?/ERf\
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Policy
(1807T)
November 2010
EPA-100-R-10-007
Effectiveness
Assessment of the
Region 4
Superfund
Alternative
Approach
Promoting Environmental Results
< >
Through Evaluation
-------
Acknowledgements
This evaluation was performed by Industrial Economics, Incorporated
(lEc) for EPA's Office of Policy under Contract EP-W-07-028
between EPA and lEc. The lEc evaluation team included Cynthia
Manson, Laurie Finne, and Vadim Shcherbina, and Don Rigger, Dawn
Taylor, Anita Davis, of EPA Region 4 Superfund Division, Sean
Flynn of Region 4 Planning and Environmental Accountability
Branch, Melanie Gulp of EPA's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response, and Yvonne M. Watson of EPA's Office of Policy, Office
of Strategic Environmental Management, Evaluation Support Division
(ESD) as the technical advisor. Alan Youkeles and Randy Hippen of
Office of Site Remediation and Technology Innovation (OSRTI), and
Nancy Browne of Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
(OECA) provided technical input and review.
This report was developed under the Program Evaluation
Competition, sponsored by EPA's Office of Policy. To access copies
of this or other EPA program evaluations, please go to EPA's
Evaluation Support Division's website at http:www.epa.gov/evaluate.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CHAPTER 1 | INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE
Overview of the Superfund Alternative Approach 2
Superfund Alternative Site Remediation Process 4
Previous Evaluations of the Superfund Alternative Approach 5
Program Pipeline Logic Model 7
Evaluation Questions 10
Report Organization 15
CHAPTER 2 | METHODOLOGY
Evaluation Design 16
Analysis of Existing Data and New Data Collection Efforts 18
Limitations and Caveats Related to Site Pairs 23
Collect and Analyze Data from Existing Files and Databases 23
Analysis of Existing Superfund Data 23
Analysis of CERCLIS Action Time Data 24
Analysis of IFMS Cost and Cost Category Data from EPA's Workload Allocation Model 26
Review of Previous Evaluations and Data Collection Efforts 31
DEC A/OS WER Evaluation 31
DIG Evaluation 31
Additional Data Resources: RODs, Community Involvement Plans 32
New Data Collection Efforts 32
Quality Assurance Procedures 32
CHAPTER 3 | FINDINGS
Evaluation Purpose #1: Examine the Factors Influencing the Use of the SA Approach 34
Evaluation Question 1 35
Evaluation Question 2 41
Evaluation Purpose #2: Assess the Effectiveness of the SA Approach in Achieving the
Goals of the Superfund Program so
Evaluation Question 3 51
Evaluation Question 4 58
Evaluation Purpose #3: Assess the Efficiency of the SA Approach in Terms of Potential
Time and Cost Savings 60
-------
Evaluation Question 5 60
Evaluation Purpose #4: Identify Strategies to Improve the Implementation, Efficiency
and Effectiveness of the SA Approach 67
Evaluation Question 6 68
Evaluation Question 7 70
Synthesis of Key Evaluation Findings 71
Evaluation Purpose #1: Examine the Factors Influencing the Use of the SA Approach 72
Responses of PRPs to the SA Approach 72
Community Perceptions to the SA Approach 72
Evaluation Purpose #2: Assess the Effectiveness of the SA Approach in Achieving the
Goals of the Superfund Program 73
Specific Remedies Selected 73
Institutional Controls and Future Use 73
Evaluation Purpose #3: Assess the Efficiency of the SA Approach in Terms of Potential
Time and Cost Savings 73
Time Differences 73
Cost Differences 74
Evaluation Purpose #4: Identify Strategies to Improve the Implementation, Efficiency
and Effectiveness of the SA Approach 74
CHAPTER 4 | RECOMMENDATIONS
Evaluation Purpose #1: Examine the Factors Influencing the Use of the SA Approach 75
Evaluation Purpose #2: Assess the Effectiveness of the SA Approach in Achieving the
Goals of the Superfund Program 76
Evaluation Purpose #3: Assess the Efficiency of the SA Approach in Terms of Potential
Time and Cost Savings 76
Evaluation Purpose #4: Identify Strategies to Improve the Implementation, Efficiency
and Effectiveness of the SA Approach 77
APPENDIX A: FINAL EVALUATION METHODOLOGY
APPENDIX B: SA APPROACH AND NPL PAIRED SITES
APPENDIX C: INTERVIEW APPROACH
APPENDIX D: SUMMARY OF INTERVIEWS
APPENDIX E: SUMMARY OF REMEDIES AND INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS BY
SITE PAIRING
APPENDIX F: AVERAGE NUMBER OF DAYS REPORTED TO COMPLETE
ACTIONS AT PAIRED SITES
APPENDIX G: QUALITY ASSURANCE PLAN
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA), commonly known as Superfund, EPA has, since 1980, evaluated
contaminated sites, and undertaken enforcement and remediation activities to ensure
protection of human health and the environment. The process of identifying,
investigating, and "listing" a site on the National Priorities List (NPL) requires a number
of detailed assessments and process requirements, including identification of potentially
responsible parties (PRPs), coordination with state and Tribal jurisdictions, and
assessment of the level of risk at the site. Sites that require a long-term remedial
response action, and have a hazard ranking system (HRS) score above a threshold value
of 28.5, are eligible for listing as an NPL site. NPL sites are typically remediated by
PRPs (PRP-lead sites), or, in the absence of viable PRPs, by EPA (Fund-lead sites). In
some cases, EPA may defer sites to other authorities (e.g., remediation under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, or state or tribal governments).
The NPL listing process is a significant undertaking involving a formal rulemaking.
Over the past decade, EPA has developed the Superfund Alternative approach (SA
approach, or SAA) as an option for negotiating cleanups with PRPs without formally
listing the sites on the NPL. Sites using the SA approach are identified and investigated
using the same processes and standards that are used for sites listed on the NPL, and sites
using the SA approach undergo the same "pipeline" steps of remedial investigation,
development of records of decision (RODs) and remedial design and action. EPA's
Superfund Alternative Approach website indicates that the "Superfund alternative (SA)
approach uses the same investigation and cleanup process and standards that are used for
sites listed on the NPL. The SA approach is really an alternative to listing a site on the
NPL; it is not an alternative Superfund process."1
This evaluation examines whether the SA approach is having the expected outcome of
reducing site costs and speeding remediation. In addition, this evaluation examines the
effectiveness of the SA approach in achieving the goals of the Superfund program.
Finally, the evaluation revisits key questions of prior evaluations, to update information
about community and PRP experiences with the approach.
1 http://www.epa.gov/oecaerth/cleanup/superfund/saa.html
ES-1
INDUSTRIAL ECONOMICS, INCORPORATED
-------
This evaluation was guided by seven questions organized under four key purposes:
Purpose 1: Examine the factors influencing the use of the SA approach
1. What is the response of potentially responsible parties (PRPs) to the Superfund
Alternative approach (SA approach)?
a. What aspects of the SA approach are appealing or unappealing to PRPs, and
why?
b. Do PRPs generally prefer the SA approach over NPL listing, or vice-versa?
Why or why not?
2. What do available data reveal about community member involvement in and
perceptions of the NPL and SAA processes?
a. What is the initial response of community members to NPL listing compared
to EPA's decision to use the SA approach?
b. Ultimately, what do available data reveal about the satisfaction of community
members with the SAA process and structure compared to the NPL process
and structure?
c. To what extent do communities use technical assistance funding at SA
approach and NPL sites? Is there a difference in funding availability and/or
expenditures for SA approach or NPL sites?
Purpose 2: Assess the effectiveness of the SA approach in achieving the goals of the
Superfund program
3. Does a pattern of difference exist in the specific remedies selected for sites using
the SA approach?
a. Do sites with SAA agreements use capping remedies, institutional controls,
or other remedies that mitigate risk but do not remove all contamination,
more frequently or less frequently than similar sites listed on the NPL?
b. Do data suggest that SA remedies are comparable to remedies used for
similar sites listed on the NPL (e.g., Do sites using the SA approach involve
greater or fewer remedies resulting in unrestricted use)?
4. Is there a difference in the potential for reuse/redevelopment at sites using the SA
approach compared with more sites listed on the NPL? If there is a difference,
does the evidence suggest why this difference exists?
Purpose 3: Assess the efficiency of the SA approach in terms of potential time and cost
savings
5. What are the total cost, cost net of cost recovery, and time differences of the SA
and NPL approaches, for both EPA and PRPs?
ES-2
-------
a. What are differences in the early part of the process (from discovery through
RI/FS)?
b. What are differences in the middle part of the process (from RI/FS through
ROD)?
c. What are differences in the later part of the process (from ROD through
RD/RA, or through construction complete where applicable)?
Purpose 4: Identify strategies to improve the implementation, efficiency and
effectiveness of the SA approach
6. What has EPA done to improve the consistency of implementing the SA
approach since an internal evaluation and an IG report on the approach was
published in 2007?
a. Do areas of inconsistent implementation remain? If yes, how should EPA
address them?
b. Have other questions related to implementation of guidance and consistent
tracking of site data been addressed?
7. What additional factors or variables should EPA take into account when deciding
if and when to use the SA approach in the future?
Since EPA issued its first formal policy guidance on the SA approach in 2002, EPA has
conducted two assessments of the SA approach, both focusing on the process of program
implementation. EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) and
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) conducted a joint internal
evaluation of the SA approach and EPA's Office of the Inspector General conducted an
audit of the approach. Both of these evaluations were completed in 2007.
This evaluation builds upon these existing evaluations by updating information on SA
approach implementation, and by expanding the analytic scope of the evaluation to
specifically consider costs and effort associated with activities at SA approach and NPL
sites.
This evaluation focuses on the 21 sites with SAA agreements in Region 4, as these sites
represent a broad range of site types within a single Region, and represent a significant
percentage of all SAA agreements. The Region 4 sites therefore provide a sound basis
for comparing sites with SAA agreements to NPL sites with similar characteristics.
While this evaluation focuses on Region 4 sites, the sites with SAA agreements in this
Region reflect a range of contaminants and media, and therefore, the evaluation results
will be generally relevant to other Regions that use the SA approach.
ES-3
-------
EVALUATION METHODOLOGY
As discussed in Chapter 2 of this report, this evaluation uses a range of data sources and
analytic techniques, including a review of existing published reports and site data from
EPA's Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Information System (CERCLIS) and RODs, a quantitative comparative analysis focusing
on site data from CERCLIS and Office of the Chief Financial Officer's Integrated
Financial Management System (IFMS), and a qualitative assessment of information
collected in targeted interviews. The analyses of site data employ a "paired site"
approach that links specific SA approach and NPL sites with similar features. This
method helps account for other site variables and increases the possibility of identifying
clear differences between sites that use different approaches. Exhibit ES-1 provides an
overview of methods and data used to answer each evaluation question.
EXHIBIT ES-1: CROSSWALK OF EVALUATION QUESTIONS AND DATA COLLECTION METHODS
EVALUATION QUESTION
PRIMARY DATA AND
METHODS
SECONDARY DATA AND
METHODS
EVALUATION PURPOSE: EXAMINE THE FACTORS INFLUENCING THE USE OF THE SUPERFUND ALTERNATIVE
APPROACH
1. What is the response of potentially responsible parties (PRPs) to the Superfund
Alternative Approach (SA approach)?
Interviews:
1a) What aspects of the SA approach are
appealing or unappealing to PRPs, and why?
1b) Do PRPs generally prefer the SA
approach over NPL listing, or vice-versa?
Why or why not?
EPA Region 4 staff Previous
PRP evaluations
representatives
Community
representatives
2. What do available data reveal about community member involvement in and perceptions
of the NPL and SAA processes?
Data Review:
2a) What is the initial response of
community members to NPL listing compared
to EPA's decision to use the SA approach?
2b) Ultimately, what do available data
reveal about the satisfaction of community
members with the SAA process compared to
the NPL process?
2c) To what extent do communities use
technical assistance funding at SA approach
and NPL sites? Is there a difference in
funding availability and/or expenditures for
SA approach or NPL sites?
Interviews:
EPA Region 4 staff
PRP
representatives
Community
representatives
Quantitative Analysis:
CERCLIS and IFMS
data
Spatial analysis
Data Review:
Previous
evaluations
Data Review:
Superfund records
Interviews:
EPA Region 4 staff
PRP
representatives
Community
representatives
ES-4
-------
EVALUATION QUESTION
PRIMARY DATA AND
METHODS
SECONDARY DATA AND
METHODS
EVALUATION PURPOSE: ASSESS THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE SA APPROACH IN ACHIEVING THE GOALS OF THE
SUPERFUND PROGRAM
3. Does a pattern of difference exist in the specific remedies selected for sites using the SA
approach? If yes:
3a) Do sites with SAA agreements use Quantitative Analysis:
capping remedies, institutional controls, or . CERCLIS data
other remedies that mitigate risk but do not . Superfund Records
remove all contamination, more frequently
or less frequently than similar sites listed on
the NPL?
3b) Do data suggest that SA remedies are
comparable to remedies used for similar
sites listed on the NPL (e.g., Do sites with
SAA agreements involve greater or fewer
remedies resulting in unrestricted use)?
4. Is there a difference in the potential for reuse/redevelopment at sites using the SA
approach compared with more sites listed on the NPL? If there is a difference, does the
evidence suggest why this difference exists?
What plans exist for reuse/redevelopment of
sites?
Quantitative Analysis:
CERCLIS data
Superfund Records
Interviews:
EPA Region 4 staff
PRP
representatives
Community
representatives
EVALUATION PURPOSE: ASSESS THE EFFICIENCY OF THE SA APPROACH IN TERMS OF POTENTIAL TIME AND COST
SAVINGS
5. What are the total cost, cost net of cost recovery, and time differences of the SA and
NPL approaches, for both EPA and PRPs?
5a) What are differences in the early part of
the process (from discovery through RI/FS)?
5b) What are differences in the middle part
of the process (from RIFS through ROD)?
5c) What are differences in the later part of
the process (from ROD through RD/RA, or
through construction complete where
applicable)?
Quantitative Analysis:
CERCLIS and IFMS
data
Quantitative Analysis:
CERCLIS and IFMS
data
Quantitative Analysis:
CERCLIS data
Data Review:
Superfund records
Data Review:
Superfund records
Interviews:
EPA Region 4 staff
PRP
representatives
Community
representatives
ES-5
-------
EVALUATION QUESTION
PRIMARY DATA AND
METHODS
SECONDARY DATA AND
METHODS
EVALUATION PURPOSE: IDENTIFY STRATEGIES TO IMPROVE THE IMPLEMENTATION, EFFICIENCY AND
EFFECTIVENESS OF THE SA APPROACH
6. What has EPA done to improve the consistency of implementing the SA approach since an
internal evaluation and an 1C report on the approach was published in 2007?
Data Review:
Previous
evaluations
6a) Do areas of inconsistent implementation
remain? If yes, how should EPA address
them?
6b) Have other questions related to
implementation of guidance and consistent
tracking of site data been addressed?
7. What considerations should EPA take into account when deciding if and when to use the
SA approach in the future?
Data Review:
Program records
Interviews:
EPA Region 4 staff
What considerations should EPA take into
account?
Interviews:
EPA Region 4 staff
PRP
representatives
Community
representatives
Data Review:
Previous
evaluations
EVALUATION FINDINGS
Chapter 3 presents the evaluation findings, organized by the evaluation purposes and then
the evaluation questions. We provide a short summary below:
Consistent with the general objective of the evaluation, we have explored the extent to
which the SA approach is achieving the same outcomes as the traditional NPL pipeline,
and the extent to which the SA approach is reducing site costs and speeding remediation.
Overall, interview respondents were uniformly positive in their opinions of the SA
approach. EPA respondents noted that all PRPs who are given the opportunity to pursue
the SA approach have agreed to do so, suggesting broadly that PRPs find value in the
approach. PRPs confirmed that the SA approach is preferable to an NPL listing due to
avoided negative publicity and a perception that the approach is more collaborative.
Overall, while communities differ in initial reactions to both SA approach designation
and NPL listing, the use of the SA approach does not appear to have a significant impact
on community participation in or impressions of the site remediation process. A
demographic review revealed no difference in the concentration of minority and low-
income populations at SA approach or NPL sites, and community representatives
interviewed confirmed that EPA's outreach to environmental justice and other
communities is consistent across sites.
EPA, PRP, and community interviewees stressed that the SA approach generally mirrors
the NPL process for most EPA activities. Consistent with this input, CERCLIS and
IFMS data reveal that the SA approach does not appear to result in significant cost or
ES-6
-------
time savings for EPA, though some preliminary data suggest that certain negotiations
proceed more quickly at some sites using the SA approach, and cost data are incomplete.
Anticipated future use patterns for NPL and SA approach sites are similar. Interviews
with EPA staff suggest that sites using the SA approach may have a higher potential for
redevelopment than comparable NPL sites if avoided "stigma" increases financing
options and willingness to redevelop.
These findings suggest that the approach has value to participants, particularly related to
avoiding "stigma" associated with NPL listings. PRP interviews have confirmed that
PRPs typically regard avoiding the NPL listing process as an advantage, in spite of
limited direct cost savings, because the SA approach eliminates the "adversarial"
structure of the NPL process. PRP respondents noted that community concerns about
stigma from NPL sites are often, but not always, a key factor; investors and lenders,
however, do not appear to differentiate NPL and SA approach sites. The issue of stigma
remains an elusive but potentially significant factor in assessing SA approach impacts.
EVALUATION PURPOSE 1: EXAMINE THE FACTORS INFLUENCING THE USE OF THIS
APPROACH
RESPONSE OF PRPS TO THE SA APPROACH
General agreement by PRPs to pursue the SA approach when it is proposed by EPA
provides a strong indication that PRPs see value in this approach, though not all PRPs
reach SAA agreements with EPA. PRP interviews confirm a willingness to participate,
in spite of the fact that the SA approach involves additional financial liquidity
requirements and typically results in only modest cost savings. Interview data focus on
two key incentives for PRPs to participate:
Avoiding NPL stigma: Specifically, interview information collected suggests
that most PRPs, and many community leaders, are concerned about the
perceived reduction in property values and redevelopment opportunities
associated with an NPL listing. The SA approach provides an option for
avoiding this without altering the technical cleanup options. PRP respondents
also noted that customers and even prospective employees often are aware of
NPL sites and view them as a drawback, though one PRP respondent felt that
the differences between NPL and SA approach site stigma are no longer
significant.
