
contamination is controlled on site and ITS
activities are needed to ensure the
continued protection of those land uses. In
fact, the Superfund program estimates that
approximately 80% of its sites entering the
construction completion universe will
require ITS. The BRAC program similarly
anticipates requiring ITS at an increasing
number of sites; while almost 400,000
acres have been transferred and put back
into use by others, only 30% is estimated to
be uncontaminated.
Site reuse and the implementation of
appropriate and effective ITS activities
(e.g., institutional controls) are
complementary. When people look to
reuse sites, it prompts a close look at the
status of the site and its remedy, including
ITS. This examination usually includes
local governments, who may be one of the
principal entities for tracking, maintaining,
and enforcing institutional controls. The
people responsible for these controls want
to make sure they remain protective during
future use and future users want to make
sure that their activities are appropriate
and do not cause future problems. Thus,
all parties want to ensure continued
implementation of appropriate and
effective ITS.
The importance of ITS has never been
greater with the maturation of EPA, other
Federal agency, and State cleanup
programs, the increasing number of sites
requiring ongoing monitoring and
maintenance, and the emphasis on reusing
sites following cleanup.
September 2005
-------
What Are EPA and Others Doing
about Long-Term Stewardship?
The Task Force recognizes that a
significant amount of work has previously
been undertaken within individual EPA
programs, other Federal departments and
agencies, States and State organizations,
and non-governmental organizations. The
following provides a few highlights of these
efforts, and Appendix B provides a more
detailed description of the studies that
have been prepared and the initiatives
underway.
Interagency Efforts
EPA has entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOD) on long-term
stewardship of Federal facilities with the
Department of Energy (DOE), Department
of Defense (DoD), Department of Interior
(DOI), and the Environmental Council of
States (ECOS). The MOU provides a
common understanding and agreement,
and basis for discussion and coordination,
among relevant Federal agencies and
ECOS. The MOU provides a definition of
ITS, a set of guiding principles, and the
key elements or components of ITS.
The Environmental Financial Advisory
Board, a Federal advisory committee
composed of public and private entities
that provides advice to EPA, is currently
working with EPA and The Association of
State and Territorial Solid Waste
Management Officials (ASTSWMO) to
address the issue of the reliability of
financial assurance for environmental
stewardship of contaminated properties.
The results of this effort will be
documented in a report that should
supplement and educate the work of the
ITS Task Force.
EPA Activities
EPA's cleanup programs have been
addressing ITS for many years and are
increasingly addressing such matters
through new strategies, initiatives,
guidance, and pilot projects. Highlights of
several key efforts include:
• The Superfund program has developed
a "National Strategy to Manage Post-
Construction Completion at Superfund
Sites," which provides a framework of
initiatives to provide greater assurance
that Superfund remedies remain
protective over the long-term. This
strategy will help EPA focus efforts
during the next five years on activities
to ensure human health and the
environment are protected at
Superfund sites after construction is
complete.
• The Superfund program has established
a strategy for identifying, tracking, and
evaluating institutional control
effectiveness; developing an 1C tracking
system; engaging other government and
non-government organizations on
institutional control data collection
standards and systems; issuing cross-
program guidance on the full life-cycle
of institutional controls; and piloting
one-call systems and other public-
private partnership efforts.
• In 2000, the Superfund program began
an initiative to optimize Superfund-
financed ground water pump & treat
(P&T) systems, which continues today.
Optimization is intended to encourage
systematic review and modification to
operating remedies in order to promote
September 2005
10
-------
continuous improvement and enhance
overall remedy and cost effectiveness.
Optimization also plays a key role in
ensuring smooth transfer of P&T
remedies to States. In addition, the
Interstate Technology and Regulatory
Council has a Remediation Process
Optimization Team that is developing
various fact sheets and training
modules on optimization.
The RCRA base program includes
regulations that establish the post-
closure permit and post-closure care
requirements and has published
guidance on completion of corrective
actions, including provisions for
corrective action complete with
controls, when long-term stewardship
is required. In addition, both OSW and
OSRE are presently collaborating on a
joint memorandum addressed to the
RCRA Regional Divisional Directors and
Enforcement Managers titled "Ensuring
Effective and Reliable ICs at RCRA
Facilities" that includes advice on ITS
issues and presents key considerations
on their implementation.
The RCRA 1C tracking component of
RCRAInfo asks for information from the
regulated community to allow the
Agency to keep track of sites with
institutional and engineering controls in
place. It provides dates when
institutional and engineering controls
are either projected to be or are
actually fully implemented.
The UST program is currently
developing a system for tracking
institutional controls at sites for which
they have oversight-those on tribal
lands.
The Brownfields Program is providing
contractor support to ICAAA to continue
to enhance the LUCS.org web site to
serve as a reference site for all
information on institutional controls
related issues, including State
regulations, model laws, professional
papers written on the issue, and other
information related to the
implementation and enforcement of
institutional controls.
• The Brownfields Program collects
institutional control information about
certain brownfields sites in the
Brownfields Property Profile Form,
which are completed by cleanup and
revolving loan fund grantees. The
grantee indicates if an institutional
control was required and if so the
grantee must identify the type of
institutional control. This information
is available through Brownfields
Envirofacts.
Other Federal Agency Activities
DoD and DOE have extensive experience
addressing ITS issues at their cleaned-up
sites. While they may face unique issues
with respect to the cleanup of their sites,
both DOE's and DoD's efforts have broad
applicability to other contamination sites
requiring post-cleanup care. Several
noteworthy reports and initiatives are
summarized below. Others are noted in the
appendix at the back.
• DOE prepared a comprehensive study
on ITS in 2001 to identify
programmatic and cross-cutting issues
and information that DOE should
consider while implementing its ITS
activities.
• DOE established policy to guide DOE
decisions related to planning,
maintenance, and implementation of
ICs when such controls are used at DOE
sites or utilized under a statutory
program, and published a Long-Term
Stewardship Planning Guidance for
Closure Sites to provide a framework
for planning LTS activities at DOE
facilities.
September 2005
11
-------
• DDE/Idaho National Engineering and
Environmental Laboratory (INEL)
developed an ITS national science and
technology roadmap program to
provide the context for making ITS
R&D investment decisions and guide
national research priorities for ITS.
• DoD developed policy and guidance on
implementing, documenting, and
managing land use controls associated
with environmental restoration
activities.
• U.S. Navy developed a "point in time"
land use control information system
known as LUCIS, which is a Geographic
Information System (GlS)-based
database that houses environmental
baseline surveys, CIS displays, site
maps, deeds, and LUC summaries.
States and State Organizations
Highlights of several key State efforts to
address LTS issues include:
• ECOS established a Long-Term
Stewardship Subcommittee and is
promoting an interagency dialogue to
improve consideration of LTS in the
remediation process.
• National Association of Attorneys
General (NAAG) is working on a State-
by-State analysis of statutory and
common law in each of the States,
designed to evaluate whether existing
mechanisms could be used to impose
effective and enforceable institutional
controls.
• The National Governors' Association's
LTS Committee is conducting a study
(drawing on NAAG research) on Federal
and State statutory issues and LTS that
will examine, among other issues, the
adequacy of existing mechanisms for
institutional controls, and the
applicability of State 1C laws to Federal
agencies.
• ASTSWMO has published several key
documents, including a white paper on
the future direction of institutional
controls and LTS and a survey of State
institutional control mechanisms.
Non-governmental Organizations
Several noteworthy initiatives and studies
by non-governmental organizations
include:
• The National Conference of
Commissioners on Uniform State Laws
(NCCUSL) has prepared and is actively
supporting the Uniform Environmental
Covenants Act, model legislation for
States to adopt to remove legal barriers
to implementing institutional controls.
• Environmental Law Institute (ELI) and
Energy Communities Alliance (ECA),
prepared a joint study on the practical
implementation of LTS.
• Resources for the Future has addressed
LTS issues including, among other
studies, preparing a paper on the
mechanisms for financing and oversight
of long-term stewardship, with an
emphasis on trust funds.
Private Sector
The private sector is increasingly playing a
role in several aspects of LTS. For
example, insurance companies and others
in the risk management field are
developing products and services that
provide the financial mechanisms and
address the liability concerns for those
with LTS responsibilities at sites. Private
firms are also engaging landowners and
regulatory agencies, through several pilot
projects, to establish not-for-profit trust
mechanisms that assume a direct property
interest in remediated sites and take over
September 2005
12
-------
all ITS responsibilities for those sites, residual contamination and detecting
including inspections, operation and possible breaches of engineering or
maintenance, monitoring, and tracking institutional controls.
implementation of institutional controls.
Companies are also developing new or
improved methods of monitoring sites with
September 2005 13
-------
Challenges and Recommendations
The following presents a summary of the ITS
challenges, and recommendations for
addressing those challenges that the Task
Force identified and EPA's cleanup programs
should consider. Where appropriate, potential
recommendations for ITS implementation and
issues/concerns were identified and called out
in the report by the Task Force. In addition,
the Task Force recognizes that EPA's cleanup
programs operate under different authorities,
may approach the cleanup and stewardship of
sites differently, or may already be addressing
the identified challenge. For this reason,
certain challenges or recommendations may
not apply to every cleanup program.
Clearly
Although EPA cleanup programs frequently
select remedies that rely on ITS activities,
including ICs, the responsibility for
implementation, monitoring, and enforcement
is often under the jurisdiction of other levels
of government and private parties. As such,
there are a variety of public and private
stakeholders that may be involved in selecting,
implementing, monitoring, and enforcing ITS
activities at a site. Each stakeholder has
specific responsibilities for carrying out those
activities. To be effective, each stakeholder
needs to have a clear understanding of its
current and future responsibilities, as well as
those of any other stakeholder. The roles and
responsibilities need to be clearly articulated
and accepted by all parties and well
documented through legal and other means.
Also, involved parties need to be able to adapt
to changing site and site management
conditions. Appropriate mechanisms are
necessary to ensure continued performance of
these responsibilities, especially with the
AND
Problem: Cleanup programs do not always clearly
convey the appropriate ITS roles and
responsibilities.
Goal: Ensure stakeholder ITS roles and
responsibilities are clearly communicated and
understood.
Recommendations:
« EPA should continue to review its decision
documents, agreements, and other tools as
appropriate, to ensure site-specific ITS roles and
responsibilities are clearly delineated.
« EPA should continue to develop guidance
addressing ITS implementation and assurance across
its cleanup programs, as appropriate.
• EPA , State, and Tribal cleanup programs and
other Federal agencies should invest more time
working with and building stronger relationships
with local governments, and conduct more training
and outreach to help them better define
understand their potential specific LTS roles and
responsibilities.