Cost savings associated with multiple sites: EPA and PRP interview responses
indicate that a key potential benefit of the SA approach is the possibility of
developing multi-site protocols for PRPs with sites across states or Regions.
PRP respondents also noted that the more collaborative "tone" of the SA
approach typically simplifies the negotiation process for them, though cost
savings are limited by the overall similarity of the approaches.
ES-7
-------
A literature review confirmed that while stigma is a well-established phenomenon at
contaminated sites, economists have not yet considered whether stigma specific to NPL
sites is a greater impediment to site reuse than stigma at SA approach or other non-NPL
(e.g., Brownfields) sites.
Interview responses suggest that SA approach site PRPs have additional incentive to be
cooperative to avoid NPL listing, but respondents also noted that level of cooperation
varies widely among individual PRPs and sites.
COMMUNITY PERCEPTIONS OF THE SA APPROACH
Interviews with EPA and community representatives suggest that initial responses to the
SA approach can be mixed. The SA approach is often considered advantageous by
community members and leaders concerned about property values and stigma. Other
community members, however, require confirmation that the process will not result in
more limited resources or reduced remediation. EPA Community Involvement
Coordinators conclude that most concerns about both NPL and SA processes peak
initially and abate as communities become familiar with the sites and see progress.
Data on community expenditures and on the demographics of communities surrounding
sites using the SA approach reveal no pattern of difference between SA approach sites
and NPL sites, but analysis of expenditures at sites with higher concentrations of minority
and low-income populations reveals a weak positive relationship (i.e., slightly higher
expenditures overall at sites with higher concentrations of minority and low income
populations).
EVALUATION PURPOSE 2: ASSESS THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE SA APPROACH IN
ACHIEVING THE GOALS OF THE SUPERFUND PROGRAM
In general, comparison of NPL and SA approach sites reveals that they are similar in
current and anticipated future use, and the majority of both NPL and SA approach sites
examined are industrial facilities and likely to remain industrial or commercial in nature.
SPECIFIC REMEDIES SELECTED
A review of available ROD data was inconclusive regarding the selection of remedies.
While NPL sites examined appear to employ remedies that remove and treat
contamination more often than paired sites, this pattern does not consider site features
(e.g., extent of contamination) or the relative effectiveness of newer in situ treatment
technologies that may be employed at newer sites using the SA approach.
INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS AND FUTURE USE
A screening assessment of "long-term" institutional controls reveals that use of
institutional controls such as restrictive covenants or "use restrictions" is comparable
among paired sites, suggesting that future site use is not affected by SA approach or NPL
status. Sites in the sample are generally not yet available for reuse, but examination of
potential future use options confirmed that sites in both groups have similar use options.
Interviews with EPA staff suggest that sites using the SA approach may have a higher
ES-8
-------
potential for redevelopment than comparable NPL sites if avoided "stigma" increases
financing options and willingness to redevelop.
EVALUATION PURPOSE 3: ASSESS THE EFFICIENCY OF THE SA APPROACH IN
TERMS OF POTENTIAL TIME AND COST SAVINGS
Generally, findings from the analysis of CERCLIS and IFMS data on the efficiency of
the SA approach concur with information provided in interviews: the similarity of the
SA approach to the NPL approach within EPA limits the opportunities to save significant
resources, with the exception of NPL listing effort. However, responses emphasize the
potential for the SA approach to improve the speed and tone of PRP negotiations.
TIME DIFFERENCES
A review of time to complete several specific actions reveals that sites using the SA
approach are not significantly different from NPL sites, though data also suggest that
negotiations at different stages of the process (e.g., RI/FS and RD/RA negotiations) may
in some cases be quicker at sites using the SA approach; this observation is consistent
with PRP and EPA interviews noting that the tone of SA negotiations is more productive.
However, large variability across sites and small sample size prevent any clear
conclusions. In addition, data tracking limitations for both SA approach and NPL sites
prevent a comprehensive assessment of site progress.
COST DIFFERENCES
A review of available cost data similarly concludes that the SA approach has modest, if
any, cost savings for EPA. PRP costs are not reflected in available data, but PRP
representatives also noted that the costs do not differ significantly across approaches). In
addition to wide variability across sites, a key limitation of cost data is the change in cost
recovery practices after 1995; several sites with significant expenditures prior to 1995
may have incomplete cost data. Because NPL sites in this evaluation are typically older,
this analysis may understate NPL site costs and obscure differences between NPL and SA
approach costs. It is not possible, however, to quantify this impact.
EVALUATION PURPOSE 4: IDENTIFY STRATEGIES TO IMPROVE THE
IMPLEMENTATION, EFFICIENCY AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THE SA APPROACH
A review of EPA practices and interview responses suggests that EPA has effectively
implemented the recommendations of prior evaluations. EPA's OIG also indicated that
all recommendations from its 2007 audit were implemented by September 30, 2009.
A compelling outcome of this evaluation is that the interviewed EPA staff from Region 4
and PRPs are unanimously positive about the use of the SA approach. Respondents did
not identify any significant difficulties in implementing the SA approach, due in part to
its similarity to the NPL process.
A few respondents expressed frustration that EPA does not count SA approach and NPL
sites in the same manner for planning purposes (while in 2010 EPA began allocating
resources similarly across both SAA and NPL sites, SA accomplishments are not
ES-9
-------
reflected in GPRA scoring), and respondents offered a few suggestions to improve the
implementation of both NPL and SA approaches. Overall, however, the consistent,
positive tone and clear input from respondents presents a strong indication that the
Region 4 SA approach is well-integrated into general site management operations.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Chapter 4 of this report provides recommendations for the future implementation of
Superfund Alternative Approach. In summary, they include recommendations that EPA:
1. Further investigate the role that "stigma" may play in the effectiveness of site
remediation programs.
2. Continue to improve tracking of community involvement activities to document
successes and challenges in remediation programs.
3. Update and expand the analysis of SA approach effectiveness as sites achieve
construction completion and reuse.
4. Examine the potential of the SA approach to be used as a method to efficiently
address multiple sites.
5. Investigate opportunities to integrate SA approach where appropriate in other
regions, using Region 4 management approach as a template.
6. Normalize accounting for SA approach site progress to reflect similarity with
NPL site activities.
ES-10
-------
CHAPTER 1 | INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE
Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA), commonly known as Superfund, EPA has, since 1980, evaluated
contaminated sites, and undertaken enforcement and remediation activities to ensure
protection of human health and the environment. The process of identifying,
investigating, and "listing" a site on the National Priorities List (NPL) requires a number
of detailed assessments and process requirements, including identification of potentially
responsible parties (PRPs), coordination with state and Tribal jurisdictions, and
assessment of the level of risk at the site. Sites that require a long-term remedial response
action, and have a hazard ranking system (HRS) score above a threshold value of 28.5,
are eligible for listing as an NPL site. NPL sites are typically remediated by PRPs (PRP-
lead sites), or, in the absence of viable PRPs, by EPA (Fund-lead sites). In some cases,
EPA may defer sites to other authorities (e.g., remediation under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act, or state or tribal governments).
The NPL listing process is a significant undertaking involving a formal rulemaking. Over
the past decade, EPA has developed the Superfund Alternative approach (SA approach,
or SAA) as an option for negotiating cleanups with PRPs without formally listing the
sites on the NPL. Sites using the SA approach are identified and investigated using the
same processes and standards that are used for sites listed on the NPL, and sites using the
SA approach undergo the same "pipeline" steps of remedial investigation, development
of records of decision (RODs) and remedial design and action. EPA's Superfund
Alternative Approach website indicates that the "Superfund alternative (SA) approach
uses the same investigation and cleanup process and standards that are used for sites
listed on the NPL. The SA approach is really an alternative to listing a site on the NPL; it
is not an alternative Superfund process."2
This evaluation examines whether the SA approach is having the expected outcome of
reducing site costs and speeding remediation. In addition, this evaluation examines the
effectiveness of the SA approach in achieving the goals of the Superfund program.
Finally, the evaluation revisits key questions of prior evaluations, to update information
about community and PRP experiences with the approach.
http://www.epa.gov/oecaerth/cleanup/superfund/saa.html
-------
This evaluation has four key purposes:
Purpose 1: Examine the factors influencing the use of the SA approach
Purpose 2: Assess the effectiveness of the SA approach in achieving the goals of
the Superfund program
Purpose 3: Assess the efficiency of the SA approach in terms of potential time
and cost savings
Purpose 4: Identify strategies to improve the implementation, efficiency and
effectiveness of the SA approach
The evaluation uses a range of data sources and analytic techniques, including a review of
existing published reports and site data from EPA's Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) and RODs, a
quantitative comparative analysis focusing on site data from CERCLIS and Office of the
Chief Financial Officer's Integrated Financial Management System (IFMS), and a
qualitative assessment of information collected in targeted interviews. The analyses of
site data employ a "paired site" approach that links specific SA approach and NPL sites
with similar features. This method helps account for other site variables and increases the
possibility of identifying clear differences between sites that use different approaches.
OVERVIEW OF THE SUPERFUND ALTERNATIVE APPROACH
In 2002, EPA issued its first formal policy guidance on the SA approach. In June 2004,
EPA revised and reissued the guidance, and announced an 18-month pilot of the SA
approach. Findings from the pilot are discussed below in the "Previous Evaluations of
the Superfund Alternative Approach" section.
The SA approach developed and evolved in response to cooperative PRPs willing to enter
into agreements with EPA without first being listed on the NPL. However, as it evolved,
EPA saw the potential for the SAA approach to achieve time and cost savings associated
with the NPL listing process, as it provided a cooperative context for PRPs and
communities that valued avoiding perceived stigma related to NPL sites. As of May 31,
2010, EPA's web site lists 63 sites with Superfund alternative approach agreements in
place (Exhibit 1-1).3 Currently, sites with SA approach agreements are a small subset of
all Superfund cleanup agreements. Regions 4 and 5 collectively represent the largest
number of sites using the SA approach, with 54 (or 86 percent) of the total sites listed.
The web site reports that Region 4 and Region 5 have 21 and 33 sites using the SA
approach, respectively.4
3 Some sites have more than one Superfund alternative approach agreement. Other sites share a single Superfund alternative
approach agreement (for example, six of the Wisconsin Public Service sites in Region 5 share a single Superfund alternative
approach agreement to perform a remedial investigation and feasibility study at each of the six sites and all eleven of the
Peoples Gas sites in that Region share one agreement for RI/FS). It is also possible for a site to have a Superfund alternative
approach agreement and another, non-Superfund alternative approach agreement in place at the same time.
4 http://www.epa.gov/oecaerth/cleanup/superfund/saa-sites.html. A more accurate estimate for Region 4 is 19 sites, due
to the recent NPL listing of the Kerr-McGee site and the management of Brown's Dump and Jacksonville Ash as one site.
-------
EXHIBIT 1-1: SITES USING THE SA APPROACH BY REGION
REGION
PERCENT OF ALL SITES
WITH SAA AGREEMENTS
SUPERFUND ALTERNATIVE APPROACH SITE
REGION
PERCENT OF ALL SITES
WITH SAA AGREEMENTS
SUPERFUND ALTERNATIVE APPROACH SITE
3.17%
33.33%
68th Street Dump, Rosedale, MD
Foster-Wheeler Energy Corp/Church Rd TCE, Mountain
Top, PA
Admiral Home Appliances, Williston, SC
Anniston PCB Site, Anniston, AL
Browns Dump, Jacksonville, FL*
Copper Basin Mining District, Copper Hill, TN
Coronet Industries, Plant City, FL
Ecusta Mill, NC
Gurley Pesticide Burial, Selma, NC
Henry's Knob, Clover, SC
Holtra Chem, Riegelwood, NC
Illinois Central Railroad/Johnston Yard, Memphis, TN
ITT- Thompson, Madison, FL
Jacksonville Ash, Jacksonville, FL*
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corporation, Navassa, NC**
Lyman Dyeing and Finishing, Lyman, SC
National Fireworks, Cordova, TN
Orlando Gasification Plant, Orlando, FL
Sanford Gasification Plant, Sanford, FL
Sixty One Industrial Park, Memphis, TN
Solitron Devices, West Palm Beach, FL
Sprague Electric Company, Longwood, FL
Weyerhaeuser Plymouth Wood Treat. Plant, Plymouth, NC
52.38%
7
8
9
10
3.17%
1.59%
1.59%
3.17%
1.59%
* Brown's Dump and Jacksonville Ash sites are being managed as a single site.
agreement as an NPL site.
ALCOA Properties, East St. Louis, IL
Cedar Creek, Cedarburg, Wl
Dow- Tittabawassee River/ Saginaw River/Saginaw Bay
Ellsworth Industrial Park, Downers Grove, IL
Evergreen Manor Groundwater Contamination, Winnebago, IL
Ford Road Landfill, Elyria, OH
Miller Compressing Co/Burnham Canal, Milwaukee, Wl
North Shore Gas - North Plant, Waukegan, IL
North Shore Gas - South Plant, Waukegan, IL
Old American Zinc Plant, Fairmont City, IL
Peoples Gas Former Manufactured Gas Plant, Crawford Station,
Chicago, IL
Peoples Gas Former MGP, Hawthorne Ave, Chicago, IL
Peoples Gas Former MGP, Hough Place Station, Chicago, IL
Peoples Gas Former MGP, North Shore Ave Station, Chicago, IL
Peoples Gas Former MGP, Pitney Court, Chicago, IL
Peoples Gas Former MGP, South Station, Chicago, IL
Peoples Gas Former Manufactured Gas Plant, Throop St, Chicago, IL
Peoples Gas Light ft Coke, 22nd St, Chicago, IL
Peoples Gas Light ft Coke, Division St, Chicago, IL
Peoples Gas Light ft Coke, North Station, Chicago, IL
Peoples Gas Light ft Coke, Willow St Station, Chicago, IL
Peters Cartridge Factory, Kings Mills, OH
Solvay Coke and Gas Company, Milwaukee, Wl
South Dayton Dump, OH
Town of Pines Groundwater Plume, Town of Pines, IN
Tremont City Barrel Fill Site, Tremont City, OH
Wisconsin Public Service Company Manufactured Gas Plant, Green
Bay, Wl
Wisconsin Public Service Company Manufactured Gas Plant,
Manitowoc, Wl
Wisconsin Public Service Company Manufactured Gas Plant, Marinette,
Wl
Wisconsin Public Service Company Manufactured Gas Plant, Oshkosh,
Wl
Wisconsin Public Service Company Manufactured Gas Plant, Stevens
Point, Wl
Wisconsin Public Service Company Manufactured Gas Plant, Two
Rivers, Wl
Wisconsin Public Service Company Manufactured Gas Plant/Camp
Marina, Sheboygan, Wl
Falcon Refinery, Ingleside, TX (PDF) (5pp, 260KB, About PDF)
Highway 71772 Refinery, Bossier City, LA (PDF) (4pp, 361KB)
Iowa City Former Manufactured Gas Plant (FMGP), Iowa City, IA
Kennecott - South Zone, Copperton, UT
Asarco - Hayden Plant, AZ
Cyprus Tohono Mine, AZ
Alaska Railroad Anchorage Yard , Anchorage, AK
Kerr-McGee has been listed on the NPL due to bankruptcy of the parent company but will complete the work agreed to under the SAA
-------
lEc initially considered including both Regions 4 and 5 in this evaluation. However, very
few sites with SAA agreements in Region 5 (or any other Regions) have completed
RODs; this limits the ability to compare progress at these sites to NPL sites.5 In addition,
over half of the SAA agreements in Region 5 involve one of two PRPs (Peoples Gas and
Wisconsin Public Service Corporation). It is not clear whether this site ownership pattern
is comparable to or relevant to other Regions. This evaluation therefore reviews the 21
sites with SAA agreements in Region 4, as these sites represent a broad range of site
types within a single Region, and represent a significant percentage of all SAA
agreements. The Region 4 sites therefore provide a sound basis for comparing sites with
SAA agreements to NPL sites with similar characteristics. While this evaluation focuses
on Region 4 sites, the sites with SAA agreements in this Region reflect a range of
contaminants and media, and therefore, the evaluation results will be generally relevant to
other Regions that use the SA approach.
SUPERFUND ALTERNATIVE APPROACH REMEDIATION PROCESS
Under the SA approach, a PRP enters into an SAA consent agreement with EPA and
stays in compliance with that agreement, which requires the same remediation process
used at NPL sites. EPA will suspend listing the site on the NPL as long as the PRP meets
the obligations of the agreement.
Eligibility for the SA approach is based on the following three criteria:
1. Site contamination is significant enough that the site would be eligible for listing
on the NPL (i.e., the site's HRS score is 28.5 or greater;
2. A long-term response (i.e., a remedial action) is anticipated at the site; and
3. There is at least one willing, capable party (e.g., a company or person) that has
responsibility under Superfund, who will sign an agreement with EPA to perform
the investigation and cleanup.
EPA has discretion to determine whether the SA approach is appropriate at a particular
site. If a site meets criteria 1 and 2 above, EPA may approach a PRP, or a PRP may
approach EPA, to negotiate an SAA agreement. The SAA agreement is equivalent to an
agreement negotiated at an NPL site, with additional provisions to keep EPA and
communities in an equivalent position to sites listed on the NPL (i.e., an agreement on
conditions under which EPA may unilaterally list the site on the NPL, and requirements
regarding liquid financial reserves to ensure equivalent financing). If EPA or the PRP
decides not to negotiate an SAA agreement, the site remediation will proceed either as a
NPL listing or as a remediation under another authority (e.g., a state cleanup program).
EPA negotiates agreements with PRPs for site investigation and site cleanup. For sites
using the SA approach, the agreement for investigation is usually in the form of an
5 Only one site using the SA approach each in Regions 6, 7, and 8, have achieved RODs, and it is therefore difficult to
identify patterns among these sites, because differences in performance could reflect Regional or site-specific conditions
that cannot be isolated.
-------
Administrative Order on Consent (AOC). The agreement for remedial action is always in
the form of a judicial Consent Decree (CD). Both the AOC and the CD include language
specific to the SA approach that keeps sites using the SA approach in an equivalent
position to sites listed on the NPL. EPA has model language for SA provisions that
address technical assistance for communities, financial assurance, natural resource
damage claims, and potential NPL listing.
After site studies are completed and the hazards identified, the SA approach anticipates
that EPA will undertake remedy selection in the same manner as NPL remedy selection.
At sites listed on, or proposed to be listed on the NPL, a qualified community group may
apply for a technical assistance grant (TAG) to hire an independent technical advisor.
Under SAA agreements, EPA negotiates a technical assistance plan (TAP) for the PRP to
provide funds should a qualified community group apply for such an advisor.
Under the SA approach, EPA's oversight role is the same as its role on PRP-lead NPL
sites. When the cleanup is complete, EPA maintains an oversight role in monitoring and
reviews.
The benefits of the SA approach can vary depending on the site circumstances. EPA staff
in Region 4 have implemented the SA approach with the expectation that resources and
time are saved by suspending the NPL listing process. In addition, in some cases
community and PRP support for the SA process may facilitate other parts of the pipeline
process (e.g., community relations). As a result, the remediation process at sites using the
SA approach should be more cost-effective than implementation of equivalent remedies
at NPL sites.
PREVIOUS EVALUATIONS OF THE SUPERFUND ALTERNATIVE APPROACH
Since EPA issued its first formal policy guidance on the SA approach in 2002, EPA has
conducted two assessments of the SA approach, both focusing on the process of program
implementation. EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) and
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) conducted a joint internal
evaluation of the SA approach and EPA's Office of the Inspector General conducted an
audit of the approach. Both of these evaluations were completed in 2007.
OECA's Office of Site Remediation Enforcement (OSRE) and the OSWER's Office of
Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation (OSRTI) conducted an evaluation of
the SA pilot to better understand how EPA Regions are implementing the SA approach,
whether it leads to successful site cleanups, and the concerns expressed by stakeholders.
In addition to EPA RPMs, nine external stakeholders were consulted for the evaluation,
including state representatives, attorneys, PRPs, and community groups. A summary of
the results from the evaluation were published in September 2007, Results of the
Superfund Alternative Approach Evaluation.
The evaluation found that the SA approach yielded about 20 agreements, primarily in
Region 4 and Region 5, and that the SAA agreements generally used language that was
consistent with the Response Selection and Enforcement Approach for Superfund
-------
Alternative Sites guidance. The evaluation recommended retaining the SA approach as
an available option in appropriate circumstances and recommends several actions:
Track SAA agreements rather than sites using the SA approach by flagging only
agreements consistent with the guidance at sites satisfying the SA approach
eligibility criteria.
o Revise the Superfund Program Implementation Manual (SPIM) language
for national consistency.
Improve consistency of SA approach implementation.
o Offer training to Regional staff on the SA approach, including the SA
criteria, setting the CERCLIS flag, negotiating model language,
improving transparency, approaching the PRP and community, and
understanding how the SA approach fits with other CERCLA
enforcement tools.
o Consider developing case studies of successful agreements at sites using
the SA approach and best practices summaries as additional guidance.
o Modify Superfund model settlement documents to include the approach's
provisions.
Continue to improve the transparency of the SA approach.
o Use CERCLIS to provide an accurate picture of how the SA approach is
used (e.g., develop standardized national reports).
Continue to evaluate how EPA refers to the approach (e.g., consider using the
term NPL-Equivalent or NPL-Alternative to more accurately reflect the intent of
the approach to be an alternative to listing on the NPL, not an alternative to the
Superfund process).
In June of 2007, EPA's Inspector General issued a summary report on its audit of the SA
approach, entitled EPA Needs to Take More Action in Implementing Alternative
Approaches to Superfund Cleanups, Report No. 2007-P-00026. OIG conducted
interviews with Superfund program managers and staff, PRPs, and representatives of
National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) and the Superfund Settlements Project
(SSP) to review their experiences with the SA approach. The report recommended that
EPA track and report cleanup progress at sites using the SA approach, and improve
communications, information, and transparency associated with the SA approach.
Specific recommendations included:
Publish a universe of sites using the SA approach that meets the Superfund
Alternative site eligibility criteria and are designated as SA approach sites and
regularly update the list as the universe changes.
-------
Develop specific instructions on when to use the SA designation (e.g., for sites or
agreements) and update the Superfund Program Implementation Manual (SPIM)
accordingly.
o The instructions should include provisions that state the Superfund
Alternative site flag should not be removed even if the site is deleted,
cleaned up, or proposed for the NPL, so that controls over documentation
of sites using the SA approach are maintained.
Establish and direct Regions to use a consistent HRS scoring method that is
acceptable and reliable for designating a Superfund Alternative site.
Track and report all Superfund GPRA measures at sites using the SA approach.
o This includes construction completions, final remedy selection, human
exposure under control, migration of contaminated groundwater under
control, and sitewide ready-for-reuse.
o Report GPRA measures at sites using the SA approach separately from
GPRA measures at NPL sites.
Revise applicable guidance, manuals, or directives to reflect that these
performance measures will be tracked and reported for sites using the SA
approach.
lEc reviewed the findings and recommendations from these two prior evaluations to
inform the current evaluation questions and method. lEc also requested access to the
underlying data for both evaluations to ensure that information collection did not overlap.
lEc received the questions that were asked of stakeholders and EPA attorneys for the
OECA/OSWER Evaluation, but did not receive response data. EPA did not provide data
for the OIG Evaluation.
This evaluation builds upon these existing evaluations by updating information on SA
approach implementation, and by expanding the analytic scope of the evaluation to
specifically consider costs and effort associated with activities at SA approach and NPL
sites.
PROGRAM PIPELINE LOGIC MODEL
To illustrate the various components of the Superfund NPL and SA approaches, and to
inform development of specific evaluation questions, EPA developed an alternate form of
a traditional logic model (i.e., a graphical representation of the relationships between
program inputs, outputs, and intended outcomes). As shown in Exhibit 1-2, the key
components of the model include:
Activities the specific procedures or processes used to achieve program goals.
Outputs the immediate products that result from activities and are often used
to measure short-term progress. For example, EPA outputs include listing on the
-------
NPL, negotiating RI/FS', preparing administrative orders on consent, and
achieving records of decision (RODs).
Outcomes the overarching goals of the program, which include achieving
construction complete, preparing final closeout reports, and deleting sites from the
NPL.
As authorized by CERCLA, the Superfund program has a primary goal of identifying and
remediating the most serious contaminated sites in the country. The program's structured
"pipeline" summarizes the key activities needed to assess and remediate each site that is
discovered.
-------
EXHIBIT 1-2: SUPERFUND PROGRAM PIPELINE LOGIC MODEL
Superfund
EPA regions
State agencies ^
Citizen groups
no risk
I 1 immediate risk
! T
s
JNPL Approach ^^^^^^
Compile FR Package
Site Characterization i
Congressional letters i
^ i
Publish FR Notice
i
X i
Review Public Comments *
±\
\
Alternative Approach Logic Model
Site identification and
addition to CERCLIS
^
Preliminary Assessment
^ , , long-term risk
Site Inspection and HRS
Scoring
T HT?S>98 5
Review of Site Complexity
Strength of liability case
Enforcement issues
Financial stability
# of PRPs
Potential remedies
Community and site history
List on NPL |- - y* (JXY OUTPUT^)
X \
Negotiate RI/FS Administrative * ^r i^zrv DT TTVT rr ^V*_
Order on Consent
Negotiate and Coordinate TAG
Community Assistance
FCev Community Input ^
**-._
Community involvement,
enforcement, and
emergency response can
occur at any time.
SA Approach
Evaluate Feasibility of SA Approach
Ability to pay for cleanup
Extent of contamination
Motivation/desire to use SA approach
^
i Agreement with PRPs to Pursue SAA
Negotiate RI/FS Administrative Order
on Consent
Add disclaimer that PRPs cannot
challenge NPL listing
Include TAP provision
--''" ^"~r-~. -^~<^
Remedial Investigation and
Feasibility Study
\ X
-,1
, ;
Record of Decision
Negotiate Judicial Consent fc["
Decree \ Remedral Design
1
'" x"-"1 ""-v *
1 >
' * .
^ 2_ Negotiate Judicial Consent ,
T ! '
Remedial Artinn p Ue 1jnlljd 1
Negotiate further TAG \ \ oe llclulcl ,
assistance
Ii INegoLiaLe luruier lAr assistance
i |
T Nv i 1
Post Construction Complete
Long Term Maintenance
Operations & Maintenance
Institutional Controls
i N ^ '
^ N I
* * ^ '
\ ^(^KEY OUTCOME^) \
, -^ i
" l | EPA Review, shift to NPL if
^r^7 TT^N. . SA not succeeding
%_A-£J LsL'T1 (J0\4E J HIVP YPSII* KPVIPW °
I ^
i
^ "^
Final Closeout Report | +. ^KEYOUTCOME^)
NPL Deletion
^
-------
For this evaluation, the Superfund program pipeline forms the central structure of an
alternative design for a logic model. The pipeline represents the program activities,
which are typically conducted in a structured, linear fashion. While a typical site
remediation has many outputs in the form of legal agreements, public information, and in
some cases, enforcement actions, this logic model focuses on the outputs that are most
relevant to the SA approach and the ability to measure its progress.
This evaluation will not be organized specifically to measure the development of key
outputs. However, comparisons between "paired" sites using the SA approach and NPL
sites will, to the extent that data allow, focus on any differences in the effort needed to
reach key milestone outputs such as RODs and SAA agreements. Because the SA
approach is a relatively recent innovation, NPL sites are generally further along in the
"pipeline" and have completed more actions such as remedial design, remediation action,
and in some cases, construction complete designations. For these sites, comparisons with
sites with SAA agreements will be limited to the most recently completed phase for the
site with an SAA agreement in each pair of sites.
EVALUATION QUESTIONS
To develop and refine evaluation questions, lEc conducted an initial data and document
review, and engaged in several discussions with EPA regarding the implications of our
findings for the scope of this evaluation. Subsequently, lEc and EPA finalized the
following evaluation questions, organized here by Evaluation Purpose:
Purpose 1: Examine the factors influencing the use of the SA approach
8. What is the response of potentially responsible parties (PRPs) to the Superfund
Alternative approach (SA approach)?
a. What aspects of the SA approach are appealing or unappealing to PRPs, and
why?
b. Do PRPs generally prefer the SA approach over NPL listing, or vice-versa?
Why or why not?
9. What do available data reveal about community member involvement in and
perceptions of the NPL and SAA processes?
a. What is the initial response of community members to NPL listing compared
to EPA's decision to use the SA approach?
b. Ultimately, what do available data reveal about the satisfaction of community
members with the SAA process and structure compared to the NPL process
and structure?
c. To what extent do communities use technical assistance funding at SA
approach and NPL sites? Is there a difference in funding availability and/or
expenditures for SA approach or NPL sites?
10
-------
Purpose 2: Assess the effectiveness of the SA approach in achieving the goals of the
Superfund program
10. Does a pattern of difference exist in the specific remedies selected for sites using
the SA approach?
a. Do sites with SAA agreements use capping remedies, institutional controls,
or other remedies that mitigate risk but do not remove all contamination,
more frequently or less frequently than similar sites listed on the NPL?
b. Do data suggest that SA remedies are comparable to remedies used for
similar sites listed on the NPL (e.g., Do sites using the SA approach involve
greater or fewer remedies resulting in unrestricted use)?
11. Is there a difference in the potential for reuse/redevelopment at sites using the SA
approach compared with more sites listed on the NPL? If there is a difference,
does the evidence suggest why this difference exists?
Purpose 3: Assess the efficiency of the SA approach in terms of potential time and cost
savings
12. What are the total cost, cost net of cost recovery, and time differences of the SA
and NPL approaches, for both EPA and PRPs?
a. What are differences in the early part of the process (from discovery through
RI/FS)?
b. What are differences in the middle part of the process (from RI/FS through
ROD)?
c. What are differences in the later part of the process (from ROD through
RD/RA, or through construction complete where applicable)?
Purpose 4: Identify strategies to improve the implementation, efficiency and
effectiveness of the SA approach
13. What has EPA done to improve the consistency of implementing the SA
approach since an internal evaluation and an IG report on the approach was
published in 2007?
c. Do areas of inconsistent implementation remain? If yes, how should EPA
address them?
d. Have other questions related to implementation of guidance and consistent
tracking of site data been addressed?
14. What additional factors or variables should EPA take into account when deciding
if and when to use the SA approach in the future?
Exhibit 1-3 on the next page provides a summary of the evaluation questions as they
link to the key objectives (purposes) of the evaluation. Exhibit 1-3 also includes a
brief map of the key data sources employed to answer each of the questions.
11
-------
EXHIBIT 1-3: EVALUATION QUESTIONS AND KEY DATA SOURCES
EVALUATION QUESTION
DATA SOURCES
PREVIOUS
EVALUATIONS
CERCLIS
DATA
IFMS
DATA
SUPERFUND
RECORDS
(E.G., RODS)
INTER-
VIEWS
NOTES ON DATA SOURCE(S):
EVALUATION PURPOSE: EXAMINE THE FACTORS INFLUENCING THE USE OF THE SUPERFUND ALTERNATIVE APPROACH
1. What is the response of potentially responsible parties (PRPs) to the Superfund Alternative Approach (SA approach)?
1a) What aspects of the SA approach are
appealing or unappealing to PRPs, and why?
1b) Do PRPs generally prefer the SA
approach over NPL listing, or vice-versa?
Why or why not?
Interviews with community involvement
coordinators (CICs) in Region 4, other EPA
staff, PRPs
Review existing evaluation data
Interviews with Region 4 CICs, other EPA
staff, PRPs
Review existing evaluation data
2. What do available data reveal about community member involvement in and perceptions of the NPL and SAA processes?
2a) What is the initial response of
community members to NPL listing compared
to EPA's decision to use the SA approach?
2b) Ultimately, what do available data
reveal about the satisfaction of community
members with the SAA process compared to
the NPL process?
2c) To what extent do communities use
technical assistance funding at SA approach
and NPL sites? Is there a difference in
funding availability and/or expenditures for
SA approach or NPL sites?
Interviews with Region 4 CICs, other EPA
staff, PRPs
Review existing evaluation data
Interviews with Region 4 CICs, other EPA
staff, PRPs
Review existing evaluation data
Interviews with Region 4 CICs, other EPA
staff, PRPs
Consent Decrees, Community Involvement
Plans, existing evaluation data
IFMS: TAG/TAP expenditures data
12
-------
EVALUATION QUESTION
DATA SOURCES
PREVIOUS
EVALUATIONS
CERCLIS
DATA
IFMS
DATA
SUPERFUND
RECORDS
(E.G., RODS)
INTER-
VIEWS
NOTES ON DATA SOURCE(S):
EVALUATION PURPOSE: ASSESS THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE SA APPROACH IN ACHIEVING THE GOALS OF THE SUPERFUND PROGRAM
3. Does a pattern of difference exist in the specific remedies selected for sites using the SA approach? If yes:
3a) Do sites with SAA agreements use
capping remedies, institutional controls, or
other remedies that mitigate risk but do not
remove all contamination, more frequently
or less frequently than similar sites listed on
the NPL?
3b) Do data suggest that SA remedies are
comparable to remedies used for similar
sites listed on the NPL (e.g., Do sites with
SAA agreements involve greater or fewer
remedies resulting in unrestricted use)?
4. Is there a difference in the potential for reuse/redevelopment at sites using the SA approach compared with more sites listed on the NPL? If
there is a difference, does the evidence suggest why this difference exists?
What plans exist for reuse/redevelopment of
CERCLIS fields: Remedies, Unrestricted Use
Designations, Institutional Controls
Superfund Records: Remedies and
Institutional Controls listed in RODs
CERCLIS fields: Remedies, Unrestricted Use
Designations, Institutional Controls
Superfund Records: Remedies and
Institutional Controls listed in RODs
sites?
CERCLIS fields: date of discovery, date of
Sitewide Anticipated for Reuse
Interviews with all community involvement
coordinators in Region 4, other EPA staff
CERCLIS website: Online reuse and
redevelopment data from CERCLIS profiles
ROD Documents: Current, future use data
13
-------
EVALUATION QUESTION
DATA SOURCES
PREVIOUS
EVALUATIONS
CERCLIS
DATA
IFMS
DATA
EVALUATION PURPOSE: ASSESS THE EFFICIENCY OF THE SA APPROACH IN TERMS OF POTENTIAL
SUPERFUND
RECORDS
(E.G.,
RODS)
INTER-
VIEWS
NOTES ON DATA SOURCE(S):
TIME AND COST SAVINGS
5. What are the total cost, cost net of cost recovery, and time differences of the SA and NPL approaches, for both EPA and PRPs?
5a) What are differences in the early part of
the process (from discovery through RI/FS)?
5b) What are differences in the middle part
of the process (from RIFS through ROD)?
5c) What are differences in the later part of
the process (from ROD through RD/RA, or
through construction complete where
applicable)?
X
x
X
X
x
X
x
x
CERCLIS fields: date of discovery, RI/FS
IFMS: cost evaluating site complexity,
feasibility of SA approach, negotiating AOC,
TAG /TAP negotiation/oversight.
Interviews with EPA staff
Superfund Documents: AOCs
CERCLIS fields: ROD date(s)
IFMS: effort involved in preparing ROD(s).
Superfund Documents: RODs
Interviews with EPA Staff
CERCLIS fields: dates for: RD/RA,
Construction Complete, and Sitewide
Anticipated for Reuse
EVALUATION PURPOSE: IDENTIFY STRATEGIES TO IMPROVE THE IMPLEMENTATION, EFFICIENCY AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THE SA APPROACH
6. What has EPA done to improve the consistency of implementing the SA approach since an internal evaluation and an 1C report on the approach
was published in 2007?
6a) Do areas of inconsistent implementation
remain? If yes, how should EPA address
them?