* EPA should partner with other Federal
and State, Tribal, and local government
organizations to sponsor one or more "summits" in
which representatives from Federal, State, Tribal
and local agencies can share their perspectives and
insights on LTS.
potential for change of stakeholders and site
conditions over time.
The Task Force considered the following as
potential LTS challenges and opportunities for
improvement:
• Federal, State, Tribal, and local
governments are not always clear on, or do
not often specify, the appropriate roles
responsibilities for implementing
overseeing LTS activities.
n States often claim that land use
controls and other types of
institutional controls—a key
element of LTS—are typically the
responsibility of local governments.
September 2005
14
-------
n Local government officials often
maintain that either the State or
EPA has responsibility for assuring
the protection at sites.
n The transfer of sites between
Federal agencies can also create
questions of roles, responsibilities,
resources, etc.
n Local governments are not clearly
assigned a role or responsibility
under several statutes and
regulations governing waste cleanup
and management.
n Local governments are typically not
a party to the formal agreements
that govern cleanup at waste sites.
n Local government activities to
support the LTS of sites (e.g.,
zoning and permitting) are typically
not designed with environmental
protection as an objective.
n State or local governments may not
always agree with the cleanup
action selected for a site, yet may
be responsible for either
implementing or monitoring and
enforcing LTS activities.
n Sites located on Tribal lands
present unique issues in
determining the roles and
responsibilities of EPA, States, and
Tribes.
At some sites, it may not always be
clear who has the responsibility or the
ability and resources to effectively
implement, monitor, and enforce LTS
activities.
n Decision documents and agreements
do not always delineate
responsibilities for specific LTS
activities.
n The LTS activities, such as
institutional controls, may only be
identified generally in a decision
document and the responsibility for
their implementation and oversight
left vague or based on assumptions.
n Mechanisms that ensure the
transfer of information on roles and
responsibilities to other
stakeholders over time need to be
evaluated and developed.
n There is a need to ensure that legal
or other agreements specify the
responsibilities of parties beyond
the expiration or performance dates
of key documents as reasonable.
At many sites, the responsibility for
LTS falls to PRPs; however, there are
circumstances in which the roles and
responsibilities of PRPs are ambiguous.
n PRPs are not always fulfilling their
LTS responsibilities, particularly
when planning and designing the
remedy and its LTS needs.
n It is not always clear what the
responsibilities are for PRPs in the
long-term, especially if the PRP
goes out of business.
n It is important to clarify the roles
and responsibilities of PRPs that are
small companies with limited
resources.
n It is unclear what the roles and
responsibilities are of operators of
facilities when they are not the
facility owner (e.g., gas station
operators). In RCRA corrective
actions, owners and operators
commonly share responsibility for
cleanups.
September 2005
15
-------
n PRPs need to ensure that other
stakeholders involved in the
implementation of ITS (e.g.,
insurance companies or third party
trusts established by the PRP)
understand and fulfill their
responsibilities.
n Almost all States are authorized for
RCRA closure and corrective action
cleanups, so States typically have a
responsibility in the selection,
implementation, monitoring, and
enforcement of institutional and
engineering controls.
Future users can play an important
role in the LTS of sites, but in order to
do so effectively, need to be involved
early and often in discussions with key
players.
n Future users may take over certain
O&M requirements, such as mowing
or fence repair.
n Future users should know any
limitation associated with the
property to ensure there is no
unintentional damage done to the
remedy.
n Future users can discourage illegal
activities that may damage
remedies, such as all terrain vehicle
racing on a cap.
n Future users can help enforce
institutional controls, or alert the
appropriate authorities if there has
been a breach. This may be
especially useful if the regulatory
agency is not expected to visit the
facility on a regular basis.
Recommendation #1: EPA should
continue to review its decision documents,
agreements, and other tools as
appropriate, to ensure that site-specific
LTS roles and responsibilities are clearly
delineated.
Decision documents and legal agreements
(e.g., consent orders, permits, grants, and
contracts) are often the tools that are used
to communicate LTS responsibilities at
specific cleanup sites. In some cases, such
as a RCRA permit, provisions specifying the
LTS responsibilities may be clear and
unambiguous. In other cases, a decision
document may not provide specific LTS
requirements or a clear delineation of who
has responsibility for each LTS component.
To ensure that there is no ambiguity as to
the site-specific roles and responsibilities
of different stakeholders for implementing,
monitoring, and enforcing LTS, the cleanup
programs should consider reviewing
existing decision documents, legal
agreements, contract or grant provisions,
or other tools used to specify LTS
responsibilities. This review needs to
identify specific documents used to
establish LTS responsibilities and ensure
that specific LTS responsibilities are clearly
identified. At a minimum, such documents
may require that information be included
on who specifically or what private party
or organization, or specific branch of
government, is responsible for each LTS
activity needed, where they are to carry
out those responsibilities, and how often
and for how long they must do so. Where
third parties are expected to fulfill certain
LTS responsibilities (e.g., a holder of an
easement, a trust organization), or where
implementation depends on the actions of
those not a party to an agreement or
settlement (e.g., a local government),
provisions should be included that identify
their responsibilities and those of the
entity who will oversee and ensure that the
LTS activities are being properly carried
out. It is important to note that individual
programs will need to develop strategies to
address deficiencies in roles and
responsibilities that are identified in the
review of its documents.
September 2005
16
-------
To provide greater flexibility during the
cleanup process by ensuring that up-to-
date information is available on the
operational aspects of a remedy, programs
should consider providing greater detail on
specific roles and responsibilities during
the design phase of the cleanup. In an
upcoming guidance on institutional
controls, the Agency asks that an
Institutional Controls Implementation Plan
(ICIP) be developed prior to, or at the
same time, as the design for the physical
remedy. The use of an Implementation
and Assurance (I&A) Plan for ITS
initiatives, together with inclusion of an
ICIP as part of the decision documents or
agreements (see Recommendation #2)
could be the tools used to document full
site-specific ITS responsibilities, or
establish a process for doing so during the
design phase.
Recommendation #2: EPA should
continue to develop guidance addressing
LTS implementation and assurance across
its cleanup programs, as appropriate.
To ensure that adequate guidance is
available to EPA and State staff and other
stakeholders with LTS responsibilities, the
Agency should consider developing
guidance on LTS implementation and
assurance. Such guidance could establish
the expectations and provide the
guidelines for ensuring the specific
responsibilities, mechanisms, and
frequency for implementing, monitoring,
and enforcing LTS activities are clearly
identified and assigned at individual sites,
across multiple sites, or program-wide.
The guidance should be developed
according to the programmatic context of
each cleanup program and tailored to
complement existing policies, processes,
tools, and guidance. For example, cleanup
programs may rely on a variety of
documents and tools that serve the
purpose of clarifying roles and
responsibilities at sites, including cleanup
decision documents, model agreements,
O&M plans, and institutional control
implementation plans. New guidance on
implementation and assurance would
recognize these existing tools and
incorporate them into an overall strategy
or approach for ensuring that
responsibilities are clear and unambiguous,
and that assurance and accountability
mechanisms are integrated into their
implementation.
As an initial effort, EPA could identify the
core set of cross-program LTS-related
information that needs to be included in
LTS implementation and assurance
guidance regardless of cleanup program.
The guidance may also provide guidelines
for developing LTS I&A plans or comparable
tools, where appropriate. I&A Plans are
tools that EPA's cleanup programs may
wish to consider adopting either on a site-
specific, multiple site, or program-wide
basis.
For programs where EPA does not have
direct responsibility for LTS
implementation and assurance (e.g., a
State VCP program, or a local government
grant recipient), EPA guidance could
encourage these other program
implementers to consider adopting similar
approaches and mechanisms for
delineating specific roles and
responsibilities at cleanup sites, ensuring
their implementation, and holding
accountable those responsible for LTS.
Recommendation #3: EPA, State, and
Tribal cleanup programs and other Federal
agencies should invest more time working
with and building stronger relationships
with local governments, and conduct more
training and outreach to help them better
define and understand their potential
specific LTS roles/responsibilities.
Local governments can, and often do, play
an important role in the implementation of
September 2005
17
-------
ITS activities at a site. However, the
legal, administrative, and other tools of
local governments that EPA and others call
upon to protect people and the
environment often were not intended to
serve this purpose. Moreover, local
governments often do not have the
necessary knowledge and expertise, nor
resources to gain such expertise, to carry
out ITS responsibilities. As a result, local
government resources (whether people or
processes) may not be adequate to fulfill
the growing ITS needs across the cleanup
programs. EPA, States and other Federal
agencies should work with local
governments—either individually at sites or
on a broader basis through such
organizations as The International
City/County Management Association
(ICMA)-to communicate ITS
responsibilities and needs, provide
guidance and training, and otherwise offer
assistance to enhance local government
capabilities. Generally, EPA and States
may consider working together to provide
training to local governments on ITS and
on how local legal and other tools are used
at waste sites to protect remedies and
minimize possible exposure. At the site-
specific level, EPA needs to identify, if
present and available, specific
opportunities for involving local
governments in ITS decisions, gauging
their capabilities, and taking steps to
enhance those capabilities through training
and other educational activities. EPA's
cleanup programs may consider tailoring
their outreach to local governments
according to their programmatic context
(e.g., existing program authorities, or
current Federal-State-local relationship).
Recommendation #4 (Cross-Cutting):
EPA should partner with other Federal
agencies and State, Tribal, and local
government organizations to sponsor one
or more "summits" in which
representatives from Federal, State,
Tribal and local agencies can share their
perspectives and insights on LTS.
The Task Force recognizes that various
public and private sector organizations
have undertaken a significant amount of
work to research and address LTS
challenges and opportunities. EPA sees a
distinct opportunity for LTS stakeholders to
convene one or a series of meetings to
open a dialogue on the LTS challenges
facing regulatory agencies. As LTS
challenges affect all levels of government,
a "summit" of officials representing
Federal, State, Tribal, and local
governments would allow stakeholders to
share their insights and perspectives,
resulting in a holistic view that is needed
to better understand and address the
issues involving LTS. Such a summit could
address the challenges posed in this report
-either individually or in a cross-cutting
manner—as well as other challenges that
may be considered a priority by other
stakeholders. Participants in the summit
could address whether and how best to
involve non-governmental and private
stakeholders to share their perspectives
and approaches that may help government
agencies improve their LTS responsibilities.
Potential partner organizations identified
by the Task Force include ECOS, ASTSWMO,
ICMA, and the Energy Communities Alliance
(EGA).