6b) Have other questions related to
implementation of guidance and consistent
tracking of site data been addressed?
X
X
X
X
Interviews with Region 4 CICs. other EPA staff
Review existing evaluations
Review of current documentation, procedures
Interviews with Region 4 CICs, other EPA staff
Review existing evaluations
Review of current documentation, procedures
7. What considerations should EPA take into account when deciding if and when to use the SA approach in the future?
What considerations should EPA take into
account?
Interviews with Region 4 CICs; other EPA
staff; PRPs Review of existing evaluation data
14
-------
REPORT ORGANIZATION
This evaluation report is organized as follows:
Chapter 2 presents the methodology used in this evaluation. lEc used several
methods to assess SA approach outcomes, including a review of existing
published reports and site data from CERCLIS and RODs, a quantitative
comparative analysis focusing on site data from CERCLIS and Office of the Chief
Financial Officer's Integrated Financial Management System (IFMS), and a
qualitative assessment of information collected in targeted interviews. We also
discuss our quality assurance procedures.
Chapter 3 presents the evaluation findings, organized by the evaluation purposes
and then the evaluation questions. The chapter concludes with a summary of key
findings.
Chapter 4 presents recommendations for potential improvements to the Superfund
Alternative approach.
We include all major program evaluation deliverables in a series of appendices at the
end of this report. See the Table of Contents for the list of appendices.
15
-------
CHAPTER 2 | METHODOLOGY
This chapter presents lEc's methodology for conducting this evaluation. This chapter
outlines evaluation design, key data collection efforts, and analytic approaches to
selecting sites and analyzing data. In addition, Appendix A provides the detailed
methodology for this evaluation as finalized in June, 2010. Some information in this
chapter reflects updates to that methodology to address data limitations and to pursue key
insights identified in interviews.
EVALUATION DESIGN
This evaluation is designed to synthesize available information on the effectiveness of the
Region 4 Superfund Alternative approach. The information to support this evaluation is
from a variety of sources, including:
EPA's Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Information System (CERCLIS)
Expenditure and category data from EPA's Workload Allocation Model (an
internal EPA model which integrates CERCLIS schedule and action data with
expenditure data from EPA's Integrated Financial Management System (IFMS)
data system)
Superfund records, including Records of Decision (RODs) and Community
Involvement Plans
Findings from EPA's OECA and OSWER evaluation of the SAA Pilot
Recommendations from EPA's Office of the Inspector General audit
Interviews with EPA Region 4 Community Involvement Coordinators (CICs),
Remedial Program Managers (RPMs), managers in R4 information, enforcement,
and remedial branches, EPA Headquarters staff with expertise in CERCLIS and
IFMS, representatives of community organizations and PRPs with experience at
both NPL sites and sites using the SA approach, and representatives of a site
redevelopment company.
This evaluation uses a mixed methods approach involving both qualitative and
quantitative methods to compare NPL sites and sites using the SA approach. The design
for this evaluation relies primarily on analysis of existing data. In addition, lEc conducted
interviews to collect supplemental data and/or resolve issues raised by the analysis of
quantitative data.
16
-------
To quantitatively assess the cost-effectiveness of sites using the SA approach relative to
NPL sites, lEc uses a matched pairs approach that compares data for a limited number of
paired sites using the SA approach and NPL sites in Region 4. Paired NPL sites have
viable and willing potentially responsible parties (PRPs) that published at least one
Record of Decision (ROD), and have features similar to specific sites using the SA
approach to ensure "comparability." The limited number of sites using the SA approach
precludes a robust statistical analysis of differences among sites of different types, but the
matched pairs assessment supports evaluation of quantitative information about specific
sites, as well as descriptive information about patterns among different site types.
lEc examined matched pairs to identify differences in costs and time required for paired
sites to achieve key outputs, with a specific focus on publications of RODs. lEc has
reviewed existing quantitative data from CERCLIS and IFMS to determine whether a
pattern of difference exists in the expenditures or time associated with actions completed
at paired sites. While we qualitatively review conditions that may contribute to
differences, we are not able to investigate causality.
While we were able to match eleven sites using the SA approach to NPL sites in Region
4, our analyses of several of these sites is limited by unique site features at certain sites
using the SA approach that prevented identification of a "good match" and by limited
expenditure data at some NPL sites that had significant activity prior to 1995. These sites
are generally included in the qualitative analyses, but are identified and in some cases
considered separately in analyses such as cost or remedy comparisons.
Similarly, three sites using the SA approach are identified as Megasites or potential
Megasites, with combined extramural, actual and planned, removal and remedial action
costs expected to exceed $50 million.6 Thus, time and cost data at these sites and their
NPL pairs are reported but are not included in aggregate results, because the paired NPL
sites are not adequately similar in scope. Two sites using the SA approach in particular -
Jacksonville Ash and Brown's Dump, were not able to be paired adequately because their
scope, large scale residential contamination, and public-sector PRP are a combination of
factors unique to these sites.
To supplement the quantitative assessment and provide insights into factors that influence
the use of the SA approach, we reviewed findings and data from prior OECA/OSWER
and OIG evaluations. This information was also used to identify and verify strategies to
improve the SA approach and identify potential reasons why differences may exist
between sites using the SA approach and NPL sites.
After analyzing and reviewing the existing data and evaluations, lEc conducted
interviews to expand on results and issues identified with existing data, and to gather
perspectives on key aspects of the SA approach. This effort involved a limited number of
interviews with individuals experienced with both the SA and NPL approach.
' U.S. EPA Megasites. Available at http://www.epa.gov/oswer/docs/naceptdocs/megasites.pdf
17
-------
Interviewees included EPA Superfund and OECA staff, PRPs, and community groups. In
addition, we interviewed a Brownfield developer involved with multiple Region 4 sites.
ANALYSIS OF EXISTING DATA AND NEW DATA COLLECTION
EFFORTS
The three broad methodological steps in this evaluation are: (1) developing and
implementing a selection process for identifying paired sites; (2) collecting and analyzing
data from existing evaluations, files, and databases to assess paired sites and other key
aspects of the approach; and (3) collecting and analyzing information and data from
interviews to expand on existing data. Exhibit 2-1 summarizes our approach to each of
these steps.
EXHIBIT 2-1: EVALUATION STEPS
1. Develop list of variables to align for comparison of sites using the Superfund
Alternative approach and NPL sites.
Collect site-level CERCLIS data for SA and NPL sites in Region 4
Match sites using the SA approach with similar NPL sites
2. Collect and analyze data from existing databases and files
Analyze quantitative data from CERCLIS
Analyze quantitative IFMS data from the Workload Allocation Model
Review findings from previous evaluations
3. Collect new data through interviews
Identify EPA Community Involvement Coordinators to interview
Identify other EPA staff, PRPs, state officials, or other stakeholders to
interview
Schedule and conduct interviews
Analyze trends and patterns in data from interviews
To evaluate the cost-effectiveness and other key aspects of the SA approach, lEc
identified nine NPL sites to pair with the 12 sites using the SA approach in Region 4 that
obtained at least one Record of Decision (ROD).7 Two of these sites - Jacksonville Ash
and Brown's Dump - are being managed as a single site, resulting in a total sample of 11
sites using the SA approach.
7 As noted, lEc initially considered including paired sites from Regions 4 and 5 in order to capture the majority of sites in the
SA universe. However, lEc limited the evaluation to sites in Region 4, because Region 5 sites reflected unique, multi-site
agreements and were generally in the early stages of the pipeline. Region 4 sites represent the majority of all sites using
the SA approach in the U.S. that have achieved RODs.
18
-------
lEc identified paired sites that are similar enough in key site descriptors to provide a
reasonable basis for comparison of the two approaches to remediation.
The SA approach is an option only when at least one willing and capable PRP is available
to enter an agreement with EPA to perform the investigation and site remediation. Thus,
this evaluation examines only sites using the SA approach and "PRP-lead" NPL sites in
Region 4 that have agreements with one or more private parties. Federal facility and
Fund-lead sites are not considered because they are not eligible for the SA approach.
To identify additional variables that might affect pairing of PRP-lead NPL sites and sites
using the SA approach in Region 4, lEc relied on prior research, and also consulted with
subject matter experts from EPA staff in Region 4 and Headquarters.8 In addition, lEc
collected qualitative insights about potential thresholds for pairing (e.g., the extent to
which variations were acceptable). Based on this input, lEc used the following variables
to pair sites:
Industry: To the extent possible, paired sites reflect similar types of industrial
activity, and reflect similarity of contaminants and facility configurations.
Number and type of media contaminated: To the extent possible, paired sites
have the same types of contaminated media (e.g., soil and groundwater
contamination).
Type of contaminant: To the extent possible, paired sites should have the same
general types of contamination (e.g., metals, organics) because these factors often
drive remedial investigation and remedial designs. lEc matched sites using the
following assumptions:
o Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAHs), persistent organic pollutants (POPs), and pesticides likely
involve similar amounts of effort for planning and investigative phases.
o Inorganics and base neutral acids likely require similar amounts of effort
for the planning and investigative phase
o Dioxins/Dibenzofurans, metals, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
are each unique substances that likely require different efforts, even in
the early stages of the pipeline.
o Other specific contaminant profiles (e.g., mercury, creosote) were also
used to describe and match specific facilities, based on CERCLIS and
Region 4 staff input.
Proximity to residential or densely populated areas: Paired sites are generally
similar in the type of location (e.g., industrial zoned areas, residential areas).
8 Prior research by lEc on site variables that appear to have a causal relationship with cost at Fund-lead NPL sites identified
the following variables as potentially important: Number of PRPs, type and number of media contaminated, and number of
operable units (Oils).
19
-------
o For NPL sites, lEc used the CERCLIS "Population Within One Mile"
field; for sites using the SA approach, lEc used population density data
from RODs, Google Maps and other sources to identify three categories
of population near sites using the SA approach: fewer than 1,000 people,
1,000 - 10,000 people, and over 10,000 people.
State governments: To the extent that state government involvement affects
remediation processes, lEc matched sites in similar states.
o Region 4 staff indicated that Florida NPL sites and Florida sites using the
SA approach should be paired. All other states in Region 4 are
comparable.
Number of PRPs: To the extent possible, paired sites have similar numbers of
viable PRPs. In most cases these involve sites with six or fewer PRPs.
Number of Records of Decision (RODs): To the extent possible, paired sites
have a similar number of RODs.
Number of Operable Units (OUs): To the extent possible, paired sites have
similar numbers of OUs.
In addition, lEc considered the following variables to ensure that specific sites do not
differ significantly in complexity as a result of one or more of the following variables:
Specific contaminant age/source: To the extent possible, paired sites have
similar contaminant history (e.g., manufacturing facilities or waste facilities of
similar ages).
Extent of infrastructure near site: lEc verified that no sites in the sample have
significant costs related to new infrastructure to support remediation (e.g., roads,
utilities).
Environmental justice (EJ) or disadvantaged communities: lEc did not select
sites based on proximity to EJ communities, but did review the proximity of EJ
communities in assessing patterns of time, cost, and community involvement.
lEc adopted a ranked but qualitative decision tree format to select sites in a manner that
ensured that the above variables were reviewed. However, because the number of sites in
Region 4 is limited and sites have a range of unique features, and because the
management of sites (e.g., definition of OUs) often varies, paired sites are not necessarily
"perfect matches" across all variables. Exhibit 2-2 summarizes the decision logic for site
selection, noting how the variables above are considered; Exhibit 2-3 lists the final site
pairs selected. Appendix B contains details of the paired sites, including contamination,
number of PRPs, number of OUs, and other data used to inform site pairing.
20
-------
EXHIBIT 2-2: LOGIC FOR PAIRING OF SUPERFUND ALTERNATIVE APPROACH AND NPL SITES
1. Site Characteristics
EPA ID
Site Name
State
Zip Code
County
Region: 4
Federal Facility: N
Non-NPL Status: SAA
NPL Status: Currently on the Final NPL
Responsibility: Potentially Responsible Party (limited to sites that are
PRP-lead)
2. Site Selection Criteria (in order of importance for selecting sites)
Site Characterization (as provided by Region 4 staff)
Major Contaminants/Contaminants of Concern (if applicable, also
provided by Region 4 staff)
Contaminated Media
Types of Contaminants
Site Description (Region 4 NPL caliber sites website)
3. Additional Fields for Consideration in Pairing Sites
Number of PRPs
Number of OUs
Most Recent ROD (primarily limited to sites that have obtained at least
one ROD since 1995)
Number of RODs
21
-------
EXHIBIT 2-3: SA APPROACH AND NPL PAIRED SITES
SITE
PAIR
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1
J
K
SA APPROACH SITE
Admiral Home Appliances
SCD047563614
Gurley Pesticide Burial
NCD9861 72526
Nocatee Hull Creosote
FLD980709398
Sanford Gasification Plant
FLD984169193
Sixty One Industrial Park
TND987790300
Ecusta Mill
NCD0031 66675
Solitron Devices Inc
FLD032845778
Itt-Thompson Industries, Inc
FLD043047653
Lyman Dyeing And Finishing
SCD987584653
Weyerhaeuser Co Plymouth
Wood Trtng Pt
NCD991 278540
Brown's Dump
FLD980847016
Jacksonville Ash Site
FL0002264810
NPL SITE
Shuron, Inc.
SCD003357589
Agrico Chemical Co.
FLD980221857
Cabot/ Koppers
FLD980709356
Cabot/ Koppers
FLD980709356
Diamond Shamrock Corp.
Landfill
GAD990741092
Olin Corp. (Mcintosh Plant)
ALD0081 88708
Harris Corp. (Palm Bay Plant)
FLD000602334
Harris Corp. (Palm Bay Plant)
FLD000602334
Leonard Chemical Co. Inc.
SCD9912793249
Stauffer Chemical Co. (Cold
Creek Plant)
ALD095688875
Hipps Road Landfill
FLD980709802
LOGIC FOR PAIRING
Manufacturing plant
Drinking water contamination
VOC and metal contaminants
Phosphate fertilizer manufacturer
Arsenic and Lead in soil
Wood treater
Creosote
Arsenic contamination
Waste from coal tar
PAH contaminants
Metals and VOCs in groundwater
Chlorine production
Mercury contamination
Electronics manufacturing
Solvents in groundwater and drinking water
Solvent groundwater plume
Industrial waste disposal
VOCs in groundwater
Chlorine manufacturing
Mercury contamination of fish and sediment
Sites are all in Jacksonville
Residential contamination
Lyman Dyeing and Finishing was originally matched to Martin-Marietta Sodyeco Inc. because the sites shared a number of
similar characteristics. However, due to its age, the Martin-Marietta site did not have complete cost or action data. As a
result, we replaced it with Leonard Chemical Co. Inc., our next closest matching NPL site to Lyman Dyeing and Finishing.
Some older appendices, however, cite information on the Martin-Marietta site, because they pre-date the substitution.
22
-------
Limitations and Caveats Related to Site Pairs
The key limitation in site selection is the limited number of appropriate PRP-lead sites in
Region 4. In selecting site pairs, lEc encountered two sites using the SA approach with
limited or no feasible comparison sites in Region 4. The combined "Jacksonville Ash
sites" (which include Jacksonville Ash and Brown's Dump sites) have no appropriate
comparison site in the Region; these sites are characterized by significant and widely
distributed residential soil contamination, as well as a unique public-sector PRP. The
complexity of the residential contamination has contributed to the Megasite designation
of these sites. In addition, Weyerhauser is also a Megasite due to the large size of the
facility, but is in other ways well-matched to its paired site. We include all of these sites
in our qualitative analyses and, where appropriate, in quantitative analyses.
To the extent possible, paired sites have published at least one ROD since 1995. Actions
completed prior to 1995 have limited financial information. Sites with significant
remedial activity prior to 1995 may not reflect all cost data that newer sites record.
Ultimately, all NPL-caliber sites (including both sites using the SA approach and NPL
sites) reflect unique site and location-related characteristics, and lEc's site matching
approach is therefore imperfect. Where unique site features or events at any of the
sample sites create anomalies in the data, we attempt to identify and highlight these
issues.
COLLECT AND ANALYZE DATA FROM EXISTING FILES AND DATABASES
This evaluation relies primarily on existing data sources, including action data from
EPA's CERCLIS database; IFMS and cost category data from EPA's Workload
Allocation Model; remedy, reuse, community participation, and other site data from
RODs and other site documents, and prior evaluations. lEc used data from CERCLIS and
IFMS to assess time and cost differences between paired sites, and ROD and other site
document data to examine community activities, remedies, and site uses. Findings from
prior evaluations inform a review of key perception issues and to identify how these have
evolved, and how EPA has updated implementation of the approach since the internal
evaluation and OIG report. Finally, existing data sources and findings inform questions
for interviewees.
Analysis of Existing Superfund Data
lEc analyzed CERCLIS data provided by Randy Hippen at EPA Headquarters, and
CERCLIS data downloaded from the public CERCLIS website.10
lEc's analysis of cost and time data focuses on site actions between discovery and
publication of RODs. However, if both sites in a pair have completed remedial design or
at least one remedial action, we also examine the time required to complete these actions.
lEc used IFMS cost data combined with CERCLIS action data to examine the efficiency
of the SA approach in achieving similar actions in terms of time and cost. Exhibit 2-4
(http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/phonefax/products.htm).
23
-------
lists the key CERCLIS fields used to support the comparison of SA approach and NPL
sites for Evaluation Questions 3, 4, and 5.
EXHIBIT 2-4: CERCLIS FIELDS FOR COMPARISON OF SITES WITH SAA AGREEMENTS AND NPL
SITES
Site Activities
Action
Action ID
Actual Start Date
Actual End Date/Completion
Planned Outcome
Urgency
Initial Remedial Measure
Institutional Controls
Long Term Response Action
Site-Wide Ready for Anticipated Use (if any paired sites achieve
SWRAU)
Cleanup Technologies Used
Cleanup Status (at OU)
Human Exposure Environmental Indicator Measure
Analysis of CERCLIS Action Time Data
lEc analyzed available CERCLIS data on site actions and designations for paired sites to
identify any patterns of difference in time to complete actions, and any differences in
outcomes at paired sites. We also examined differences across paired sites and, where
possible, present descriptive statistics. However, due to the limited sample size we do not
test statistical significance.
Exhibit 2-5 outlines the actions reviewed and available time stamp data for each action;
actions analyzed are highlighted in bold. Because the paired sites are at different points
in the Superfund pipeline, lEc limited the analyses of time to actions that include an end
date. For example, Ecusta Mill only includes an end date for the RI/FS negotiations. The
RI/FS action was the only action that included start and end dates for all paired sites.
Thus, the number of paired sites evaluated for each action varies.
24
-------
EXHIBIT 2-5: CERCLIS DATA FOR SUPERFUND PIPELINE ACTIONS
ACTION
Discovery
Preliminary Assessment/Site Inspection
Hazard Ranking System Score
Review of Site Complexity
Negotiate SAA Agreement or proceed with National
Priorities Listing
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Negotiations
Consent Decree
Administrative Order on Consent (often same date as end
of RI/FS Negotiations)
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
Record of Decision
Remedial Design/Remedial Action Negotiations
Remedial Design/Remedial Action
Construction Completion
Post Construction Completion
National Priorities List Deletion
CERCLIS
START
DATE?
N
N
N
N
CERCLIS
END
DATE?
Y
Y
Y
Y
SITE OR
OU-
LEVEL
DATA
Y
N
N
N
Identified in CERCLIS as NPL list
date, SAA agreement date, and
site status designation (NPL/SA)
Y
Y
N
Y
N
Y
Y
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
N
N
To measure each action, lEc totaled the number of days between start and end dates
reported in CERCLIS for each unique action.
RI/FS, RI/FS Negotiation, and RD/RA Negotiation actions are sometimes reported by
OU.11 For these actions, lEc reviewed each action individually to determine whether the
action was a unique action or a follow-up to a previous action. Typically, we assume that
each action happens once per OU, and totaled the time spent on that action within each
OU, even if the action has multiple start and end dates (e.g., an OU with three RI/FS
negotiations of 100 days each would have a total RI/FS negotiation time of 300 days).
We then calculate an average value for the action at the site level by averaging OU-level
values.12
11 A site may have a "sitewide" RI/FS negotiation; when these cases could be identified, we divided the total time by the
number of Oils to be consistent with other sites.
12 For example, Harris Corp. has 3 RI/FS actions with start and end dates. However, one RI/FS action is for 0111 and two
RI/FS actions are for 0112. lEc summed the 3 RI/FS actions and then divided by the two Oils that the actions were
completed at to determine the average amount of time spent on the RI/FS at that site.
25
-------
For actions that are recorded at the site level (Consent Decrees, Remedial Designs, and
Remedial Actions), we typically assume that these actions are distinct and do not directly
tie into the number of OUs at the site. For these actions, we calculate an average value by
taking the average of the length of each action.
Analysis of IFMS Cost and Cost Category Data from EPA's Workload Allocation Model
lEc coordinated with Alan Youkeles of OSRTFs Budget, Planning and Evaluation
Branch to obtain detailed IFMS data on Superfund obligations and expenditures for all
sites in Region 4.13 The IFMS data address only activities conducted by EPA, and
therefore do not support analysis of PRP costs. In the context of this evaluation, this
limitation has little impact because few sites using the SA approach have completed
remedial actions, and these are the key expenditures for PRPs. Our analysis focuses on
EPA actions up to and including publication of RODs at each site. To reduce the potential
for double counting, we considered only expenditure data, and did not examine obligation
data.
lEc consulted with EPA staff from Region 4, as well as Alan Youkeles, to develop a
methodology for analyzing and comparing site costs. This methodology involved: (1)
"grouping" actions into broad expenditure categories to facilitate cross-site comparisons;
(2) identifying specific actions and categories to include in and exclude from the
assessment; (3) adjusting expenditure data for yearly inflation; and (4) identifying any
remaining corrections needed.
Expense Categories: To ensure consistency with other EPA data and analyses, we sort
expenditure data into categories using a protocol developed OSRTI. All expenditures fall
into one of seven broad categories: site assessment, remedial, response support,
enforcement, removal, Brownfields, and Federal Facilities.
For this evaluation, we eliminated from consideration all expenditures associated with
Federal Facilities and Brownfields, because these categories are generally incompatible
with PRP-lead and NPL sites. In addition, in consultation with OSRTI staff, we
determined that removal-related expenditures are not likely to be affected by NPL or
SAA agreement status. We examined data on removal expenditures to verify that
expenditures in this category do not follow any clear patterns, and removed the category
from consideration.14
13 Alan Youkeles of OSRTI provided the data and explained the coding system. The data are described as follows: these data
represent cumulative, site-specific, agency-wide, direct obligation and expenditure data for Superfund appropriated and
reimbursable resources, extracted from the US EPA Integrated Financial Management System (IFMS) as of the end of FY 2009
for programmatic analysis by the Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation (OSRTI). Data do not include
indirect costs, costs incurred by private or other parties performing response actions, or future costs to be incurred at these
sites and do not represent official agency financial statements regarding Superfund resource use.
M We could identify no difference in removal costs at sites using the SA approach and NPL sites. Among the sites we
examined, 18 of 21 have expenditures related to removal. At the 10 sites identifies, median removal costs are $19,109 with
a low of $107 and a high of $543,401. At the 8 NPL sites, median removal costs are $10,575 with a low of $580 and a high of
$435,045 (estimates not adjusted for inflation). A t-test to determine whether removal costs of SA approach and NPL sites
26
-------
Actions: To ensure comparability of expenditures between paired sites, we focused only
on costs for actions that have been completed at both NPL sites and sites using the SA
approach. Because few sites using the SA approach in Region 4 have completed
remedial design (RD) or remedial actions (RAs), we eliminated from consideration all
expenditures associated with actions that took place after ROD publication, including all
RD/RA expenditures.
Exhibit 2-6 describes specific actions that were excluded from our cost comparisons, and
the rationale for each exclusion. Exhibit 2-7 presents expenditure categories and actions
included in this evaluation.
EXHIBIT 2-6: ACTIONS EXCLUDED FROM COMPARISON OF SITE COSTS BY REASON
RATIONALE
EXCLUDED ACTIONS (ACTION CODE NAME)
Brownfields (not an expenditure of interest)
Brownfields General
Removal-related
Old Removal Actions
Old Removal Post PA/OSC Intramural
Old Removal TAT Activities
PRP Removal
Removal
Removal Assessment
Removal Community Relations
Removal On-Scene Monitor
Old Removal Support and Management
Removal Support/Management
Old Removal Enforcement
Removal Negotiations
Actions only appearing after RODs
Complete Draft Rl Workplan
Five Year Remedy Assessment
Groundwater Monitoring (Post-ROD)
Operations and Maintenance
PRP LR
Admin/Voluntary Cost Recovery
Claim in Bankruptcy Proceeding
Section 107 Litigation
State Enf. Management Assistance
RD/RA-related
Old Remedial Analysis
Old Remedial Design
PRP RA
PRP RD
Remedial Action
Remedial Design
differed signficantly reveals no statistically significant difference. In addition, removal expenditures occurred at different
time across sites, with no clear trend in removal cost timing at SA or NPL sites.
27
-------
RATIONALE
Federal Facilities-related (not an expenditure
of interest)
EXCLUDED ACTIONS (ACTION CODE
NAME)
RD/RA Negotiations
Federal Facilities Oversight
FF Community Involvement
FFRI/FS
EXHIBIT 2-7: ACTIONS INCLUDED IN COMPARISON OF SITE COSTS BY TYPE
ACTION CODE CATEGORY
INCLUDED ACTIONS (ACTION CODE NAME)
Site Assessment
ESI/RI
Expanded Site Inspection
Final Listing on NPL
Generic PA/SI
MRS Package
Old P re-Remedial
Proposal to the NPL
Site Inspection
Remedial
Combined RI/FS
Community Involvement
Ecological Risk Assessment
Feasibility Study
Human Health Risk Assessment
Management Assistance
Multi-Site Cooperative Agreement
Old Oversight
Old RI/FS
Old TAG
P re-Design Activity
Pre-REM/Aerial Survey
PRP FS
PRP Rl
PRP RI/FS
Remedial Investigation
Technical Assistance
Technical Assistance Grant
Response Support
Administrative Records
Bulk Funding
Contract Program Management
General Support/Management
Information Management Support
Laboratory Support
Old General Superfund Support &
Management
Old Lab Analysis
Old Remedial Support & Management
Records Management
Remedial Contract Management (Technical)
28
-------
ACTION CODE CATEGORY
INCLUDED ACTIONS (ACTION CODE NAME)
Remedial Support/Management
Enforcement
Admin Order on Consent
Compliance Enforcement
Cost Recovery Negotiations
Cost Recovery Decision Document - No Sue
General Enforcement
Litigation (Generic)
Negotiation (Generic)
Non-NPL PRP Search
NPL RP Search
Old (1999) Legal Review of Documents
Old Enforcement Actions
Old General Enforcement
Old Judicial Activity
Old Pre-Enforcement Activity
Old Remedial Enforcement
PPA Assessment
Preparation of Cost Documentation Package
RI/FS Negotiations
Section 106 107 Litigation
Inflation Adjustment: To ensure comparability of expenditure data across sites, lEc
adjusted annual expenditure data to be in constant 2009 dollars using chained price index
GDP deflators provided by OMB in their fiscal year 2011 budget.15
Other Adjustments and Caveats: Finally, we note several limitations related to IFMS
data that affect our analysis:
Expenditure data provides only the year of a given expenditure, and does not
identify day or month. lEc therefore included all relevant expenditures that
occurred within one calendar year after the ROD. This may include in some cases
costs associated with this, it is impossible to accurately determine the point at
which all pre-ROD expenditures were completed and post-ROD expenditures
began.
The workload allocation model classifies actions by an OU at a site. However, an
action can be associated with a particular OU, classified as site-wide, or contain
no information about whether it pertains to a particular OU or is a site-wide
action. For those actions lacking this information, it is impossible to know
whether these actions occurred at a particular OU or on a site-wide basis. Thus, it
was difficult to accurately determine whether an expenditure should be considered
15 See Office and Management and Budget, Fiscal Year 2011 President's Budget, Table 10.1: "Gross Domestic Product and
Deflators Used in the Historical Tables: 1940-2015," column 3.
29
-------
or excluded due the possibility that it occurred after the ROD for one OU, but
prior to the ROD for another OU.
Older CERCLIS data contains fewer categories than newer data. For example,
older RI/FS actions tend to be labeled "Old RIFS" while newer actions break out
the costs associated with the RI/FS negotiations and RI/FS.
These three issues make it difficult to indentify the cost associated with specific actions
(e.g., RI/FS). Thus, our analysis does not attempt to compare costs of paired sites for
specific actions, and we are unable to separately assess costs according to the "early,"
"middle," and "late" parts of NPL pipeline, as outlined in Evaluation Question 5. Rather,
our methodology aggregates the expenditures of all relevant actions through the ROD for
each site. These costs can then be compared across pairings, as well as among all sites.
As a result of these caveats, we developed a set of rules for aggregating costs based on
category that attempt to mitigate the problems with the caveats detailed above. Exhibit 2-
8 illustrates our aggregation of costs for each site.
EXHIBIT 2-8: PROCESS FOR AGGREGATION OF SITE EXPENDITURES
1. Exclude expenditures associated with all site actions included in Exhibit 2-6
2. Inflate all expenditures to 2009 year-dollars
3. Group all expenditures via action code categories as described in Exhibit 2-7
4. Aggregate expenditures:
For actions with an associated OU, the sum of all expenditures through
one calendar year after the ROD of that OU
For actions listed as site-wide or with no OU information provided, the
sum of all expenditures through one calendar year after the last ROD at
the site
5. Aggregated expenditures compared by:
Total expenditures as aggregated above
Total expenditures as aggregated above divided by the number of OUs
at the site
Total expenditures as aggregated above divided by the number of
completed OUs at the site
To aggregate site expenditures, we include the costs for all actions in Exhibit 2-7 so that
we do not omit any expenditures associated with relevant actions at the site. Accurately
aggregating site expenditures through the ROD requires that we choose the correct cutoff
date that allows for a sufficient lag between when expenditures occur and when they are
recorded. We chose a cutoff date of one year after the ROD; however, this may
30
-------
overestimate costs if some actions taking place after the ROD are recorded with
expenditure years of less than a year after the ROD. In addition, to the extent that at
some sites, expenditures are not recorded until cost recovery and cost recovery occurs
more than a year after the ROD, these expenditures will not be aggregated with our
methodology and site costs will be underestimated.
REVIEW OF PREVIOUS EVALUATIONS AND DATA COLLECTION EFFORTS
EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) and Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) conducted a joint internal evaluation of the
SA approach and EPA's Office of the Inspector General also conducted an audit of the
approach. Both of these evaluations were completed in 2007.
OECA/OSWER Evaluation
OECA's Office of Site Remediation Enforcement (OSRE) and the OSWER's Office of
Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation (OSRTI) conducted an evaluation of
the SA pilot to better understand how EPA Regions are implementing the SA approach,
whether it leads to successful site cleanups, and the concerns expressed by stakeholders.
The results of that evaluation were published in September 2007, Results of the Superfund
Alternative Approach Evaluation.
In addition to EPA attorneys and RPMs, nine external stakeholders were consulted for
this evaluation, including state representatives, PRP attorneys, PRPs, and community
groups. lEc requested access to examine the survey questions, responses, and a list of
survey recipients. As previously noted, lEc received the questions that were asked of
stakeholders and EPA attorneys for the OECA/OSWER Evaluation, but did not receive
response data.
lEc reviewed all available resources related to the OECA/OSWER Evaluation to avoid
duplicating previous efforts, and to develop the evaluation questions and inform
Evaluation Question 6, specifically. In addition, lEc considered all prior evaluation
results in addressing all evaluation questions.
DIG Evaluation
In June of 2007, EPA's Inspector General issued a report on the SA approach entitled
EPA Needs to Take More Action in Implementing Alternative Approaches to Superfund
Cleanups, Report No. 2007-P-00026. OIG conducted interviews with Superfund program
managers and staff, PRPs, and representatives of NAM and the Superfund Settlements
Project (SSP) to review their experiences with the SA approach.
In addition, OIG administered six short questionnaires on PRP general views and
experiences with the SA approach. Detailed information about the specific interviews
conducted is not available from the OIG;
lEc requested access to the interview questions, responses, and list of interviewees.
However, OIG did not provide any of the requested data. Thus, lEc relied on publicly
available report data and interviews to inform Evaluation Question 6.
31
-------
Additional Data Resources: RODs, Community Involvement Plans
lEc reviewed EPA's Superfund Alternative Approach website to review SA criteria and
requirements (http://www.epa.gov/compliance/cleanup/superfund/saa.html) and Region
4's NPL Caliber website (http://www.epa.gov/region4/waste/npl/index.htmtfFL) to fill in
missing data items and provide supplemental information (e.g., location/population
density, technical assistance funding). lEc also reviewed individual site profiles on the
Region 4 website and contacted EPA Region 4 staff to collect the following resources:
Site fact sheets
o Site background
o Site reuse/redevelopment
o Community Involvement
RODs
o Institutional controls
o Remedy options
Community involvement plans
o Plans for community involvement and engagement of community groups
NEW DATA COLLECTION EFFORTS
In addition to using existing files and data sources, lEc conducted thirteen in-person
interviews to expand on the results and issues identified with existing data, and to gather
perspectives on the key aspects of the SA approach, including perceptions of the SA
process and perceived stigma of sites using the SA approach compared to NPL sites.
lEc interviewed six managers who are responsible for different aspects of site
remediation for both SA approach and NPL sites; this set of interviews included a group
interview with three Region 4 Superfund managers. In addition, lEc interviewed four
Community Involvement Coordinators (CICs), and three remedial project managers
(RPMs) who have experience with both the SA and NPL approaches. lEc has also
interviewed three community representatives at two communities, six representatives at
three PRPs that have experience with both NPL and SA approach sites, and a
representative from an investment firm that is involved in redeveloping sites in Region 4.
See Appendix C for a list of interviewees and the "master list" of interview questions, and
Appendix D for a summary of interview responses. When possible, respondents from
different backgrounds were asked the same questions to allow comparison.
QUALITY ASSURANCE PROCEDURES
In conducting the evaluation, lEc, Office of Policy's Evaluation Support Division (ESD),
and Region 4 Superfund staff agreed on a set of three key quality assurances:
lEc and EPA agreed on the key data sources to inform the evaluation, including:
32
-------
o Existing Superfund data, including Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS)
data provided by Randy Hippen at EPA Headquarters and CERCLIS data
downloaded from the public CERCLIS website
(http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/phonefax/products.htm').
o Analysis of expenditure data provided by Alan Youkeles at EPA
Headquarters. The Workload Allocation Model and other budget and
expenditure tools incorporate financial data from the Integrated Financial
Management System (IFMS) that have been categorized by CERCLIS
Action code to reflect broad categories describing the type of effort
undertaken by EPA (e.g., enforcement, remedial).
o Existing evaluations of the Superfund Alternative Approach process.
EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) and
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) conducted a
joint internal evaluation of the SA approach and EPA's Office of the
Inspector General conducted an audit of the approach. Both of these
evaluations were completed in 2007.
o Additional Data Resources: RODs, Community Involvement Plans, Site
Fact Sheets, and Consent Decrees
lEc designed the methodology in the context of the project's overarching
evaluation questions and the Superfund program pipeline logic model, and used
and applied the quantitative and qualitative data in a manner that is appropriate for
its scope and for the purposes of the evaluation report.
EPA staff from ESD and Superfund reviewed lEc's outputs, including:
o Program Evaluation Methodology
o Summary of Time to Complete Actions
o Summary of Cost Associated with Actions
o Summary of Interviews
Appendix G contains the Quality Assurance Plan that lEc delivered to EPA in June 2010.
33
-------
CHAPTER 3 | FINDINGS
This chapter summarizes the results of our analyses as outlined in Chapter 2. We organize
our results first by evaluation purpose, and then by the individual evaluation questions
pertaining to that evaluation purpose. For each evaluation question, we first identify the
purpose of the question in the context of evaluating the SA approach as a whole. We
follow with a discussion and tabulation of our findings related to the question. The
chapter concludes with a brief summary of the general findings for each of the four
evaluation purposes.