September 2005
18
-------
Ensuring ITS
Information Is
Effectively
Without effective information
management, it is difficult for stakeholders
to understand and implement their ITS
responsibilities effectively. Information is
best managed and coordinated across
different levels of government, and should
be widely distributed and accessible to all
stakeholders, including the public, to
communicate risks and safeguards, support
accountability mechanisms, and augment
institutional memory. The Task Force
identified the following as potential areas
for concern:
• There be a to improve
sharing among stakeholders at sites
requiring LTS.
n For many cleanup programs, LTS
information may not be collected
and managed systematically and
provided to stakeholders in a timely
or meaningful way.
n EPA and States have expressed
difficulty in obtaining local
information about the
implementation of LTS activities.
n Local governments and communities
have difficulty obtaining
information from State and Federal
regulators on the status and
effectiveness of LTS activities.
n The need to communicate
information to potential developers
is increasingly critical to ensure the
integrity of remedies and the
protection of workers and nearby
residents. EPA's Superfund and
RCRA programs are in the process of
making site information available to
the public through the Internet's
Problem: LTS information is not always
easily and fully shared among relevant
stakeholders.
Goal: Ensure that LTS information is
managed and shared effectively.
Recommendations:
» EPA should continue to facilitate the
maintenance and exchange of LTS
information through existing grants and
other resources, and by establishing and
promoting data standards (e.g., data
element registries and XML schema and
tags).
« EPA should continue to support the
development of mechanisms for sharing
information to prevent breaches of
institutional and engineering controls.
"Cleanups In My Community" (CIMC)
Web site.
n It is difficult for regulatory agencies
to evaluate the effectiveness of LTS
programs.
• Current to
support the maintenance, monitoring,
enforcement of LTS responsibilities
are limited.
n While information management
systems to track and communicate
information on LTS activities have
been established, data are not
stored and communicated in a
common way.
n It is unclear if and how a central
information management system for
LTS should be developed, and who
should be responsible for
maintaining it.
n A central and coordinated
information management system
would require extensive resources
to develop and maintain.
September 2005
19
-------
n Electronically stored records will
need to remain accessible over time
even as information management
technologies change.
n Some Federal, State, Tribal, and
local governments may not have
adequate resources to develop,
maintain, or support a system,
especially now when their operating
budgets are being reduced.
n Local government involvement is
critical to ensure data is current
and accurate-yet their resources to
exchange data may be limited.
n To be most effective, information
management systems (and those
who develop and maintain them)
need to use a universal set of terms
and definitions.
Certain private sector organizations
are developing systems that support
the tracking of information on
institutional and other LTS activities.
n Market-based monitoring and
information tracking services are
being developed independently by
the private sector. For example,
Terradex Corporation's information
tracking system allows it to offer
proactive notification services
when a potentially inappropriate
land use is identified, because it
may violate an 1C or an EC.
Other Federal agencies are developing
innovative methods to preserve
information. For example, DOE is
building monuments and museums at
some sites helping to maintain or
create a "community memory" that
will continue across generations.
Recommendation #5: EPA should
continue to facilitate the maintenance and
exchange of LTS information through
existing grants and other resources, and by
establishing and promoting data standards
(e.g., data element registries and XML
schema and tags).
Information management is central to
properly communicating the
responsibilities and environmental issues
that exist when a site enters the world of
LTS. EPA could consider continuing to fund
the development of State and local
information systems that track LTS data
through such funding vehicles as the
Brownfields program section 128(a) and
OEI's grants. In addition, while there may
be difficulties in creating a central
database of LTS information, the sharing of
LTS data must continue to grow beyond its
current partners and scope. EPA plans to
continue its work on the development of a
common LTS "language." Using a common
set of LTS terms and data names allows
regulators, developers, prospective
purchasers and the general public to
exchange necessary site information. Data
registries can be used to align and store
this IC/EC/LTS terminology and thereby
facilitate the exchange and communication
of data.
It is worth noting that although it makes
sense to have a common data standard,
the States may already be comfortable
with their own data standards, and may
not want to change to an EPA-designed set
of data standards, especially if it costs
them to implement.
Recommendation #6: EPA should
continue to support the development of
mechanisms for sharing information to
prevent breaches of institutional and
engineering controls.
EPA for example is currently supporting
one-call pilots in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin,
California, and New York. These pilots are
based on the "Miss Utility" model of a free
"one call" information exchange center for
September 2005
20
-------
excavators, contractors and property
owners planning any kind of excavation or
digging. Several questions concerning the
pilots still need to be answered including
scope of activities to be carried out by the
one-call systems, required timing of calls
(proactive site planning vs. day of the dig),
and resource needs to modify the one-call
system to include ITS data.
September 2005 21
-------
Considering the Full, Life-cycle Costs
of Long-Term
The cost of ITS activities should be a key
factor when making cleanup decisions.
Risk-based approaches relying on ITS
activities may appear as less expensive
alternatives. However, leaving waste
onsite may require long-term management
for years, decades, or possibly even longer.
Costs associated with the ITS at these sites
include implementing and maintaining
institutional and engineering controls,
oversight and enforcement by
governmental or other entities, and other
monitoring and administrative activities.
These costs should be calculated and fully
considered when making remedial
decisions at a site. It is also important to
note the ITS costs to non-governmental
entities such as PRPs and future users.
The Task Force identified the following as
potential areas for concern:
• A consistent reliable method for
defining estimating full life-cycle
for LTS is to inform
remedial or corrective action decision
making.
n There does not appear to be a
systematic method for, or guidance
to support, calculating the costs of
institutional controls and other
implementation, monitoring, and
maintenance activities.
n Site managers across the cleanup
programs may be using different
approaches to calculate estimated
costs—some may employ standard
engineering cost analysis while
others may factor in discounting,
opportunity costs, and costs of
remedy failure.
LTS
Problem: Accurate estimates of LTS costs
may not always be developed or available.
Goal: To ensure that the full, life-cycle
costs of LTS are understood and considered
when making cleanup decisions and
planning LTS implementation.
Recommendation:
• EPA should evaluate current LTS costing
guidance and, if appropriate, either revise
it or develop new guidance to improve the
Agency's ability to produce more consistent
and reliable cost estimates. As appropriate,
EPA should draw on existing governmental
and non-govern mental studies and
information for estimating LTS costs.
Accurate estimates of LTS may not
always be developed considered
when evaluating the options for
remedial or corrective actions.
n At some sites, estimates of LTS
costs rely on standard assumptions
about ICs and other long-term
management approaches.
n LTS cost estimates are not always
developed consistently across sites.
• Accurate cost estimates are
important to LTS implementers as
try to fully understand
resource responsibilities.
#7: EPA
evaluate current LTS costing guidance
and, if appropriate, either revise it or
develop new guidance to improve the
Agency's ability to produce more
consistent and estimates.
As appropriate, EPA should draw on
existing governmental non-
governmental studies information
for estimating LTS costs.
September 2005
22
-------
While the Task Force is aware that
costing guidance exists, this guidance is
often not effective for developing
accurate or reliable estimates of ITS.
Because costing guidance has been
developed across multiple program
areas, EPA should undertake an
evaluation of current costing guidance
to better tie together the elements of
costing and to identify possible gaps
and inconsistencies. Specifically, EPA
needs to gain a better understanding of
such issues as the role of discounting in
developing cost estimates, as well as
the use of net present value-both
areas have proved problematic in the
past and make development of
accurate long-term costs difficult to
calculate. EPA may also explore
working with other stakeholders to
improve the guidance in these and
other areas. Task Force members
suggested several possible sources of
information that may help in
understanding ITS costs, including: the
State RCRA programs' annual
corrective-action ITS costs, if
available; the work done by Resources
for the Future regarding discounting;
and ICAAA's expertise on costing ICs at
the local level.
September 2005 23
-------
the
of
Controls
Effective implementation of ITS activities
should:
n Ensure that the institutional controls at
a site remain in effect for as long as
the contamination remaining poses a
risk to human health and the
environment.
n Ensure that the restrictions on the land
or resources are effectively
communicated to anyone who may
come into contact with the site.
D Allow for re-evaluation of ITS needs to
determine effectiveness and need for
changes.
Q Enhance the overall protectiveness of
institutional controls by using them in
layers and/or in series.
The Task Force considered the following as
potential ITS challenges and opportunities
for improvement:
• EPA's cleanup programs increasingly
rely on State and local governments to
implement, monitor, and/or enforce
ICs,
m Current property taw is often
inadequate to ensure the continuity
enforcement of institutional
controls.
n Institutional controls are effective
tools for land use restrictions and
requirements only if their legal
status under State property law and
their enforceability are assured.
Institutional Controls
Problem: Cleanup programs increasingly
rely on ICs and current property law is often
inadequate to ensure continuity and
enforcement.
Goal: To ensure that ICs are effectively
implemented and evaluated to protect
remedies and avoid inappropriate exposure.
Recommendations:
• EPA should develop mechanisms and
criteria across its cleanup programs for
evaluating the effectiveness of ICs at sites.
* EPA should support the development of
an analysis of ICs to determine the reliance
on (and burden to) State, Tribal, and local
governments.
* To enhance the availability and reliability
of ICs, EPA should encourage States to
review the Uniform Environmental
Covenants Act or similar provisions for
potential State applicability.
n Archaic common law doctrine and
other State property laws (such as
tax lien foreclosure, adverse
termination, and marketable title
statutes) often work against long-
term institutional controls,
undermining their effectiveness and
compromising the ability of
government agencies to maintain
and enforce them.
n Current common property law can
limit the long-term effectiveness of
certain institutional controls
because they attach those
institutional controls to property
ownership rather than to the
property itself. Thus, while
property is transferred from one
party to another, the control may
fail to transfer with it.
n Current State property laws often
result in inconsistent application of
institutional controls across sites
and present regulatory agencies
with a significant burden for
September 2005
24
-------
frequent and ongoing monitoring
and enforcement.
• Cleanup programs generally do not
have specific processes or performance
standards in place to evaluate the
effectiveness of institutional controls.
n There are existing processes for
evaluating whether ICs have been
implemented (e.g., Superfund has
five-year reviews, RCRA uses its
tracking system), however, they
generally do not address whether
they are effective or implemented
correctly.
n There may be opportunities to
reduce the time and resources
needed to implement institutional
controls through an effective
institutional controls evaluation
process (i.e., institutional control
optimization).
Recommendation #8: EPA should
develop mechanisms and criteria across its
cleanup programs for evaluating the
effectiveness of ICs at sites.
EPA and State programs need to ensure
that the effectiveness of ITS, and
institutional controls in particular, are
periodically evaluated. Such an evaluation
needs to go beyond simply determining
whether an institutional control has been
implemented, but rather whether the
institutional controls are being
implemented effectively and accomplish
what they were intended to do. In other
words, the evaluation should focus on
determining whether the right information
is being communicated to the right people
at the right time.