EVALUATION PURPOSE #1: EXAMINE THE FACTORS
INFLUENCING THE USE OF THE SA APPROACH
To examine the factors influencing the use of the SA approach, lEc interviewed CICs,
RPMs, Managers, PRP and community representatives, and a representative of a
development company working with contaminated sites in Region 4. To review the
factors influencing the use of the SA approach, lEc investigated:
Evaluation Question 1: What is the response of potentially responsible parties
(PRPs) to the Superfund Alternative Approach?; and
Evaluation Question 2: "What do available data reveal about community member
involvement in and perceptions of the NPL and SA processes?"
The findings for this purpose are based largely on information gathered directly in
interviews. In addition, we use a targeted literature search and CERCLIS data to attempt
to validate interview responses. Finally, we perform a screening assessment of
community demographics to determine whether SA approach or NPL site locations are
differently correlated with low income or minority populations.
In general, respondents in interviews stressed the similarity of the SA approach to the
NPL approach from an EPA perspective, and noted that the similarity of the two
approaches limited opportunities for PRPs to realize significant savings in remediation or
site management costs in all cases. Discussion of the advantages to PRPs associated with
the SA approach focused therefore on avoided NPL "stigma" - defined generally as the
potential negative impact that giving a site "NPL" status could have on company image
and options for site redevelopment. While stigma could not be quantified, EPA
respondents noted that PRPs do not turn down the option to pursue the SA approach, and
representatives for two PRPs confirmed that stigma is a significant issue and "all other
things equal" it is better to avoid the NPL label. The representatives from a third PRP
and the investment firm felt that "Superfund" stigma affects both SA approach and NPL
34
-------
sites equally. Findings for Question 1 explore PRP responses to the SA approach from
different perspectives; findings for Question 2 consider the response of communities to
the SA approach.
EVALUATION QUESTION #1: WHAT IS THE RESPONSE OF POTENTIALLY
RESPONSIBLE PARTIES (PRPS) TO THE SUPERFUND ALTERNATIVE APPROACH (SA)?
To obtain different perspectives on PRP response to the SA approach, lEc interviewed a
number of stakeholders with different roles in conducting remediation, including CICs
(who work with many PRPs across numerous sites in the context of community
coordination), RPMs (who manage the remediation process), managers in remediation,
enforcement, and cost recovery (who work with PRPs on developing and implementing
legal agreements) and representatives of specific PRPs who can speak to their own
experience at specific SA approach and NPL sites.
In response to the general question of PRP response to the SA approach, respondents
noted the following:
PRPs generally prefer the SA approach: Most respondents, including PRPs
and CICs in particular, noted that PRPs generally appear to prefer the SA
approach, and consistently enter SA negotiations when given the opportunity.
PRPs in particular cited a "cooperative model" that encourages quicker
negotiations. One PRP noted that the actual SA experience had been frustrating
due to delays, shifts in EPA policy, and changes in site management, but still felt
that the SA approach has promise as a more cooperative model.
Avoiding the "stigma" of an NPL listing is a key concern: Several EPA and
PRP respondents specifically mentioned that PRPs wish to avoid "stigma"
associated with an NPL site. While respondents could not specifically quantify
"stigma," EPA respondents noted concern by PRPs for long-term property values
and redevelopment potential, and PRPs also noted that additional publicity related
to NPL status could complicate remediation efforts.
Limited cost-saving opportunities may also exist for PRPs: Several
respondents (including PRPs) noted that for PRPs or sectors with multiple, similar
sites (e.g., manufactured gas plants), the SA approach may represent an
opportunity to develop a more efficient, consistent approach to addressing
multiple sites.
More detailed answers are presented below, organized by specific sub-question:
35
-------
Evaluation Question 1a) What aspects of the SA approach are appealing or
unappealing to PRPs, and why?
Key responses to this question are as follows:
Avoided Stigma: In response to this question, virtually all EPA stakeholder respondents
identified avoiding "NPL stigma" as a key advantage to SA approach for PRPs and, in
many cases, communities.16 Specifically:
CICs and RPMs noted that communities and PRPs express concern about the need
to maintain property values near a site, and appear to believe that the NPL label
has a negative impact on property values and on site redevelopment potential.
One respondent noted that this is particularly the case when the PRP continues to
have an operating facility at the site.
Two respondents suggested that PRPs are also concerned about national corporate
image, and the definition of NPL "stigma" may include impacts on the firm's
national reputation with customers and shareholders. One RPM noted that
although the SA approach is still "Superfund," a key benefit is that the PRP avoids
having a site on the "list of the worst sites in the country."
Respondents noted that while community residents had different initial reactions
to the potential for NPL listing in different locations, local officials consistently
appear to prefer the SA approach due to the belief that long-term property value
and redevelopment potential would be adversely affected by an NPL listing.17
PRP respondents generally agreed that avoiding stigma is a motivation for using the SA
approach, and concurred with EPA respondents that some local officials are concerned
about redevelopment, though representatives of one PRP note that stigma is less of an
issue than it used to be, and does not differ between NPL and SA approach sites. PRP
respondents also noted that NPL sites historically have had more publicity and can
require more coordination in response. One PRP representative noted that high-profile
sites can affect company reputation and even hiring, if candidates have a negative
perception of the company's record due to contaminated sites. Finally, representatives
from all PRPs noted that participation in the SA approach supports company reputations
as proactive and cooperative, which can have value among company stakeholders.
16 To further examine and measure stigma impacts, lEc consulted the economics literature for empirical information on the
scope of NPL stigma. While the literature documents clear short- and long-term property value impacts associated with
various hazardous sites, no researchers have specifically examined the stigma associated with NPL sites in comparison to
other hazardous sites. This represents a key area of future exploration for EPA in considering options for optimizing
cleanup programs.
17 Respondents explained that most community members appear to identify the site only as "Superfund," though some
communities are concerned that an SA designation means that they may receive fewer resources or less remediation than
an NPL site. Respondents also noted, however, that as communities learn more about the SA approach, these concerns
typically abate. Community reactions to the SA approach are explored more in Question 2.
36
-------
Community representatives agreed that concern for property values is often a significant
issue, and many see an NPL listing as a negative impact on property values. However,
community representatives also noted that property value impacts vary, with parcels near
the sites, particularly in poor areas, often unable to be sold regardless of whether the site
is an NPL or an SA approach site. A representative of an investment firm specializing in
Brownfield sites, however, said that while "Superfund" stigma may exist, investors and
bankers do not typically see a difference between SA approach and NPL sites. More
important to investors and developers is the intended use of the property. While
redevelopment of an industrial site may be relatively straightforward, it requires
additional outreach effort to ensure that a mixed-use or residential redevelopment is
financially successful.
Cooperative Model: All PRP representatives noted that the SA approach seems to be a
more cooperative model for negotiating agreements, though they stressed that the actual
process is identical. They noted, however that the tone of NPL approach typically seems
to be more adversarial than the SA approach, in part because of its formality, and they
perceive the SA approach as supporting more collaborative and effective negotiations.
Representatives of two PRPs noted that the structure of the NPL process is very
effective for sites with large numbers of PRPs where the possibility of EPA
undertaking the cleanup can motivate PRPs to come to agreement about
liabilities, and can provide structure for liability negotiations among PRPs.18
One PRP also suggested that the SA approach might at some point allow for use
of the innovative remediation strategies (e.g., the Triad approach, which
encourages a dynamic site assessment and remediation process), while the
formality of the NPL structure is less flexible.19
Multiple Site Coordination and Efficiencies: In addition to stigma, several respondents
noted that the SA approach might be attractive to PRPs with several similar sites:
Two RPMs cited manufactured gas plants as an example of sites where similarity
of contamination, facility function, and ownership patterns seems to encourage
use of a multi-site strategy that in many cases involves the SA approach. Region
5, for example, has a single SAA agreement that covered multiple sites with
similar ownership and contamination.
18 The representative noted that even PRPs in dispute about assignment of liability typically agree that if EPA takes over the
site, costs will be higher. Therefore the NPL process can be very effective in ensuring agreements for these sites. This
dynamic, though, is absent at sites with a very small number of PRPs and clear liability.
19 For more information on the Triad approach, see http://www.triadcentral.org/, as cited on the CLU-ln program site
(http://www.clu-in.org/greenremediation/subtab_b4.cfm). Overall, the approach implements a dynamic structure for site
assessment and remedy selection that does not typically fit well with the process outlined under CERCLA.
37
-------
One EPA manager, in particular, noted that PRPs with multiple NPL-caliber sites
in different states appear to prefer a consistent, Federal SA approach to
coordinating with multiple state lead agencies or multiple NPL sites.20
o Multiple sites with similar contamination could allow for the
development of a conceptual model with a "presumptive remedy." This
could reduce negotiation costs, particularly if sites are under a single
authority (e.g., EPA rather than agencies in different states).
Though the PRPs interviewed are not in the position to have multiple sites using the SA
approach, one PRP noted that the company has a site using the SA approach in Region 5
and feels that the process has worked well in both regions. Another PRP noted that while
its Region 4 site using the SA approach has taken longer than anticipated, the company
has entered another SAA agreement in a different Region.
Avoided NPL Listing Process: Several respondents noted that a key cost-saving impact
of the SA approach on EPA staff is avoiding the need for a formal NPL listing. However,
they did not generally believe that PRPs would consider this a top concern, since it is
typically an internal EPA process. PRPs did also note that the NPL listing process
lengthens the overall remediation process, though it doesn't have a specific cost. One
PRP noted that avoiding the listing process likely accelerated the site schedule by a year.
Financial Assurance Requirements: While most respondents did not know of any
significant disadvantages of the SA approach to the PRPs, one RPM and one Manager
noted that one unappealing aspect is that the SA approach necessitates additional
financial assurance requirements for PRPs. However, the respondents noted that this
drawback does not seem to dissuade PRPs from using the approach, suggesting that the
advantages of the SA approach outweigh the disadvantages. The PRP representatives
did not identify the additional financial insurance requirements as a problem.
Exhibit 3-1 contains a summary of the key responses to Question 1.
EXHIBIT 3-1: INSIGHTS: ASPECTS OF THE SA APPROACH APPEALING OR UNAPPEALING FOR PRPS
SA APPROACH FEATURE IDENTIFIED
Appealing Features
Avoided stigma
(general)
Property values
(specific stigma)
CICS
3
2
RPMS
2
2
MANAGERS
1
0
PRPS/INVESTORS
3
2
20 One RPM also suggested that the SA approach could provide a model for cleanup of "non-NPL-caliber sites" among PRPs
with multiple sites. For example, Region 4 negotiated multiple cleanups at numerous Exxon Mobile sites in different states
using a model similar to the SA approach. These sites received an MRS score below 28.5, but the PRP was interested in
working with EPA on a voluntary cleanup process for sites in multiple states in Region 4.
38
-------
SA APPROACH FEATURE IDENTIFIED
Potential for redevelopment
(specific stigma)
Cooperative tone
Potential cost savings - multiple sites
Avoided listing costs
Unappealing Features
Financial Assurance requirements
Uncertain recovery of costs from other PRPs
CICS
1
3
0
1
0
0
RPMS
1
1
2
2
1
0
MANAGERS
0
2
1
2
1
0
PRPS/INVESTORS
1
3
2
2 noted time,
but not cost
1
1
In addition to directly identifying aspects of the SA approach that would be appealing or
unappealing to PRPs, respondents addressed a number of other specific questions about
PRP behavior during the SA process.
Do sites using the SA approach tend to have more or less PRP-EPA cooperation
than NPL sites? Most respondents, including PRPs, generally consider PRPs at
sites using the SA approach more cooperative. Several EPA respondents suggested
that a key incentive to cooperate is the "threat" of listing the site on the NPL if the
PRP does not make progress.21 Both EPA and PRP respondents also noted,
however, that cooperation varies widely by PRP at both NPL and SA approach sites,
and similar issues appear to be contentious at both types of sites. Representatives of
one PRP noted that multiple changes in site managers by both EPA and the PRP had
a negative impact on cooperation, but still felt that the process was more
cooperative.
One CIC noted that for both SA approach and NPL sites, PRP cooperation is
sometimes complicated by a lack of clear guidance for PRPs regarding the
community involvement requirements that EPA employs through policy, such as
notification procedures, announcement requirements, and public meeting
requirements. According to the respondent, at both NPL and SA approach sites,
PRPs that interpret guidance to limit community involvement requirements typically
signal a less cooperative process. The respondent felt that clearer documentation of
requirements could improve cooperation at all sites.
What is the perceived speed in cleaning up sites using the SA approach compared
to NPL sites? Several respondents noted that, in general, sites using the SA
approach have the potential to move more quickly at times because motivated PRPs
may move faster in negotiating and conducting cleanup activities. However,
respondents also noted that the similarity of the two processes resulted in similar
21 Two respondents also noted that SA agreements have stipulated penalties, which may encourage cooperation. The
respondents did not specify stipulated penalties in detail, but EPA's option to list the site on the NPL appears to be a key
penalty.
39
-------
time frames, and the time and cost to clean sites frequently varies with specific site
conditions.
Notably, in discussing differences among specific sites, respondents identified key
cost drivers that were not related to SA approach or NPL status, such as the
complexity and cost of contacting residences in the Jacksonville Ash sites to
coordinate residential site remediation.
1b) Do PRPs generally prefer the SA approach over the NPL listing, or vice-versa?
Why or why not?
Responses to this question reiterated that PRPs typically participate in SA negotiations
when given the option, and emphasized that PRPs - and in some cases, communities -
appear to wish to avoid potential stigma associated with NPL listing.
All respondents stressed the similarity of the activities that they undertake in dealing with
PRPs in their respective roles. As a result, while PRP willingness to participate in the SA
approach suggests an advantage, the respondents did not identify significant cost or
schedule advantages associated with the process for PRPs.
Respondents noted that PRPs are typically enthusiastic about the SA approach, using
phrases like "jump at the opportunity." One Manager noted that he had not heard of any
PRP requests to use the NPL approach over the SA approach, indicating that PRPs prefer
the SA approach when it is available. However, PRPs in some cases prove to be
unwilling to cooperate during SA negotiations - this can result in NPL listings.
PRP representatives generally concurred that the SA approach is preferable, though one
representative of a PRP (an attorney) pointed out that the more significant financial
assurance requirements and the TAG requirements should be considered by PRPs, and it
should be the case that stakeholders such as shareholders or the Board of Directors should
agree that the benefits of being perceived as proactive and cooperative outweigh the cost
of these requirements.
In addition to this general question, respondents addressed the following questions:
Who typically suggests the SA approach? Most respondents did not comment
on who suggests the approach, but managers have noted in several discussions
that EPA approaches PRPs and proposes the approach. One RPM noted one
instance where a PRP - Orlando Gasification - approached EPA.
How many times have PRPs suggested the SA approach and EPA refused?
Why was the SA approach not selected? No respondents could identify a site
where EPA refused to negotiate an SAA Agreement, though some negotiations
did not end in agreements. However, EPA staff noted that EPA prefers the NPL
approach when it is not clear that the PRP is financially viable. In addition, one
Manager also emphasized that over the past year Region 4 has become more
reluctant to use the SA approach when there are many unorganized PRPs. EPA
Region 4 prefers to enter the SA approach with a limited number of PRPs or have
40
-------
numerous PRPs form a steering committee or organization for one point of
contact.
Finally, while lEc did not consult state and local government representatives for this
evaluation, one EPA Manager indicated that state directors in Region 4 publicly endorsed
the SA approach when polled by Headquarters staff two years ago.
EVALUATION QUESTION #2: WHAT ARE COMMUNITY MEMBER PERCEPTIONS OF THE
NPL AND SA PROCESSES?
To examine community perceptions of the SA approach, lEc interviewed a range of EPA
staff, including CICs, RPMs, and various managers, as well as community representatives
and PRPs (see Appendix C for a complete list of interviewees). Separately, lEc explored
whether the two approaches differ empirically (e.g., degree of community involvement
and funding, proximity to environmental justice communities). This question includes
several specific sub-questions; some are informed by interviews and some by
examination of key data.
In general, respondents noted that community responses to all aspects of site listing and
remediation vary widely across and within communities. Specific to sites using the SA
approach, respondents noted that many communities do not express a preference for
either the NPL or SA approach. Some prefer the SA approach to avoid the stigma of the
NPL, and others are concerned that the SA approach will produce fewer resources and/or
a less effective cleanup. Overall, however, respondents note that the federal presence at a
"Superfund" site is all that matters to many, and often community members are unaware
of either the "NPL" or "Superfund Alternative Approach" designation. Interviews with
community leaders at the Jacksonville Ash sites and the Anniston site confirmed that the
key concern of most residents is that the EPA remains active in the cleanup. One of the
interviewees - a community leader - was not able to identify whether the sites were NPL
or Superfund Alternative.
CICs noted that while some community members are initially concerned that the SA
approach may not be comparable to listing on the NPL, typically these concerns are
addressed as the sites progress and communities become more familiar with the process.
Two CICs noted that communities tend to be less concerned about the stigma for sites
using the SA approach, while another CIC noted that some communities still consider the
SA approach to be associated with the Superfund stigma.22
More detailed responses to specific sub-questions are provided below.
2a) What is the initial reaction of community members to NPL listing compared to
EPA's decision to use the SAA?
22 Note that as part of interviews with EPA and community respondents were asked about the importance of the public
comment process on NPL listings as a venue for community involvement. Both EPA and community respondents indicated
that generally the comment process is of limited importance to communities, and more frequent and direct personal
contact with EPA and PRP reprsentatives is critical.
41
-------
While respondents emphasized that responses vary across communities and individuals
within the communities, they provided the following insights:
Two CICs noted that some community members are initially concerned that sites
using the SA approach are not given the same "priority" and resources as NPL
sites. Two other CICs noted that typically community members are generally not
concerned about NPL or SA approaches, but local community and political
leaders are sometimes interested in avoiding the NPL, due to concerns about
property values, tax revenues, and development opportunities. One RPM
reiterated that communities often focus on property values and relocation, and
noted that sometimes residents have conflicting concerns, with some concerned
that EPA will "take" their properties, while others want EPA to purchase their
properties and relocate them.