Each cleanup program is encouraged to
explore mechanisms for integrating the
evaluation of institutional control
effectiveness into their existing program
operations. Likewise, to evaluate the
effectiveness of institutional controls, it is
necessary to know what to evaluate and
what questions to ask; for example, not
just that an easement or covenant was
recorded, but whether it was recorded
properly given the local laws and
processes. Thus, a set of criteria or similar
device would assist programs in evaluating
the effectiveness of institutional controls
at both the site-specific level, as well as
for an entire program. The Superfund
program is developing a standard set of
questions for evaluating the performance
of institutional controls. The Superfund
program is encouraged to continue its
development of institutional control
evaluation questions, and to share them
with other EPA, State, and Tribal cleanup
programs. The objective is to ensure that
cleanup programs have the proper
mechanisms and tools available to
determine whether or not institutional
control implementation is effective or
whether additional steps are needed to
ensure their effectiveness. Such
evaluations should occur more frequently
than every five years, as many things can
change with respect to whether and how
institutional controls are being
implemented at a site.
Recommendation #9: EPA should
support the development an analysis of ICs
to determine the reliance on (and burden
to) State, Tribal, and local governments.
Because many cleanups involve managing
wastes on site, restrictions on the use of
the site are necessary. Often, EPA must
rely on State, Tribal and local government
laws and processes to provide the
necessary restrictions, and on those
government agencies to monitor
restrictions to ensure that they are being
implemented properly. This reliance on
State, Tribal and local governments
appears to be resulting in a significant
burden that is only increasing as more sites
enter the post-cleanup stage. EPA should
analyze the extent to which its cleanup
September 2005
25
-------
programs rely on State and local
governments to implement, monitor, and
enforce institutional controls and the
extent to which these stakeholders are
incurring a burden that may affect their
ability to ensure the effectiveness of
institutional controls. Such an evaluation
should be conducted in concert with, and
inform decisions related to, the
recommendations provided under the
funding and resource challenge below.
Recommendation #10: To enhance the
availability and reliability of ICs, EPA
should encourage States to review and
consider the Uniform Environmental
Covenants Act or similar legal provisions
for potential State applicability.
To address some of the shortcomings of
State and local property laws with respect
to institutional control implementation and
enforcement, the National Conference of
Commissioners on Uniform State Law
(NCCUSL) promulgated in 2003 the Uniform
Environmental Covenants Act (UECA).
NCCUSL is made up of lawyers chosen by
the States and oversees the preparation of
proposed uniform laws, which the States
are encouraged to adopt. UECA is
intended to provide a uniform set of
provisions that States could adopt to
overcome the inadequate common law
rules affecting land use controls. It
provides clear rules for a perpetual real
estate interest-an environmental
covenant-to regulate the use of
contaminated properties when real estate
is transferred from one owner to another.
By ensuring that institutional controls are
maintained and enforced, UECA would help
to fulfill the dual purposes of such
restrictions—the protection of human
health and the economically viable reuse
of the property in question.
It is advisable that EPA should support the
concepts or tenants of UECA or similar laws
that address the problems associated with
various archaic property law that govern in
numerous States. In supporting such
provisions that establish a legal basis for
environmental covenants or their
equivalent, EPA and States may be able to
better select, implement, monitor, and
enforce land use restrictions, resulting in
more protective and cost effective
remedies. Support of legal provisions
comparable to UECA should come in the
form of senior management statements of
support (written or during presentations),
dialogue with organizations representing
States (e.g., ASTSWMO), Regional-State
dialogue, and other general support
through programmatic communications and
documents.
September 2005
26
-------
Challenge: Ensuring the Effective
Evaluation of
Controls
Engineering controls used to clean up a site
may require ITS activities to ensure that
the remedy functions properly and remains
protective. To maintain the effectiveness
and operational integrity of the
engineering component of a remedy, ITS
activities typically involve ongoing O&M,
including performance monitoring, and
periodic reviews and inspections. In
addition, ITS activities may include
periodic reviews of the engineering
controls to improve their performance
and/or reduce the annual operating cost of
remedies without compromising
protectiveness. Remedies involving
engineering controls, and using monitoring
networks, are designed and constructed
based on the best knowledge of site
conditions and technologies available at
the time of construction.
The Task Force considered the following as
potential ITS challenges and opportunities
for improvement:
• There not to be a specific
process or mechanism for evaluating
the effectiveness of ECs and for
determining whether are
necessary.
n Some remedies where
contamination has been left in
place are not reviewed periodically
to ensure that the remedies are still
protective
n Additionally, current Superfund EC
evaluation guidance only covers a
small subset of sites- e.g., there is
a universe of sites that do not fit
into the 5-year review cycle and
that are not being reviewed.
Engineering Controls
Problem: There does not appear to be a
specific process or mechanism for
evaluating the effectiveness of ECs and for
determining whether changes are necessary
if the ECs are not protective of human
health and the environment.
Goal: To ensure that ECs are effectively
implemented and evaluated to improve
their reliability and effectiveness over time.
Recommendation:
• EPA should adopt a flexible approach for
re-evaluating the effectiveness of ECs and,
if appropriate, modifying ECs to optimize
remedial system performance minimize
LTS costs.
n O&M plans do not always account
for changes in science and
technology, and how such changes
could be factored into a remedy
evaluation process.
n Changes in site conditions or new
science may alter the exposure
assumptions and cleanup standards.
This could make existing ECs (and
ICs) overly protective or
inadequate.
n Changes in cleanup or LTS
technologies may result in the
identification of a more cost-
effective remedy, or alternatives to
the existing engineering controls,
particularly as the life expectancy
of those controls approaches.
Private sector firms may be developing
new technologies (e.g., materials
engineering, remote sensors,
computing technology,
geochemistry) methodologies to
support the monitoring of ECs and
other oversight responsibilities at
sites.
September 2005
27
-------
Recommendation #11: EPA should
adopt a flexible approach for re-
evaluating the effectiveness of ECs and, if
appropriate, modifying ECs to optimize
remedial system performance and
minimize LTS costs.
A significant element in reducing LTS costs
may come from advancements in the fields
of science and technology. In some cases,
a new treatment technology may make
retrieval and treatment more cost
effective than ongoing long-term care and
thus alleviate the need for a site to remain
under long-term stewardship care. EPA,
State, and Tribal cleanup programs may
consider adopting a flexible approach and
continually work to identify where new
developments could be applied to LTS
activities, or where advancements are
desired. EPA and States may identify
opportunities to enhance LTS operations by
reducing risk, improving the reliability of
monitoring methods used or employing new
treatment technologies, or by reducing
cost. This recommendation is not intended
to create any new obligation for remedy
review by EPA or the States. However, it is
recommended that existing programmatic
remedy reviews and optimization efforts
consider new technologies and activities
which would improve the effectiveness and
or reduce the cost of LTS activities.
In order to provide new technologies for
monitoring sites and optimizing remedies,
the Federal Agencies and Departments
should continue their investment in
technology development.
September 2005 28
-------
Ensuring Funding
Other
A reliable funding source or mechanism is
needed to ensure that the ITS
responsibilities are fulfilled. For
responsible parties, operating facilities,
and new landowners, this may involve
securing funding or other financial
mechanisms. For government agencies
with oversight and enforcement
responsibilities, this may involve obtaining
adequate funding through an annual
appropriations process. With a true
understanding of the life cycle ITS costs
and a reliable source and mechanism for
funding, sound decision-making will lead to
cleanup actions that are both effective and
fiscally responsible.
• Given the fiscal constraints that
Federal agencies, States, Tribes,
local governments are facing, funding
to support LTS is uncertain and may
impact their ability to effectively
monitor and enforce activities,
n As more sites reach the post-
cleanup stage, State governments
are shouldering an increasingly
large burden to carry out their LTS
responsibilities.
n State, Tribal, and local
governments currently face
significant funding constraints as
they are subject to shrinking
appropriations from their respective
legislatures.
n Local governments may also face
similar funding constraints as States
turn to them for monitoring and
enforcement needs.
LTS Funding and Resources
Problem: It is not clear that reliable funding
is available to ensure that LTS responsibilities
are fulfilled over the long term
Goal: To ensure that LTS funding and other
resource needs are adequate and sustained so
that LTS activities are effectively carried out
for as long as necessary
Recommendations:
* EPA should work with outside organizations
to explore adequate and sustainable funding
sources and mechanisms at the Federal,
State, and local level to monitor, oversee,
and enforce LTS activities.
« EPA should continue to explore the role of
the private sector in supporting the LTS of
sites and foster their involvement, as
appropriate.
n Other Federal agencies, such as
DOI, do not have adequate funding
for LTS activities.
• State, Tribal, and local governments
may have additional resource to
meet tneir LTS responsibilities.
a State, Tribal, and local
governments need resources to
develop and/or enhance their
institutional and personnel
capabilities (e.g., to educate and
train their staff).
n States and Tribes need additional
resources to develop information
systems to monitor sites, track
activities, and share information
among the stakeholders.
• State and local government
earmarked for LTS activities may be
re-programmed to other activities
on priorities.
n Funds intended for LTS activities do
not sit in escrow or other protected
accounts and, therefore, may be
directed for use by other
September 2005
29
-------
environmental, or non-
environmental, programs if
priorities change.
• New or alternative mechanisms for
conducting and funding long-term
stewardship activities (e.g., insurance,
trust funds) are increasingly becoming
available.
n States, such as Wisconsin and
Massachusetts, have developed
their own programs where
insurance companies take over the
ITS management for a portfolio of
sites.
n Private sector firms have
demonstrated (through pilot
projects with EPA and States) the
viability of third-party trust
mechanisms to assume a direct
property interest in remediated
sites and take over all ITS
responsibilities for those sites,
including inspections, operation and
maintenance, monitoring, and
tracking implementation of
institutional controls.
Recommendation #12: EPA should work
with outside organizations to explore
adequate and sustainable funding sources
and mechanisms at the Federal, State, and
local levels to monitor, oversee, and
enforce LTS activities.
Based on the current fiscal environment,
funding to support LTS is uncertain and
may be inadequate to implement necessary
LTS activities. EPA may work with State
and local organizations to conduct an
analysis of funding issues, needs, and
sources to determine whether adequate
funding is available to fully implement LTS
responsibilities across all sectors of govern-
ment. In addition, as environmental
budgets tighten at all levels of govern-
ment, the governmental units responsible
for LTS are going to have to be more
creative in finding sources of funding for
these activities. Insurance programs in
States like Wisconsin, as well as activities
such as New Jersey's annual LTS manage-
ment fee program, and Federal tax
incentives need to be evaluated to
determine their potential for more wide-
spread use in the LTS arena.
Recommendation #13: EPA should
continue to explore the role of the private
sector in supporting the LTS of sites and
foster their involvement, as appropriate.
Where there is a viable owner/operator or
other responsible party, such as at many
RCRA, Brownfields, and UST sites, the
success of LTS depends on their
involvement and commitment.
It is the responsibility of the viable
owner/operator to implement the selected
remedy and also to conduct LTS activities
at the cleaned-up site with engineering or
institutional controls in place. Performance
monitoring also belongs to the
owner/operator or other responsible party,
and is a critical aspect of remedial
alternatives that leave waste in place and
rely on engineering controls (e.g., caps and
barrier walls).
Private entities developing innovative
approaches are another potential source of
LTS funding, and EPA should continue to
examine these alternatives. For example,
EPA should explore the viability of third
party trust organizations like the Guardian
Trust to determine the viability of its
program and the potential benefits of its
use to manage LTS sites. EPA might also
want to explore the viability of alternative
approaches that depend on the greater
involvement of non-governmental entities,
such as community or church groups to
provide certain oversight or watchdog
activities at LTS sites. These entities,
while not in the traditional chain of
government, might serve as a low-cost
extra set of site monitors or historians.
September 2005
30
-------
Appendix A:
Key Long-Term Stewardship
Themes Gathered from Other
Agencies and Groups
The following themes were compiled from various reports and studies conducted on long-
term stewardship and represent a collective set of goals or objectives from numerous public
and private organizations. Therefore, these themes reflect an ideal set of goals that may
not be applicable for every situation under each of EPA's cleanup programs.
The full set of source information for the themes below can be found in Appendix B: Long-
Term Stewardship Studies and Initiatives.
Roles and Responsibilities
Theme: Long-term stewardship must be a part of the remedial decision making, planning,
design, and implementation processes. (Memorandum of Understanding on Long-Term
Stewardship; April 9, 2003)
Theme: A mechanism for re-evaluating prior long-term stewardship decisions should be
incorporated into cleanup programs. (Memorandum of Understanding on Long-Term
Stewardship; April 9, 2003)
Theme: Roles and responsibilities of those funding, implementing, monitoring, and enforcing
LTS responsibilities must be clearly articulated, understood, accepted, and documented at
the outset. Consideration should be given for succession of replacements should original
stewards no longer function. (ASTSWMO White Paper; "Institutional Controls and Long-Term
Stewardship: Where Are We Going?"; May 20, 2004)
Theme: State, Tribal, and local governments should be involved in decisions affecting their
roles and responsibilities in carrying out LTS activities, and evaluating the capabilities of
those who are expected to carry out LTS activities. (Memorandum of Understanding on Long-
Term Stewardship; April 9, 2003)
Theme: Members of the public and other affected stakeholders should be meaningfully
involved in the planning and implementation of long-term stewardship activities.
(Memorandum of Understanding on Long-Term Stewardship; April 9, 2003)
September 2005 31
-------
Information Management
Theme: Comprehensive information management systems are needed to effectively manage
long-term stewardship responsibilities. (U.S. DOE Long-Term Stewardship Study, Volume 1
Report; October 2001)
Theme: Information on long-term stewardship needs to be managed and coordinated across
different levels of government. (U.S. DOE Long-Term Stewardship Study, Volume 1 Report;
October 2001)
Theme: Information maintained on long-term stewardship responsibilities should be widely
distributed and accessible to all stakeholders, including the public, to communicate risks and
safeguards, support accountability mechanisms, and instill institutional memory. (State and
Tribal Government Working Group Interim Report on Information Management for Long-Term
Stewardship; October 2001)
Institutional/Engineering Controls
Theme: Institutional and engineering controls must assure the ongoing protection of human
health and the environment for sites with residual contamination for as long as residual
contamination remains hazardous or until a reliable substitute can be implemented.
(Memorandum of Understanding on Long-Term Stewardship; April 9, 2003)
Theme: Institutional controls should be clearly defined and unambiguous. (ASTSWMO White
Paper; "Institutional Controls and Long-Term Stewardship: Where Are We Going?"; May 20,
2004)
Theme: Multiple levels of control and layers are desirable for any institutional control
program. (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Guidance; "Recurring Reviews on Ordnance and
Explosives Response Actions"; October 2003)
Theme: Institutional controls should have a firm legal basis that makes them enforceable by
persons responsible for and capable of enforcement. (ASTSWMO White Paper; "Institutional
Controls and Long-Term Stewardship: Where Are We Going?"; May 20, 2004)
Theme: Institutional controls should run with the land and be free from archaic common law
defenses. (ASTSWMO White Paper; "Institutional Controls and Long-Term Stewardship: Where
Are We Going?"; May 20, 2004)
Theme: Institutional controls should be designed to allow maximum reuse of the land
consistent with protection of human health and the environment. (ASTSWMO White Paper;
"Institutional Controls and Long-Term Stewardship: Where Are We Going?"; May 20, 2004)
Theme: Systems should be in place that provide for regular monitoring and inspection to
ensure LTS mechanisms and activities work as designed. (ASTSWMO White Paper;
"Institutional Controls and Long-Term Stewardship: Where Are We Going?"; May 20, 2004)
September 2005 32
-------
Theme: Long-term stewardship oversight functions should extend over the lifetime of the
contamination hazard and be able to span generations. (ASTSWMO White Paper; "Institutional
Controls and Long-Term Stewardship: Where Are We Going?"; May 20, 2004)
Theme: Long-term stewardship programs should be dynamic and continually evaluate and
adjust based on new information on site conditions or new technologies for cleanup and
effectiveness of existing LTS activities. (U.S. DOE; "Long-Term Stewardship Planning
Guidance for Closure Sites")
Theme: Assurance strategies and/or contingency plans should be considered and developed
in the event of long-term stewardship failure. (Environmental Law Reporter, "Institutional
Controls or Emperor's Clothes? Long-Term Stewardship of the Nuclear Weapons Complex";
November 1998)
Costs and Funding
Theme: Comprehensive life-cycle costs for long-term stewardship should be identified,
understood, and incorporated into the remedy decision-making process. (Memorandum of
Understanding on Long-Term Stewardship; April 9, 2003)
Theme: The amount, source, and mechanism for securing the necessary funding to manage
long-term stewardship activities must be identified and found acceptable before selecting a
remedy. (Memorandum of Understanding on Long-Term Stewardship; April 9, 2003)
Theme: The funding source for long-term stewardship responsibilities must be secure and
sustainable. (Environmental Law Reporter, "Institutional Controls or Emperor's Clothes? Long-
Term Stewardship of the Nuclear Weapons Complex"; November 1998)
Theme: Those entities with the financial capabilities and incentive to maintain, monitor, and
enforce ICs should fund them. (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Guidance; "Recurring Reviews on
Ordnance and Explosives Response Actions"; October 2003)
September 2005 33
-------
Appendix B:
Long-Term Stewardship
Studies and Initiatives
September 2005 34
-------
One Cleanup Program Long-Term Stewardship Task Force:
Summary ofLong-Term Stewardship Activities and Key Documents
The following is a compilation of studies, reports, and initiatives that were identified by the LTS Task Force during its discussions on
long-term stewardship challenges. The Task Force recognizes that this list reflects only a portion of the entire body of work that
government and non-government organizations have developed to address the various aspects of LTS. Although this list may not be
complete, the intent is to identify some of the key players and their efforts to date, which may lead to an increased understanding of,
and greater collaboration to address, the challenges associated with LTS.
Organization &
Initiative/Study/Report
General/Cross-Cutting
Scope & Summary
Status/Contact
Information
1. U.S. EPA, DoD, DOE, DOI, and
Environmental Council of States
(ECOS)
Memorandum of Understanding on
Long-Term Stewardship
The purpose of this MOU is to provide a common
understanding and basis for discussion and coordination
between ECOS and relevant Federal agencies regarding LTS.
Given that there are multiple Federal agencies conducting both
cleanup and stewardship activities, a coordinated effort is
needed to address LTS at these sites. Such a forum provides an
opportunity for the parties to discuss LTS issues, policies,
procedures, coordination mechanisms, and generally applicable
tools for LTS sites. The MOU provides a definition of LTS,
guiding principles, and key elements or components of LTS.
MOU signed by ECOS, EPA, DoD,
DOE, and DOI on April 9, 2003
Contact: TBD
2. U.S. EPA/OSWER
Post-Construction Completion
Strategy for Superfund Sites
This document outlines EPA Superfund's strategy for post-
construction completion (PCC) at NPL sites. The PCC Strategy
is a management framework to aid the Agency in resource and
work planning. It provides information to Agency staff, the
public, and the regulated community on how the Agency
intends to manage the PCC stage of the Superfund program.
The PCC Strategy established five overarching goals under
which specific products are planned or underway, based on
need, potential impact, resources, and other program priorities.
Under development
Contact: Tracy Hopkins, (703) 603-
8788, hopkins.tracy@epa.gov
September 2005
35
-------
Organization &
Initiative/Study/Rep o rt
3. U.S. Department of Energy
"Long-Term Stewardship Planning
Guidance for Closure Sites"
Scope & Summary
Guidance provides the rationale and framework for planning
LTS activities. The stated goals of the LTS planning guidance
are to: focus management on post-closure requirements before
cleanup is complete; facilitate development of a baseline scope,
schedule, and cost for LTS; facilitate transition of sites and LTS
responsibilities; and provide a mechanism to ensure continued
protectiveness of remedies.
Status/Contact
Information
Report completed
Contact: TBD
4. U.S. Department of Energy
"Long-Term Stewardship Study
Volume 1 - Report"
The study describes and analyzes issues and a variety of
information associated with long-term stewardship, including
physical controls, institutions, information, and other
mechanisms needed to ensure protection of people and
environment. The purpose of the study is to identify
programmatic and cross-cutting issues and information that
DOE should consider while implementing its LTS activities.
Specific areas addressed in the study include: managing residual
site hazards; managing land and real property; maintaining
sustainability of LTS over multiple generations; information
management; funding and financial management; and public
involvement.
Final Study published October 2001
Contact: TBD
5. U.S. Department of Energy
Report: "From Cleanup to
Stewardship"
This background report provides a national summary of the
nature and extent of DOE's current and anticipated LTS needs.
It also examines some of the issues, challenges, and barriers
associated with the transition from cleanup to long-term
stewardship.
Final report published October 1999
Contact: TBD
September 2005
36
-------
Organization &
Initiative/Study/Rep o rt
6. Rocky Flats Stewardship
Working Group
The Rocky Flats Stewardship
Toolbox: Tools for Long-Term
Planning
Scope & Summary
Report provides an analytical matrix designed to help
decisionmakers ensure that long-term stewardship requirements
are thoroughly considered during the remedy selection process.
The toolbox is divided into six components of LTS analysis:
physical controls; institutional or administrative controls;
operational and performance monitoring and maintenance;
information management; periodic assessment; and maintenance
by a responsible controlling authority. Toolbox only marginally
addresses issue of cost, and recommends that Federal agencies
revisit and improve upon how life-cycle costs are calculated.