Two RPMs also noted that "most" people at the sites they are familiar with "do
not know the difference" between NPL and SA approach sites; both are
"Superfund." An interview with a community leader at the Jacksonville Ash sites
confirmed this viewpoint.
CICs noted that a key role for EPA is to explain the process to PRPs, and they
stressed that the community involvement process is identical for SA approach and
NPL sites. They explained that a key part of their function at all sites is working
with communities to understand and make use of the process.
Community representatives and PRPs also noted that reaction to an SAA
designation can differ within a community, with community and business leaders
favor the SA approach designation, because they are often worried about long-
term development, property values, and stigma. In contrast, residents in or near
contaminated areas worry more about the pace and extent of cleanup, and are
concerned that the approach chosen will ensure the most effective remediation.
All respondents said that as the remediation process progresses, community
members tend to become more informed confident about the process.
Respondents also considered the following specific process-based questions:
Do community groups more typically ask for NPL listing or prefer the SA
approach? Respondents reiterated that reaction varies across and within
communities. As noted above, community residents tend to vary in preference
while politicians, PRPs, and land developers tend to prefer the SA approach
primarily due to a stated perception that the SA approach preserves an increased
potential for redevelopment. Ultimately, however, one RPM noted that because
"Superfund" shows up on documents in both types of sites, perceptions about
sites are similar.
42
-------
2b) Ultimately, what do available data reveal about the satisfaction of community
members with the SA process and structure compared to the NPL process and
structure?
To address this question, lEc collected information from interviews, and conducted data
collection and analyses exercises to explore whether available information could provide
additional insights.
In general, interview responses to this question stressed that a range of reactions among
communities emerges as sites are examined, and noted that the actions and role of the
PRP are critical.
CICs and community representatives noted that it is difficult to satisfy everyone, but
generally feel that people are more satisfied with both NPL and SA approach sites as they
learn about the process. For example, one CIC noted that the Escambia site is producing
"satisfied customers." The CIC explained that some community members were initially
concerned about the SA approach, but most are now satisfied with the approach. Another
RPM noted that he has not come across any sense of dissatisfaction from communities on
sites using the SA approach, and attributed this in part to the emphasis that Region 4
places on identical community involvement processes for NPL and SA approach sites.
When RPMs noted community dissatisfaction, it typically involved site features unrelated
to NPL or SA approach status. For example, some residents are unhappy about the rate
of progress at the Jacksonville Ash sites, but this is primarily a function of residential
contamination, which requires extensive coordination (e.g., to access and test each
affected property). A community representative from Jacksonville also noted the slow
pace of remediation, but stressed that EPA's presence was important in a contentious
setting.
Does community satisfaction vary throughout the process or is it consistent?
CICs indicated that community support tends to increase over time at all sites as
EPA builds trust and credibility. For example, Anniston's relationship with EPA
and PRP has improved over time and the fact that it was not listed on the NPL
does not currently appear to be a point of discussion for community members.
Community representative responses were generally consistent with CICs, with
fewer questions and complaints as progress on the site becomes evident.
Does community involvement tend to be different at sites using the SA
approach than at NPL sites? All four CICs explained that they use the same
community involvement guidance and strategy for SA approach and NPL sites.
As a result, they believe that opportunities for involvement are comparable.
Different sites/communities require and request varying levels of community
involvement. EPA staff noted that resident concerns appear to be similar across
all sites - ensuring the elimination of residential contamination and exposure,
ensuring the health of community members and their children, and then a
43
-------
secondary concern about development and property value. One CIC noted that
community involvement appears to be more muted at sites where the PRP is still
a local employer and concerns about continued employment may exist.
RPMs noted that Community Involvement should be equal regardless of the
approach because EPA does the same mailings and announcements for both
approaches, with the exception of the Federal Register comment period for the
NPL listing that is not done for sites using the SA approach. One RPM noted
that in his experience, only PRPs typically submit comments, and therefore the
Federal Register comment period does not reflect a significant difference in
community involvement. Other RPMs and CICs also emphasized that the
outreach process is identical for both types of sites.
Community representatives in Anniston and Jacksonville stated that their
outreach and coordination work was generally the same for both NPL and SA
approach sites in those communities, though they noted that residential
contamination of soil presented a specific challenge. One community
representative noted that the PRPs had a strong influence. The NPL PRP (the
U.S. Army) and one of the Anniston PRPs were very proactive and cooperative,
but another PRP had created bad feeling in the community by refusing to involve
residents. The representative was clear that EPA's role was the same across all
instances.
Environmental Justice Analysis: are SA approach sites located in different
demographic areas than NPL sites?
To consider the potential impact of demographics, lEc interviewed EPA staff and
reviewed demographic data for SA approach and NPL sites to examine whether any
differences exist in the approaches used at sites in disadvantaged communities. CICs
noted the following Environmental Justice communities: Anniston, Picayune,
Jacksonville Ash and Kerr McGee in Jacksonville, and IMC Spartanburg, Cabot Koppers
may or may not be an EJ community, Coronet Industries has a portion that is
disadvantaged, but the rest is not.
All four CICs explained that EPA identifies Environmental Justice communities so that
staff can be aware and adjust their approach, if necessary, to effectively communicate
with communities that often have difficult working relationships with government
officials. While EPA often faces additional communication and coordination issues in EJ
communities, the overall process for community involvement is the same. CICs
reiterated that their goal is to meet community needs regardless of the site status.
One CIC explained that for a couple of sites (both SA approach and NPL) it was
necessary to develop relationships with non-governmental community
organizations to ensure that community members were informed about the
remediation process by trusted sources.
44
-------
One CIC indicated that EJ communities often use more TAG and TAP grants, at
both NPL and SA approach sites. The CIC explained that non-EJ sites seem to
leverage resources more easily while EJ sites are just learning about leveraging
and sustainability.
o The CIC also noted that EPA often has to go out and seek leaders in EJ
communities, while other communities may already have associations.
However, that is not always the case. For example, Jacksonville was a
very organized EJ community with existing associations.
One CIC also noted that EJ communities are an emerging Agency priority and
they are responding to the increased focus for SA approach and NPL sites. For
example, Community Involvement Director Freda Lockhart met with the
NAACP on July 7, 2010 because the NAACP would like to have increased
involvement and more of a voice during disasters than was available in recent
administrations.
An interview with a Jacksonville community representative confirmed that the
CIC is considered a critical liaison in the remediation process at that site, which
is in an EJ community. The representative further noted that the relationship
between EPA, the community, and the PRP in Jacksonville has required a
significant effort to overcome initial community distrust and a poor relationship
with the City of Jacksonville (the PRP).
In addition to interview responses, lEc examined whether any pattern exists in the
proximity of NPL and SA approach sites to potential EJ communities with high
concentrations of residents in poverty or in minority groups. Such a pattern would not by
itself indicate differences in site approaches. However, a pattern in the location of
facilities relative to EJ populations might suggest the need for EPA to further examine
community input from these sites to ensure that disadvantaged populations near sites have
effective opportunities to participate in the remediation process.
This screening analysis does not specifically identify "EJ communities," in that it does
not identify communities whose minority or low-income populations are significantly
higher than county or state averages. Instead, we simply identify the proportion of
minority and low income residents within one and three miles of each site, and compare
average populations at NPL and SA approach sites. The purpose is to determine whether
populations around sites using the SA approach are significantly different than those
around NPL sites. Exhibit 3-2 summarizes each of these measures.
The averages for each measure reveal that the populations surrounding SA approach and
NPL sites are generally comparable. While sites using the SA approach appear to have
slightly higher minority and low-income populations, a t-test performed on each measure
reveals no significance.23
!3 A t-test assesses whether the means of two groups are statistically different from each other by comparing the likelihood
that these means came from differing sets of observations drawn from the same sample. A t-test that yields statistical
45
-------
EXHIBIT 3-2: SUMMARY OF DEMOGRAPHICS AT PAIRED SA APPROACH AND NPL SITES
SITE
SA Approach Sites
Admiral Home Appliances
Ecusta Mill
Gurley Pesticide Burial
ITT-Thompson Industries, Inc.
Lyman Dyeing and Finishing
Nocatee Hull Creosote
Sanford Gasification Plant
Sixty-One Industrial Park
Solitron Devices Inc.
Weyerhauser Co. Plymouth Wood
Treating Plant
Average SA Approach Site Values
Brown's Dump*
Jacksonville Ash Site*
NPL Sites
Agrico Chemical Co.
Cabot/Koppers
Diamond Shamrock Corp. Landfill
Harris Corp. (Palm Bay Plant)
Martin-Marietta Sodyeco Inc.**
Olin Corp. (Mclntosh Plant)
Shuron Inc.
Stauffer Chemical Co. (Cold Creek
Plant)
Average NPL Site Values
Hipps Road Landfill*
Average of All Sites
PERCENT OF MINORITY
POPULATION
WITHIN ONE
MILE
52.4
14.2
68.6
56.3
16.6
45.1
58.2
73.9
17.9
13.3
41.7
98.0
94.9
63.3
39.0
18.6
22.2
26.1
83.8
47.5
25.1
40.7
28.3
41.2
WITHIN
THREE MILES
48.2
7.1
45.9
60.9
26.1
42.3
48.2
88.8
18.8
16.4
40.3
86.?
80.2
46.4
39.2
33.9
28.7
18.3
80.9
43.9
23.7
39.4
34.1
39.9
PERCENT OF POPULATION
BELOW POVERTY LINE
WITHIN
ONE MILE
23.1
8.0
32.1
35.5
8.9
24.0
27.1
40.4
10.1
10.0
21.9
28.?
39.0
32.3
23.2
16.3
18.3
11.2
24.4
21.2
13.1
20.0
7.2
21.1
WITHIN THREE
MILES
21.3
8.2
23.6
30.7
11.9
27.4
18.3
41.4
9.9
10.4
20.3
29.?
3?.?
22.6
30.0
19.9
16.1
8.4
23.6
18.3
12.6
18.9
?0.?
19.7
* These sites were not included in the averages shown in this exhibit. While they are well-known EJ
sites and the discussion is relevant here, Brown's Dump and the Jacksonville Ash Site have site features
unrelated to this analysis that prevent a reasonable comparison of these sites with other sites in Region
4 (e.g., a public sector PRP, extensive residential contamination in multiple locations). Similarly, We
excluded the match for these sites, Hipps Road Landfill.
** Martin Marietta Sodyeco was originally included in the matched pairs, but was later replaced by
Leonard due to lack of cost data for actions in the 1980s. This analysis, however, was conducted prior
to the replacement, so we include Martin Marietta Sodyeco as a match for Lyman Dyeing and Finishing.
significance indicates a high probability that the two sets of data did not come from the same sample; a t-test yielding no
statistical significance indicates a very low probability that the data did not come from the same sample.
46
-------
Note that we exclude from the analysis the combined Jacksonville Ash and Brown's
Dump sites, which have a nearby population that is over 90 percent minority and includes
roughly 30 percent of residents under the poverty line. While these sites are in an
identified EJ community, other site features - residential contamination and a public
sector PRP - prevent a reliable match (Hipps Road, the closest match, is a private site
with limited residential contamination). If the Jacksonville sites are included in the
analysis, the apparent percentage of minority communities associated with sites using the
SA approach increases considerably, but the t-test results still indicate a finding of no
significance.
2c) To what extent do communities use technical assistance funding at SA
approach and NPL sites? Is there a difference in funding availability and/or
expenditures for SA approach or NPL sites?
To evaluate whether communities employ technical assistance funding similarly across
SA approach and NPL sites, lEc collected data through interviews and from RODs and
IFMS to determine whether there exists a difference in funding availability and/or
expenditures for technical assistance and general community involvement. lEc also
reviewed Community Involvement Plans, but these provided only a general overview of
technical assistance.
Interview respondents noted that the SAA and NPL community assistance funding
processes are designed to be equivalent. Thus, any differences in technical assistance
should result from unique site situations (e.g., residential contamination), and not the SA
or NPL approach. However, one CIC did note that technical assistance can be available
sooner for NPL sites because the assistance is available upon site proposal for the NPL,
while technical assistance at sites using the SA approach is not available until the SAA
Agreement is signed.
Responses did reflect one area where additional clarity may be useful in applying the SA
approach: additional requests for funding. One CIC noted that Technical Assistance
Plans (TAPs) at sites using the SA approach tend to require more negotiation, and that
unlike Technical Assistance Grant (TAG) provisions at NPL sites, the standard language
for TAPs does not provide for additional requests.24 However, another respondent noted
that communities can request additional TAP funding, and EPA guidance appears to
confirm this.25 This difference in response suggests, however, that clearer information
about funding provisions may be helpful.
24 According to EPA's "Interim Guidance: Providing Communities with Opportunities for Independent Technical Assistance in
Superfund Settlements," a TAP provision within an SA agreement "obligates a potentially responsible party (PRP), at EPA's
request, to arrange at its own expense for a qualified community group to obtain the services of an independent technical
advisor and to share information with others in the community. A TAG, meanwhile, provides funding for activities that help
communities participate in decision-making at eligible Superfund sites.
25 lEc reviewed EPA's "Interim Guidance: Providing Communities with Opportunities for Independent Technical Assistance in
Superfund Settlements" and found that TAP provisions shall state that "Settling Defendants will provide and arrange for any
additional assistance needed if the selected community group demonstrates such a need as provided in the SOW." U.S. EPA,
"Interim Guidance: Providing Communities with Opportunities for Independent Technical Assistance in Superfund
47
-------
Regardless of the approach, one CIC explained that PRPs that are still operating in
communities have more incentive to provide more community outreach and funding.
To determine whether NPL and SA approach site communities differ in the funding they
receive for technical assistance, we examined RODs and EPA IFMS data for information
on funding and expenditures related to community assistance. Exhibit 3-3 provides a
summary of this information.
EXHIBIT 3-3: SUMMARY OF TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE FUNDING AND EXPENDITURES BY SITE
SITE
Admiral Home Appliances
EcustaMill
Gurley Pesticide Burial
ITT Thompson Industries, Inc.
Lyman Dyeing and Finishing
Nocatee Hull Creosote
Sanford Gasification Plant
Sixty-One Industrial Park
Solitron Devices Inc.
Weyerhauser Co. Plymouth Wood
Treating Plant
Brown 's Dump
Jacksonville Ash Site
Agrico Chemical Co.
Cabot/Koppers
Diamond Shamrock Corp. Landfill
Harris Corp. (Palm Bay Plant)
Leonard Chemical Co. Inc.
Olin Corp. (Mclntosh Plant)
Shuron Inc.
SAA/
NPL
SITE
SAA
SAA
SAA
SAA
SAA
SAA
SAA
SAA
SAA
SAA
SAA
SAA
NPL
NPL
NPL
NPL
NPL
NPL
NPL
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
INFORMATION PROVIDED IN ROD
Technical assistance grant
offered, no applications received
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
ROD notes citizens were informed
of existence of TAG, no data on
award
None
North Riverside Community
Association chosen as TAP
community group in January 2000
TAG to Citizens Against Toxic
Exposure in May 1 993
None
None
None
None
None
Existence of opportunity to apply
for a TAG mentioned; no data on
award
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND
COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT
EXPENDITURES PROVIDED IN
IFMS DATA*
Cl (Community involvement
1999-2007: $32,631
Technical assistance 1 993-
2001: "Old TAG," $64,000.
Cl: 2008-2009: $5,650
Cl: 1998-2008: $12,586
Cl: 1999-2008: $14,001
Cl: 2001 -2010: $24,256
Cl: 1999-2009: $8,831
Cl: 1996-2009: $40,142
Cl: 2002-2008: $9,324
Cl: 1997-2005: $9,415
Cl: 1998-2009: $15,330
Technical assistance 2009:
'Technical Assistance,"
$9,000
Cl: 1999:2010. $60^81
Cl: 2000-2010: $47,663
None
Cl: 2001 -2003: $12,082
None
Cl: 1996-2009: $2,962
Cl: 2000-2003: $10,741
Cl: 1997-2007: $10,054
Technical assistance 1 996-
2008: "TAG," $135,000
Technical assistance 1 993-
2006: "Old TAG," $50,000
Cl: 1996-2006: $3,002
Settlements," 2009. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/cleanup/superfund/interim-tap-sf-
settle-mem.pdf
48
-------
SITE
Stauffer Chemical Co. (Cold
Creek Plant)
Hipps Road Landfill
SAA/
NPL
SITE
NPL
NPL
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
INFORMATION PROVIDED IN ROD
None
None
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND
COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT
EXPENDITURES PROVIDED IN
IFMS DATA*
Cl: 1997-1999: $1,889
Technical assistance 1 993-
1998: "Old TAG," obligations
but no expenditures.
As Exhibit 3-3 illustrates, specific data on funds awarded to communities in the RODs
and IFMS data are sparse. Of the 21 sites in our pairings, only seven had data on specific
technical assistance expenditures either in their ROD, the IFMS data, or both. General
"community involvement" expenditures provide an indication of community
involvement, but likely include costs that are not distributed directly to communities.
Furthermore, no actions with the "community involvement" code appear in the IFMS
data for years prior to 1996. We are therefore unable to fully examine differences
between funding for technical assistance and other activities between SA approach and
NPL sites.
The available data do provide several insights, however. First, of the five sites with ROD
data on technical assistance, only two note that grants were distributed; in one case, the
ROD (for Admiral Home Appliances) notes that EPA received no applications for an
available grant. Thus, the limited ROD data suggest that communities do not consistently
request or use technical assistance funding at neither SA approach nor NPL sites.
We also attempted to examine the data on community involvement expenditures in the
context of the environmental justice locations analysis illustrated in Exhibit 3-2. We find
that when Brown's Dump, Jacksonville Ash Site, and Hipps Road Landfill are excluded
from the analysis due to their high percentages of nearby minority populations or nearby
populations below the poverty line, there is very little correlation between a site's
community involvement expenditures and the percentage of its population within one or
three miles that is either below the poverty line or is made up of minorities. However,
while not statistically significant, sites with high percentages of nearby minority
populations or nearby populations below the poverty line have higher expenditures on
community involvement.