Status/Contact
Information
Final Report issued June 2002
Contact: TBD
7. ECOS Long-Term Stewardship
Subcommittee
Interagency Dialogue: Improve
Consideration of LTS in the
Remediation Process
The ECOS LTS Subcommittee has been charged with
addressing LTS issues for ECOS across all relevant Federal
agencies and programs. The Subcommittee is coordinating its
internal efforts among relevant ECOS Forums and Committees,
and is also coordinating with other State executive business
organizations. ECOS is interested in assuring that LTS issues
are identified early and considered throughout the remedial
planning, design, and implementation process. ECOS has
proposed that a dialogue be held among interested governmental
partners to mutually define how the current processes for
considering LTS can be accelerated and improved.
ECOS' LTS Subcommittee has been
inactive due to funding constraints
(currently waiting for EPA funding). If
funding from EPA comes through, it
will work on a project to develop a case
study of sites to formulate LTS
standards. The Subcommittee will
primarily focus on Federal Facility
sites, but will also address non-Fed
Facility sites. (Sites have not been
selected yet).
Contact: Carolyn Hanson, LTS
Subcommittee, 202-624-3660; or
R. Steven Brown, Executive Director,
September 2005
37
-------
Organization &
Initiative/Study/Rep o rt
8. Resources for the Future
Report: "Long-Term Stewardship
and the Nuclear Weapons Complex:
The Challenge Ahead"
Scope & Summary
The purpose of the report is to stimulate discussion about the
need for long-term stewardship at the sites in the nuclear
weapons complex. Included are the key functions of a long-
term stewardship program and important institutional issues that
must be addressed to develop a successful LTS program,
including a pros and cons discussion of several institutional
alternatives for carrying out stewardship activities. The report
also presents recommendations to address the challenge of LTS
at nuclear weapons sites.
Status/Contact
Information
Final Report published
Contact: Kate Probst
9. National Environmental Policy
Institute
Report: "Rolling Stewardship:
Beyond Institutional Controls:
Preparing Future Generations for
Long-Term Environmental
Cleanups"
Report addresses issues affecting the long-term stewardship of
contaminated waste sites by posing point-counterpoint
discussion of issues, and suggests next steps for policy makers
to consider as they formulate solutions at the national, State, and
local level. Key issues include national infrastructure to
manage post-cleanup care; tailoring the Federal role; balancing
Federal mandates with local/private land use controls;
compiling stewardship sites and tools; funding; and identifying
the universe of sites and matching solutions.
Final Report issued December 1999
Contact: TBD
September 2005
38
-------
Organization &
Initiative/Study/Rep o rt
10. En vironmental Law Institute
(ELI) and Energy Communities
Alliance (EGA)
Study on Practical Implementation
ofLTS
Scope & Summary
ELI and EGA have initiated a project to analyze the practical
implementation of the legal authorities available to the local
governments, States, DOE, EPA, and citizens to implement
long-term stewardship activities at DOE facilities. ELI and EGA
will focus on the following issues: Federal Statutes and
Regulations; Zoning Law and Procedures; State Constitutions;
Title Insurance; State Statutes and Regulations; Title Searches
and Reporting Procedures; Local Ordinances and Permits; DOE,
EPA, NRC Guidance; and Local Real Estate Practices. ELI and
EGA will review these specific issues and the legal tools
available to implement LTS at two DOE facilities. Further, ELI
and EGA will interview key real estate professionals and State
and local government officials to develop a "how-to" guide for
each site. These two case studies and the process utilized to
identify the tools available to implement LTS will be instructive
for local, State, and Federal governments and citizens and
ensure that each party understands the authority, practical
implementation, and limits of the legal tools when selecting
remedies at sites.
Status/Contact
Information
Under development.
Contact: Seth Kirshenberg, Executive
Director, sethk@energyca.org
11. Guardian Trust
Pilot Study
The Guardian Trust is an outgrowth of a pilot study funded by
the U.S. EPA and the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection. Also participating in the study were
the United States Navy, the Maryland Department of the
Environment, and the California Environmental Protection
Agency. The pilot study looked at innovative approaches to
solving problems associated with land use and engineering
controls at sites where contamination remains behind after the
initial clean up. The vast majority of all environmental clean ups
use risk-based methods.
Guardian Trust Pilot Study issued
February 2002
Contact: TBD
September 2005
39
-------
Organization &
Initiative/Study/Rep o rt
12. Environmental Financial
Advisory Board (EFAB)
Report: "Protecting America's Land
Legacy: Stewardship Policies,
Tools, and Incentives to Protect and
Restore America's Land Legacy"
Scope & Summary
This report discusses general land stewardship practices and
ethics in terms of protecting "America's Land Legacy." In this
report, EFAB defines stewardship, lays out guiding principles
and a framework for planning a nationwide approach to
stewardship. EFAB examines the tools and policies currently
affecting stewardship practices and ethics, as well as the
economic incentives involved. The report concludes with a
series of recommendations for the Administrator of EPA. The
report focuses primarily on pollution prevention and only
marginally addresses long-term stewardship issues.
Status/Contact
Information
Final Report published February 2003
2003.pdf
13. Environmental Law Reporter
Article: "Institutional Controls or
Emperor's Clothes? Long-Term
Stewardship of the Nuclear
Weapons Complex"
The article discusses the challenges that DOE faces in
developing an effective LTS program, and presents findings on
legal limitations and other barriers to effective LTS, including
the failure to establish the types of institutions needed to
manage long-lived wastes. Article concludes that existing ICs
are not likely to be effective over time, and advocates the
development of new legal instruments, procedures for current
decisionmaking, and stewardship institutions.
Article published November 1998
Document reference: 28 ELR 10631
14. U.S. Department of Energy
"Legacy Management Strategic
Plan"
This strategic plan explains the responsibilities of the DOE
Office of Legacy Management and outlines a comprehensive
management plan for all environmental and human legacy
issues.
Strategic plan completed July 2004
Contact: TBD
NOTE: Submitted by Arizona DEQ
September 2005
40
-------
Organization &
Initiative/Study/Rep o rt
Roles and Responsibilities
Scope & Summary
Status/Contact
Information
75. U.S. EPA/OSWER
Guidance for Community
Involvement in Institutional
Controls
EPA is developing guidance on the role of communities in
monitoring and enforcing institutional controls implemented at
sites. EPA has held several workshops on 1C issues, including
the topic of community involvement in the 1C process.
Workshop participants provided recommendations, which are
captured in the meeting summaries.
Under development
Contact: Mike Bellot, (703) 603-8905,
bellot.michael @ep a. gov
16. State and Tribal Government
Working Group (STGWG)
Study on Land Transfers in the DOE
STGWG's Long-Term Stewardship Committee tracks DOE and
other efforts to address long-term stewardship issues and
contributes to the dialogue and information associated with
these issues on behalf of STGWG and its members. The
STGWG LTS Committee conducted surveys and investigations
of selected land transfers, developed findings on such issues as
responsibility for long-term controls, and developed
recommendations for DOE improvements in area of land
transfer and long-term stewardship.
Study completed October 2001
Contact: TBD
17. ELI and EGA
The Role of Local Governments in
Long-Term Stewardship at DOE
Facilities
In this report, ELI and EGA examine how local governments are
only beginning to develop the capacity to apply their experience
to the highly specialized types of environmental hazards that
DOE leaves behind. The report presents the results of in-depth
studies of the existing and planned roles and capabilities of local
governments with respect to LTS at three DOE facilities. The
report provides recommendations for how DOE and local
governments should work together to address LTS issues.
Final report issued 2001
Contact: TBD
September 2005
41
-------
Organization &
Initiative/Study/Rep o rt
18. International City/County
Management Association (ICMA)
Report: "Striking a Balance: Local
Government Implementation of
Land Use Controls"
Scope & Summary
This report highlights the best practices, strategies, and lessons
learned from a peer exchange between local government
officials from Louisville- Jefferson County, Kentucky, and
Chautauqua County, New York, in which they shared
information about the challenges they face and the strategies
they employ to address land use controls in their communities.
The report takes an in-depth look at land use controls and the
challenges and opportunities that local governments and other
public and private stakeholders face in maintaining them. It
also addresses such issues as design and implementation of land
use controls, stakeholder coordination, information
management, enforcement, and funding.
Status/Contact
Information
Final. November, 2003.
Contact:
Danielle Miller Wagner
Director, Brownfields Program
ICMA
777 North Capitol Street, NE
Suite 500
Washington, D.C. 20002-4201
http://www2.icma.org/main/ld.asp7fro
m=search&ldid= 1673 8&hsid= 1
September 2005
42
-------
Organization &
Initiative/Study/Rep o rt
19. Energy Communities Alliance
(EGA)
Interagency policy meetings
Scope & Summary
EGA members conduct peer meetings to discuss the potential
role of local governments in long-term stewardship at DOE
facilities. EGA held its first meeting in Grand Junction,
Colorado and plans to hold at least two additional meetings to
scope out the specific roles at specific sites. This study should
educate local governments on long-term stewardship issues,
educate State and Federal government officials on the potential
role of local governments when selecting remedies, and ensure
that local, State and Federal government officials communicate
on these important issues that impact local communities. EGA
also believes that one of these meetings would be a joint State
and local government meeting.
Status/Contact
Information
EGA held a peer meeting in Santa Fe to
bring together local government and
DOE officials to voice concerns about
LM and LTS. A summary and next
steps are currently being developed.
EGA is also holding an
intergovernmental meeting with DOE
officials in DC in early November. The
meeting will focus on LM and LTS,
although the product of meeting is
uncertain considering possible
administration change. ECA's policy
statement on Environmental
Remediation and Long-Term
Stewardship can be found at
http://www.cncrgyca.org/PDF/ECA200
4policystatcmcnts.pdf
Contact: Sara Szynwelski, Assistant
Program Manager,
saras@cnergyca.org
Information Management
20. U.S. EPA/OSWER
Institutional Controls Tracking
System (ICTS)
EPA is currently developing and populating ICTS, a web-based
system with a mapping component that tracks the life-cycle of
ICs and allows for data sharing with stakeholders. The system is
being developed in two phases, with the first focusing on
collecting and maintaining basic 1C information and the second
expanding to include more detailed information and data
exchange capabilities.
Under development
Contact: Mike Bellot, (703) 603-8905
bellot.michael @ep a. gov
September 2005
43
-------
Organization &
Initiative/Study/Rep o rt
21. U.S. EPA/OSWER
1C Data Element Registry (DER)
Scope & Summary
EPA has drafted the 1C DER as a tool to facilitate the exchange
of information among existing tracking systems using common
language. EPA requested input from 300 organizations within
various levels of government, and organized and facilitated a
series of focus groups with each stakeholder group to identify
the data categories that are most important to each. To develop a
common language for sharing 1C information, a data element
registry was developed from the resulting 35 data categories.
Status/Contact
Information
Draft, under development; circulating
for comment before finalizing
Contact: Mike Bellot, (703) 603-8905,
bellot.michael @ep a. gov
22. U.S. EPA/OSWER
1C Data Sharing Pilot
EPA Headquarters, in collaboration with EPA Region 9,
Terradex, and California local land use agencies, is conducting
an 1C data sharing pilot project. Through the pilot, 1C
information will be shared among the partners to provide
increased public protection and to promote site redevelopment
through the monitoring of ICs and informed land use decisions.
Ongoing
Contact: Mike Bellot, (703) 603-8905,
bellot.michael @ep a. gov
23. Interagency Partnership
Institutional Controls Tracking
Network Initiative
EPA is partnering with ICMA, ASTM, ECOS, and ASTSWMO
to facilitate the exchange of information within the 1C Tracking
Network, a voluntary network of 1C tracking systems
consisting of local land use tracking and permitting systems,
local inventories, county recording systems, state inventories
and tracking systems, Federal databases and tracking systems,
and industry tracking systems.
Under development
Contact: Mike Bellot, (703) 603-8905,
bellot.michael @ep a. gov
24. U.S. Navy
Land Use Controls information
System (LUCIS)
U.S. Navy has developed a land use control information system
known as LUCIS, which is a Geographic Information System
(GlS)-based database that houses environmental baseline
surveys, GIS displays, site maps, deeds, and LUC summaries.
Ongoing
Contact: TBD
September 2005
44
-------
Organization &
Initiative/Study/Rep o rt
25. U.S. Department of Energy
Report: "Managing Data for Long-
Term Stewardship"
Scope & Summary
Report presents a preliminary assessment of how successfully
information about the hazards that remain at DOE sites will be
preserved and made accessible for the duration of LTS. Report
addresses such issues as defining LTS data; how data will be
used for future LTS activities; how data is managed and
preserved for future generations; consequences of information
loss; organization and references for stewardship data; and
requirements for developing a system to manage stewardship
data.
Status/Contact
Information
Working draft report issued in 1998;
final report unknown
Contact: TBD
26. State and Tribal Government
Working Group
Interim Report on Information
Management for Long-Term
Stewardship
STGWG's Long-Term Stewardship Committee tracks DOE and
other efforts to address long-term stewardship issues and
contributes to the dialogue and information associated with
these issues on behalf of STGWG and its members. The
STGWG LTS Committee conducted a survey of state and tribal
governments to determine the scope of potential long-term
stewardship information needs, including identifying and
ranking the importance of the types of information needed,
potential users of information, and purposes for which
information would be needed.
Survey completed and interim report
prepared October 2001. Follow-up
study discussed to address data gaps.
Contact: TBD
27. International City/County
Management Association
Land Use Controls e-Library Web
Site
ICMA has launched a Web site dedicated to the collection and
distribution of information related to land-use controls (LUCs)
at brownfields, Superfund sites, military bases, or other
contaminated properties. As a clearinghouse of information
related to LUCs, the electronic library (e-Library) represents a
tool and resource for communities and local government
professionals. The e-Library contains a wide variety of
information, including public and private LUCs, model LUCs,
zoning codes, restrictive covenants and easements, and site
reuse plans.
Ongoing; see wvvwLJJCJv.org
Contact: Joe Schilling
September 2005
45
-------
Organization &
Initiative/Study/Rep o rt
28. American Society of Testing
and Materials (ASTM)
Workgroup for Identifying 1C
Tracking Data Elements
Scope & Summary
ASTM has formed a workgroup to consider options for
developing an industry standard of minimal 1C data elements to
ensure long-term stewardship at sites. Preliminary discussions
have identified the following six general categories of
information: site identification/IC location; 1C instruments; 1C
objectives; 1C restrictions/obligations; location of other 1C
information; and 1C contact information.
Status/Contact
Information
Ongoing
Contact: TBD
Institutional and Engineering Controls
29. U.S. EPA/OSWER
Report "Institutional Controls: A
Site Manager's Guide to Identifying,
Evaluating, and Selecting
Institutional Controls at Superfund
and RCRA Corrective Action
Cleanups"
Provides Superfund and RCRA site managers and other
decision makers with an overview of the types of ICs that are
commonly available, including their relative strengths and
weaknesses, and to provide a discussion of the key factors to
consider when evaluating and selecting ICs in Superfund and
RCRA Corrective Action cleanups.
Final Guidance, September 2000
Contact: Mike Bellot, (703) 603-8905,
bellot.michael @ep a. gov
30. U.S. EPA/OSWER
Report "Institutional Controls: A
Guide to Implementing, Monitoring,
and Enforcing Institutional Controls
at Superfund, Brownfields, Federal
Facility, UST, and RCRA
Corrective Action Cleanups"
Provides site managers and site attorneys with an overview of
responsibilities for the implementation, monitoring, and
enforcement of ICs at their sites, and discusses common issues
they may encounter when carrying out these responsibilities.
Draft Guidance, February 2003
Contact: Mike Bellot, (703) 603-8905
bellot.michael @ep a. gov
31. U.S. EPA/OSWER
1C Tracking/Monitoring Pilot
Projects
EPA Superfund is sponsoring several pilot projects in
conjunction with State and local governments, industry, and
other NGOs to monitor sites and alert stakeholders of possible
activities affecting established ICs. Several pilots are exploring
the inclusion of information about waste sites in existing one-
call systems designed to prevent damages to utilities from
excavation and other development.
Ongoing.
Contact: Mike Bellot, (703) 603-8905
bellot.michael @ep a. gov
September 2005
46
-------
Organization &
Initiative/Study/Rep o rt
32. U.S. EPA/OSWER
The Comprehensive Five-Year
Review Guidance
Scope & Summary
Document provides guidance for complying with requirements
to conduct a review of the remedy every five years to ensure
protection of human health and the environment for remedial
actions that result in hazardous substances, pollutants, or
contaminants remaining at the site. Guidance is intended to
provide an approach for conducting five-year reviews, clarify
current policy, provide consistency, and discuss roles and
responsibilities, including community involvement.
Status/Contact
Information
Final issued June 2001
Contact: Rafael Gonzalez, EPA
gonzalez.rafael@epa.gov
33. U.S. EPA/OSWER
Guidance "Operation and
Maintenance in the Superfund
Program"
Document provides guidance to site managers for conducting
O&M activities at sites, including O&M considerations
throughout the life cycle of site cleanup and post-cleanup care.
Guidance also provides information on the roles and
responsibilities of EPA, States, and PRPs throughout O&M
process, including EPA oversight as O&M responsibilities are
transferred to States or PRPs.
Final issued May 2001
34. U.S. EPA/OSWER
Guidance "Transfer of Long Term
Response Action (LTRA) Projects
to States"
Guidance provides key elements of the LTRA transfer process
and provides guidance to site managers concerning the transfer
of responsibilities from EPA to States for O&M.
Final issued July 2003
September 2005
47
-------
Organization &
Initiative/Study/Rep o rt
55. U.S. Department of Energy
Policy: Use of Institutional Controls
Scope & Summary
Policy delineates how DOE will use ICs in the management of
resources, facilities, and properties under its control. The policy
also explains how DOE will use ICs to implement its
responsibilities pursuant to various statutes, such as the Nuclear
Waste Policy Act, the Atomic Energy Act, and the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act. This policy is intended to
guide DOE decisions related to planning, maintenance, and
implementation of ICs when such controls are used at DOE sites
or utilized under a statutory program. The policy is also
intended to address DOE's responsibilities related to its role as a
steward of Federal lands and properties and identify activities
that DOE needs to accomplish to ensure that ICs are properly
used and maintained.
Status/Contact
Information
Final April 2003
Contact: TBD
36. DOE Idaho National
Engineering and Environmental
Laboratory (INEEL)
Technology Innovations
In support of DOE's perspective on long-term solutions, the
INEEL is concentrating considerable resources on its
Environmental Stewardship Initiative. The INEEL will integrate
the best science and engineering talent into its stewardship
activities. The major thrust is to coordinate investments in
science and technology that result in significant reductions of
risk and cost, and increased protection of human health and the
environment after cleanup activities have ended. Various
technological innovations are identified to reduce costs of long-
term stewardship.
Kevin Kostelnik
208-526-9642
Kvk@inel.gov
September 2005
48
-------
Organization &
Initiative/Study/Rep o rt
37. U.S. Department of Defense
"Policy on Land Use Controls
Associated with Environmental
Restoration Activities"
Scope & Summary
Provides DoD components with environmental restoration and
land use management responsibilities an overall DoD
framework for implementing, documenting, and managing land
use controls for real property being transferred out of Federal
control and for active installations. The intent of the policy is to
ensure land use activities in the future remain compatible with
the land use restrictions imposed on the property during the
environmental restoration process.
Status/Contact
Information
Final issued
Contact: TBD
38. U.S. Department of Defense
"Guidance on Land Use Controls
Associated with Environmental
Restoration Activities for Property
Planned for Transfer Out of Federal
Control"
This document provides DoD Components with
environmental restoration and land use management
responsibilities guidance on developing, implementing,
recording, and managing land use controls (LUCs) for
property planned for transfer from Department of Defense
(DoD) to non-Federal entities. This guidance is based on DoD
Policy on Land Use Controls Associated with Environmental
Restoration Activities. This guidance provides a range of
options that may be used separately or collectively for
incorporating land use controls into existing land use
management processes.
Final issued March 2001
Contact: TBD
39. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Guidance "Recurring Reviews on
Ordnance and Explosives (OE)
Response Actions"
Guidance presents procedures for developing and implementing
recurring review requirements for OE response actions. The
purpose of recurring reviews is to determine if a response action
continues to minimize explosive safety risks and continues to be
protective of human health, safety, and the environment.
Recurring reviews are conducted under the long-term
management phase once a Formerly used Defense Site achieves
response complete. Recurring reviews satisfies CERCLA five-
year review requirements.
Final published October 2003
Contact: TBD
September 2005
49
-------
Organization &
Initiative/Study/Rep o rt
40. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Guidance "Establishing and
Maintaining Institutional Controls
for Ordnance and Explosives (OE)
Projects"
Scope & Summary
Document provides an overview of ICs and guidance and tools
for establishing, implementing, and maintaining an 1C program.
The guidance also provides key principles of an 1C program.
Status/Contact
Information
Final issued December 2000
Contact: TBD
41. National Governors
Association Long-Term
Stewardship Committee
Report on Federal & State Statutory
Framework for Effective LTS
An NGA Task Force, composed of State regulators and
Governors' policy advisors, established a Long-Term
Stewardship Committee. The NGA LTS Committee is
conducting a study (drawing on NAAG research) on Federal
and State statutory issues & long-term stewardship that will
examine, among other issues, the adequacy of existing
mechanisms for institutional controls, and the applicability of
state 1C laws to federal agencies.
NGA operates an LTS Subcommittee
under its Federal Facilities Task Force.
NGA holds regular meetings and
conference calls primarily between
State and DOE representatives, and is
focusing on ICs and post-closure
agreements. NGA anticipates it will
produce a paper on post-closure
agreements and the role of the States by
the end of the year. NGA's policy
statement on Environmental
Compliance at Federal Facilities (NR-
8) can be found on its website at
Contact: Kara Colton
kcolton@nga. org
202-624-5300
September 2005
50
-------
Organization &
Initiative/Study/Rep o rt
42. National Association of
Attorneys General (NAAG)
Legal Handbook of Institutional
Controls
Scope & Summary
NAAG is working on a state-by-state analysis of statutory and
common law in each of the states, designed to evaluate whether
existing mechanisms could be used to impose effective and
enforceable institutional controls. The handbook will include a
general discussion of the common law in this area, the state-by-
state breakdown- charts and textual material- and probably a
discussion of the legal issues surrounding transfer of federal
properties.
Status/Contact
Information
Under development
Contact: TBD
43. National Association of
Attorneys General
In-Depth Analysis of State
Authorities for Institutional Controls
In conjunction with ELI, NAAG is working on a detailed
review of legal authorities and processes that govern
institutional controls at three sites. The ELI analysis will be a
detailed investigation of the State laws that affect land-use
restrictions at the sites. For instance, the analysis will look at
zoning laws, State laws related to building codes, groundwater
laws, public health laws, and mining laws that might be used to
restrict certain types of uses. NAAG expects to contribute State
law research and analysis, descriptions of environmental
regulation by the State and general review of other facets of the
in-depth analysis.
Under development
Contact: TBD
44. National Association of
Attorneys General
Review of Barriers to Federal
Transfer of Land-Use Rights
NAAG expects to produce legal research related to the legal and
policy issues on the barriers to Federal transfer of land-use
rights, but has not decided what format to use for making the
research available to the larger community. There may be a
published colloquium, a law review style paper, or possibly a
conference among the various knowledgeable parties.
Under development
Contact: TBD
September 2005
51
-------
Organization &
Initiative/Study/Rep o rt
45. National Conference of
Commissioners on Uniform State
Laws (NCCUSL)
Uniform Environmental Covenants
Act - Model Language
Scope & Summary
Developed at the request of EPA and DoD, NCCUSL has
developed standard statutory language for consideration and
adoption by State legislatures to facilitate the implementation
and enforcement of institutional controls at sites where residual
contamination exists.
Status/Contact
Information
http://www.law.upenn.edu/bll/ulc/ueca/
2003final.htm
46. Association of State &
Territorial Solid Waste
Management Officials
White Paper "Institutional Controls
and Long Term Stewardship: Where
Are We Going?"
Paper identifies the present and future hurdles associated with
the use of ICs, and what State and Federal programs should
consider in developing policy to address these hurdles. The
paper also provides guidance on principles that are important for
an effective 1C program, and should be included in any
institutional control or long-term stewardship policy or strategy.
Final issued May 20, 2004
Contact: Gary King (IL), Chair,
CERCLA Research Center
Subcommittee
47. Association of State &
Territorial Solid Waste
Management Officials
"Survey of State Institutional
Control Mechanisms"
ASTSWMO conducted a survey of State cleanup programs to
determine to what extent ICs are used nationally, and to
determine the successes and issues surrounding their use.
Specific elements addressed in the survey results include the
frequency of use in State programs and community and local
government involvement in ICs.
Survey results published in December
1997
Contact: TBD
September 2005
-------
Organization &
Initiative/Study/Rep o rt
48. American Society of Testing
and Materials (ASTM)
"Standard Guide for Use of Activity
and Use Limitations, Including
Institutional and Engineering
Controls" (E 2091-00)
Scope & Summary
This guide covers information for incorporating activity and use
limitations that are protective of human health and the
environment into Federal, State, Tribal or local remediation
programs using a risk-based approach to corrective action.
Specifically, it identifies screening and balancing criteria that
should be applied in determining whether any particular activity
and use limitation may be appropriate. This guide identifies the
need to develop long-term monitoring and stewardship plans to
ensure the long-term reliability and enforce ability of activity
and use limitations. This guide explains the purpose of activity
and use limitations in the remedial action process and the types
of activity and use limitations that are most commonly
available.
Status/Contact
Information
Guide published
http://www.astm.org/cgi-
bin/SoftCart.exe/DATABASE.CART/
REDLINE_PAGES/E2091 .htm?L+mys
tore+lfwd2355+1088146015
49. Environmental Law Institute
Report: "Institutional Controls in
Use"
This report anticipates amendments to Superfund and describes
in concrete terms how institutional controls have been used at
Superfund sites and in similar situations in the past. Experience
with past use of institutional controls provides Superfund
policymakers with valuable examples and knowledge about how
best to use these tools to protect humans for as long as risk
remains at a site.
Final report published 1995
Contact: TBD
5ft Resources for the Future
Report: "Linking Land Use and
Superfund Cleanups: Uncharted
Territory"
This report describes the intersection between land use and
remedy selection and explores how these two processes become
interconnected when pressures for site reuse and restricted
cleanups converge. A key chapter of the report addresses ICs
and the critical role they play in linking land use and remedy
selection, including a detailed analysis of the reliability of local
land use regulatory systems to maintain the viability of ICs.
Final report issued June 1997
Contact: Kate Probst
September 2005
-------
Organization &
Initiative/Study/Rep o rt
Cost and Funding
Scope & Summary
Status/Contact
Information
57. U.S. EPA/OSWER
Guidance for Estimating Costs for
Implementing Institutional Controls
EPA is planning to develop guidance for estimating the costs of
implementing ICs. An October 2001 workshop addressed the
issues associated with estimating the costs of establishing and
maintaining institutional controls. The discussion and feedback
was centered on five issue areas: (1) What costs should be
included in 1C cost estimates? (2) When is the right time to
estimate/define the costs? (3) Who should develop the cost
estimates and what tools can be provided to assist them? (4)
How should the out-year cost evaluation be performed? and (5)
Who pays for these costs in the future and what are the options
for financing ICs?
Under development
Contact: Mike Bellot, (703) 603-8905,
bellot.michael @ep a. gov
52. U.S. DOE, National Energy
Technology Laboratory
LTS Cost Estimating Techniques
DOE/NETL is currently leading efforts to develop separate cost
estimating techniques for long-term stewardship and incorporate
these modules into the Environmental Cost Element Structure, a
cross-agency framework for estimating and managing
environmental management costs.
Status: unknown
Contact: TBD
53. U.S. DOE, Rocky Flats
Environmental Technology Site
Cost Estimation Methodology
DOE/RFETS developed an activity-based methodology to
estimate its annual stewardship costs based on the type, cost,
and duration of anticipated long-term stewardship activities.
Completed 1999
Contact: TBD
September 2005
54
-------
Organization &
Initiative/Study/Rep o rt
54. State and Tribal Government
Working Group
Paper: "Long-Term Cost Estimation
in the DOE"
Scope & Summary
STGWG conducted research on the economics and cost
estimating literature and interviewed experts in these fields to
identify potential alternative methodologies to DOE cost
estimation methods using present worth analysis. The paper
makes several recommendations for continuing to explore
alternative methods for developing cost estimates of LTS
commitments.
Status/Contact
Information
Paper issued in October 2001; efforts
are ongoing
Contact: TBD
55. National Governors
Association Long-Term
Stewardship Committee
Report on Federal & State Statutory
Framework for Effective LTS
An NGA Task Force, composed of State regulators and
Governors' policy advisors, established a Long-Term
Stewardship Committee. The NGA LTS Committee is
conducting a study on Federal and State statutory issues & long-
term stewardship that will examine LTS funding mechanisms
and related issues.
NGA operates an LTS Subcommittee
under its Federal Facilities Task Force.
NGA holds regular meetings and
conference calls primarily between
State and DOE representatives, and is
focusing on ICs and post-closure
agreements. NGA anticipates it will
produce a paper on post-closure
agreements and the role of the States by
the end of the year. NGA's policy
statement on Environmental
Compliance at Federal Facilities (NR-
8) can be found on its website at
Contact: Kara Colton
kcolton@nga. org
202-624-5300
September 2005
55
-------
Organization &
Initiative/Study/Rep o rt
56. National Governors
Association Center for Best
Practices
Issue Brief: Funding Long-Term
Stewardship of DOE Weapons Sites:
Tennessee's Perpetual Care Trust
Fund
Scope & Summary
Based on a 1999 agreement between DOE and Tennessee
Department of Environmental Conservation, DOE is funding a
trust fund to finance long-term stewardship (e.g., annual O&M)
costs following the closure of an Oak Ridge disposal cell for
hazardous, radioactive, and mixed wastes. This issue brief
provides an overview of the trust fund approach, the challenges
it may face in the future, and possible solutions to those
challenges. It also provides next steps for State officials to
follow to pursue the establishment of similar LTS trust funds.
Status/Contact
Information
Status: Unknown
Contact: TBD
57. Environmental Financial
Advisory Board (EFAB)
Guidebook: "A Guidebook of
Financial Tools"
A Guidebook of Financial Tools is a reference work intended to
provide an overview of a wide range of ways and means that are
useful in paying for sustainable environmental systems. The
document presents comprehensive financing tools that include
traditional means of raising revenue, borrowing capital,
enhancing credit, creating public- private partnerships, and ways
of providing technical assistance. The document also presents
financing tools that are, will, or might soon be, available to
address significant environmental priorities, including ways of
lowering the costs of compliance, encouraging pollution
prevention, paying for community-based environmental
protection, financing brownfields redevelopment, and
improving access to capital for small businesses and the
environmental goods and services industry. Each tool is
described along with its actual and potential uses, advantages
and limitations, and references for further information.
Latest Edition: April 1999
http://www.epa.gov/efmpage/guidbkpd
f.htm
September 2005
56
-------
Organization &
Initiative/Study/Rep o rt
58. Resources for the Future
Discussion Paper: "Long-Term
Stewardship of Contaminated Sites:
Trust Funds as Mechanisms for
Financing and Oversight"
Scope & Summary
RFF explores different mechanisms for financing and oversight
of LTS activities at both private and Federal contaminated sites,
focusing primarily on trust funds. The paper evaluates two
components of the issue: (1) the financial aspect, so that funds
are available now and in the future; and (2) the legal and
institutional aspect, to ensure that LTS activities will in fact be
implemented in the future and that those commitments can be
enforced over time.
Status/Contact
Information
Discussion paper issued December
2000
Contact: Kate Probst
September 2005
57
------- |