Note that this screening assessment is limited to readily available summary data, and is
limited in its conclusions. However, EPA has conducted a separate and more detailed
internal analysis using more complete information on TAGs and a review of specific PRP
commitments on TAPs. This analysis also concludes that the percentage of communities
receiving grants at both SA approach and NPL sites is similar (roughly 10 to 20 percent)
and that the median grant amount for both types of site is roughly $50,000. While the
more detailed analysis is also preliminary and internal, it's results generally confirm the
49
-------
finding that community involvement expenditures do not differ significantly between SA
approach and NPL sites.26
EVALUATION PURPOSE #2: ASSESS THE EFFECTIVENESS OF
THE SA APPROACH IN ACHIEVING THE GOALS OF THE
SUPERFUND PROGRAM
The Superfund program aims to protect human health and the environment as well as
ensure long-term protectiveness of the remedies selected in the remediation process. If
the SA approach is equally effective as the NPL at achieving this goal, then sites with
SAA agreements should use remedies equivalent to those used at NPL sites. While both
the NPL and SA approaches are protective of human health, this evaluation examines
whether unrestricted use and redevelopment patterns appear to differ among NPL and SA
approach sites. The following evaluation questions attempt to characterize effectiveness
in this context:
Evaluation Question #3 uses a screening level indicator analysis to explore
whether a pattern of difference exists in remedies selected for sites using the
SA approach as compared to their NPL counterparts. The indicators include
o Examining whether remedies that remove all contamination and
those that leave contamination in place differ at paired sites;
o Examining whether sites using the SA approach appear to result in
unrestricted use at the same frequency as NPL sites.
Evaluation Question #4: Investigates whether the reuse/redevelopment
potential for sites using the SA approach differs from that of counterpart NPL
sites.
Taken together, the indicators examined in Evaluation Questions #3 and #4 consider the
SA approach effectiveness across each of the near-term (remedy selection, Evaluation
Question #3), the medium-term (potential for unrestricted use as a result of the remedy,
Evaluation Question #3), and the long-term (future reuse and redevelopment, Evaluation
Question #4). To address these questions, lEc examined CERCLIS data and Superfund
records and ROD data on remedies selected, institutional controls, current site use, and
projected future use. lEc also used interviews to gather perspectives on the differences in
potential reuse or redevelopment at SA approach and NPL sites.
The effectiveness discussion here is screening-level and based on summary data. As
such, only a clear pattern of differences across all three indicators would likely suggest a
systematic difference in approach between SA approach and NPL sites.
Michael Northridge, internal memo to Nancy Browne, October 4, 2010.
50
-------
EVALUATION QUESTION #3: DOES A PATTERN OF DIFFERENCE EXIST IN THE
SPECIFIC REMEDIES SELECTED FOR SITES USING THE SAA?
This evaluation question discusses the overall effectiveness of the SA approach in
achieving the goals of the Superfund program by examining two indicators:
Whether sites with SAA agreements employ remedies that differ from those at
paired NPL sites in the extent to which contamination is removed;
Whether remedies used at sites with SAA agreements result in unrestricted use
with a frequency different from that of similar sites listed on the NPL.
To evaluate these differences, lEc examined summary information describing selected
remedies in RODs and CERCLIS. Removal of contamination and unrestricted use
designations are not, in isolation, indicators of "better" remediation. Rather, a strong
pattern of differences among remedies and use designations at NPL and SA approach
sites could indicate that the approaches are not equivalent.
3a) Do sites with SAA agreements use capping remedies, institutional controls, or
other remedies that mitigate risk but do not remove all contamination more
frequently or less frequently than similar sites listed on the NPL?
To determine whether remedies that do not remove all contamination are implemented
with varying frequency between SA approach and NPL sites, lEc reviewed RODs and
site summary data for paired sites. The ROD provides the public documentation of the
remedy selected for site cleanup and provides a consistent source of information on site
remedies. In addition, because the sites using the SA approach have not yet completed
remedial actions, CERCLIS data on remedies for these sites may be incomplete, and the
ROD presents the best description of the remedy that will be implemented at each site.
Site RODs contain information on remedies for addressing contamination. To interpret
the data systematically across site pairings, we considered remedy information in two
categories: soil remedies and groundwater remedies. Although specific remedies
identified vary widely, we sorted information in the RODs into two screening-level
categories as follows:
Remedies that suggest that contamination remains in place, such as caps slurry
walls natural attenuation, and
Remedies that indicate contamination removal.
lEc's initial comparison of the sites revealed that in five of 11 pairs, both sites have
similar remedies or data are not complete.27 In five of the six remaining sites, ROD data
suggest that NPL sites appear to involve contaminant removal to a greater extent than
remedies identified for the sites using the SA approach, though in some cases both sites
note continued monitoring. Exhibit 3-4 summarizes the results of this analysis, and
27Ecusta Mill had a significant time-critical removal action that did physically remove contamination, but that action is not
described in the ROD and is not included here.
51
-------
Appendix E provides more detailed summary information from the ROD that is used in
Exhibit 3-4.
EXHIBIT 3-4. INITIAL COMPARISON OF REMEDIES IDENTIFIED IN RODS FOR EACH PAIR OF SITES
PAIR
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1
J
K
SITE
Admiral Home
Appliances
Shuron Inc.
Gurley Pesticide
Burial
Agrico Chemical
Co.
Nocatee Hull
Creosote
Cabot/Koppers
Sanford
Gasification Plant
Cabot/Koppers
Sixty-One
Industrial Park
Diamond
Shamrock Corp.
Landfill
Ecusta Mill
Olin Corp.
(Mclntosh Plant)
ITT-Thompson
Industries, Inc.
Harris Corp. (Palm
Bay Plant)
Solitron Devices
Inc.
Harris Corp. (Palm
Bay Plant)
Lyman Dyeing and
Finishing
Leonard Chemical
Co. Inc.
Weyerhauser Co.
Plymouth Wood
Treating Plant
Stauffer Chemical
Co. (Cold Creek
Plant)
Brown's Dump
Jacksonville Ash
Site
SAA/NPL
SAA
NPL
SAA
NPL
SAA
NPL
SAA
NPL
SAA
NPL
SAA
NPL
SAA
NPL
SAA
NPL
SAA
NPL
SAA
NPL
SAA
SAA
TYPE OF REMEDY
RELATED TO SOIL
Contamination
removal
Unclear
Unclear
Contamination left
in place
Contamination left
in place
Contamination
removal
Contamination
removal
Contamination
removal
No information
provided
No information
provided
TYPE OF REMEDY
RELATED TO
GROUNDWATER
Contamination left in
place
Possible
contamination left in
place
Contamination
removal
Contamination left in
place
Contamination left in
place
Contamination
removal
Contamination left in
place
Contamination
removal
Contamination left in
place
Contamination left in
place
No information provided - no action necessary
Contamination left
in place
Contamination
removal
No information
provided
Contamination
removal
No information
provided
Contamination left
in place
Contamination
removal
Contamination left
in place
Contamination left
in place
Contamination
removal
Contamination
removal
Contamination left in
place
Contamination left in
place
Contamination
removal
Contamination
removal
Contamination
removal
Contamination left in
place
Contamination left in
place
Contamination left in
place
Contamination left in
place
Contamination left in
place
Contamination left in
place
SITE WITH REMEDY
WITH GREATER FOCUS
ON CONTAMINATION
REMOVAL
Unclear - NPL
SAA
NPL
NPL
Neither - both leave
contamination in place
Unclear
Unclear - NPL
Neither - both remove
contamination
NPL
Neither - both leave
contamination in place
Neither - both leave
contamination in place
52
-------
PAIR
SITE
Hipps Road
Landfill
SAA/NPL
NPL
TYPE OF REMEDY
RELATED TO SOIL
Contamination left
in place
TYPE OF REMEDY
RELATED TO
GROUNDWATER
Contamination left in
place
SITE WITH REMEDY
WITH GREATER FOCUS
ON CONTAMINATION
REMOVAL
As an additional step, lEc and EPA reviewed the screening methodology and site data to
attempt to provide more insight into possible reasons for the difference in emphasis on
removal of contamination. The review of the methodology concluded the following:
While the screening approach and examination of remedies was appropriate,
the actual data available are not complete enough to provide any conclusive
comparative analysis of remedies. A complete analysis would require
consideration of:
o Timing of remedy selection and advances in the effectiveness of in
situ treatment. Paired sites may reflect remedies selected at
different times; newer in situ technologies may not have been
available at some sites and may be superior to off-site treatment.
o Contaminant concentrations. Without information about the
concentration of contaminants the effectiveness of on-site and off-
site remedies is difficult to compare.
o Site features (e.g., hydrology or geology) that may limit selection
of remedies.
Finally, the review noted that the most appropriate point for comparison is
after completion of remedial actions. Data available for sites with SAA
agreements, in particular, are preliminary and may not reflect final remedies.
The review concluded that due to data limitations, lEc's initial screen did not provide a
meaningful comparison of site remedies, though a more detailed comparative analysis of
remedies may be useful. Also, the results of the remedy screening assessment do not, in
isolation, suggest that NPL and SA approach sites differ in effectiveness. Given the
limited conclusions that can be drawn from this screening assessment, it is important to
consider whether the comparison of paired sites reveals differences in the unrestricted use
and redevelopment of sites.28
28 .A detailed assessment of remedies (including target concentrations, extent of contamination, and other technical details)
would be necessary to fully assess the differences in selected remedies, but is beyond the scope of this assessment. This
screening analysis makes no distinction, for example, between natural attenuation of a small area with limited
contamination and a large cap over extensive soil contamination.
53
-------
3b) Do data suggest that SAA remedies are comparable to remedies used for
similar sites listed on the NPL (e.g. Do sites using the SA approach involve greater
or fewer remedies resulting in unrestricted use?)
lEc's assessment of the effectiveness of remedies selected at similar SA approach and
NPL sites at meeting Superfund program goals also examines institutional controls
implemented at sites.29 Specifically, we identify two types of institutional controls:
Short-term institutional controls, such as fencing or temporary relocation, which
may be necessary during site remediation but do not indicate whether some
contaminants will remain after cleanup is complete;
Indefinite institutional controls, such as restrictive covenants and
land/groundwater use restrictions, which provide some indication that the site may
have restricted use for a period of time even after most or all active cleanup is
complete. In some cases these institutional controls involve only use of
groundwater and may not affect land use or redevelopment options if, for
example, the site has access to other water supplies. In other cases, the use
restrictions are not fully specified (e.g, "restrictive covenants").
By reviewing indefinite institutional controls at paired sites we can summarize whether
remedies at sites using the SA approach may result in unrestricted use at a different
frequency than remedies at similar NPL sites. Exhibit 3-5 summarizes all reuse data for
the paired sites, including a summary of institutional controls data from RODs.
29 In addition to examining remedy data in RODs, we also examined Superfund site progress profiles to identify whether sites
have achieved "human exposures under control" However, this measure is provided only for NPL sites. All NPL sites in our
same except Cabot/Koppers, have achieved "Human Exposures Under Control."
54
-------
EXHIBIT 3-5: SUMMARY OF REUSE AND/OR REDEVELOPMENT INFORMATION
PAIR
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
SITE
Admiral Home
Appliances
Shuron Inc.
Gurley
Pesticide
Burial
Agrico
Chemical Co.
Nocatee Hull
Creosote
Cabot/
Koppers
Sanford
Gasification
Plant
Cabot/
Koppers
Sixty-One
Industrial Park
Diamond
Shamrock
Corp. Landfill
Ecusta Mill
Olin Corp.
(Mclntosh
Plant)
ITT-Thompson
Industries,
Inc.
Harris Corp.
(Palm Bay
Plant)
Solitron
Devices Inc.
Harris Corp.
(Palm Bay
Plant)
SAA/
NPL
SAA
NPL
SAA
NPL
SAA
NPL
SAA
NPL
SAA
NPL
SAA
NPL
SAA
NPL
SAA
NPL
CURRENTLY
OPERATING?
Yes-
Industrial use
No
No
No
No
Yes-
Industrial use
No
Yes-
Industrial use
Yes
No
No
Yes-
Industrial use
No
Yes-
Industrial use
Yes-
Commercial/li
ght industrial
use
Yes-
Industrial use
POTENTIAL FUTURE USE
No additional information
provided
Potential for commercial/ light
industrial future use
Potential for commercial/
industrial future use
Zoned for industrial use/
potential recreational use
Future use varies depending on
area, each of residential,
commercial, industrial allowed in
one or more areas
Commercial re-use
Restricted industrial and
commercial zoning
Commercial re-use
CERCLIS Online Site Profile:
Potential for commercial/ light
industrial future use
ROD: Zoned for heavy industrial
use only
Achieved site-wide ready for
anticipated use in 2006
Planned mixed -use
commercial/ residential
development for future use
No additional information
provided
CERCLIS Online Site Profile:
Potential for commercial/ light
industrial future use
ROD: Possible restriction to light
industrial or commercial use; if
not possible, residential use
assumed
Achieved site-wide ready for
anticipated use in 2009
Zoned for commercial/industrial
use, "no pull towards residential
use of the site"
Achieved site-wide ready for
anticipated use in 2009
LONG-TERM INSTITUTIONAL
CONTROLS
No: No institutional controls
No: No institutional controls
Yes: Controls limiting future use of
site and groundwater
Yes: For OU #01 , security fencing,
access & deed restrictions; for OU
#02, restrictions on access to new
wells.
Yes: Prohibition of residential use
and extraction of soil or water
Yes: Restrictions on land use
Possible: For OU #02, creation of
Groundwater Use Advisory Zone; for
OU #03, controls may include use of
various zoning and/or land use
restrictions and permit requirements
Yes: Restrictions on land use
Yes: Groundwater use restrictions,
restrictive covenants
Yes: Fencing, deed
restrictions/ restrictive covenants to
prevent drilling and usage of
groundwater
No: No institutional controls
Yes: Restrictions on land and
groundwater use
Possible: Controls to ensure that
future site use is appropriate given
site conditions
No: No institutional controls
No: No institutional controls
No: No institutional controls
55
-------
PAIR
1
J
K
SITE
Lyman Dyeing
and Finishing
Leonard
Chemical Co.
Inc.
Weyerhauser
Co. Plymouth
Wood Treating
Plant
Stauffer
Chemical Co.
(Cold Creek
Plant)
Brown's Dump
Jacksonville
Ash Site
Hipps Road
Landfill
SAA/
NPL
SAA
NPL
SAA
NPL
SAA
SAA
NPL
CURRENTLY
OPERATING?
No
No
Yes-
Industrial use
Yes-
Industrial use
No
No
No
information
provided
POTENTIAL FUTURE USE
CERCLIS Online Site Profile:
Potential for commercial/ light
industrial future use
ROD: Site is part of larger
industrial complex, currently
vacant land, expected to remain
undeveloped
CERCLIS Online Site Profile:
Potential for industrial/
residential reuse
ROD: Zoned as a rural
development district, which
prohibits industrial/ commercial
use, future residential
development will likely be
limited
No additional information
provided
No additional information
provided
Future residential, commercial,
or industrial use possible, site is
in residential area
Current residential, recreational,
and commercial use, future light
industrial/commercial use to
buffer residential area.
No information provided
LONG-TERM INSTITUTIONAL
CONTROLS
Yes: Restrictive covenants
implemented as a result of previous
removal action
No: Temporary restrictions on well
installations and residential
development, fencing
Yes: For OU #01 , restrictions on
groundwater use; for OU #02, Fish
Consumption Advisory; for OU #03,
restrictions on land and groundwater
use; for OU #04, efforts to limit fish
consumption, maintenance of
fencing and sand cap, deed
restrictions limiting land
development
No additional information provided
No: Temporary relocation of eligible
residents, other controls to limit
exposure
No: Temporary relocation of eligible
residents, other controls to limit
exposure, such as fencing
Possible: May include fencing,
prohibition of well drilling, land use
restrictions, grouting private wells,
public/PRP land acquisition, or other
Exhibit 3-5 illustrates that seven of the 21 sites have no institutional controls. This
includes three SA approach sites and four NPL sites, although one SA approach site is
Ecusta Mill, which has only a no-action ROD completed. An additional six sites have
ROD data that suggest only temporary institutional controls, or it is not clear which
institutional controls will be implemented, if any. Exhibit 3-6 summarizes differences
across site pairs.
56
-------
EXHIBIT 3-6: SITES WITH POTENTIAL FOR UNRESTRICTED USE
PAIR
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1
J
K
SITE(S) WITHOUT LONG-TERM INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS
Admiral Home Appliances (SA approach site): No
institutional controls
Shuron Inc. (NPL site): No institutional controls
Gurley Pesticide Burial (SA approach site): Long-term
institutional controls
Agrico Chemical Co. (NPL site): Long-term
institutional controls
Nocatee Hull Creosote (SA approach site): Long-term
institutional controls
Cabot/Koppers (NPL site): Long-term institutional
controls
Sanford Gasification Plant (SA approach site): May or
may not include long-term institutional controls
Cabot/Koppers (NPL site): Long-term institutional
controls
Sixty-One Industrial Park (SA approach site): Long-
term institutional controls
Diamond Shamrock Corp. Landfill (NPL site): Long-
term institutional controls
Ecusta Mill (SA approach site): No institutional
controls (no action ROD)
Olin Corp. (Mclntosh Plant) (NPL site): Long-term
institutional controls
ITT-Thompson Industries Inc. (SA approach site): May
or may not include long-term institutional controls
Harris Corp. (Palm Bay Plant) (NPL site): No
institutional controls
Solitron Devices Inc. (SA approach site): No
institutional controls
Harris Corp. (Palm Bay Plant) (NPL site): No
institutional controls
Lyman Dyeing and Finishing (SA approach site): Long-
term institutional controls
Leonard Chemical Co. Inc. (NPL site): Temporary
institutional controls only
Weyerhauser Co. Plymouth Wood Treating Plant (SA
approach site): Long-term institutional controls
Stauffer Chemical Co. (Cold Creek Plant) (NPL site):
No institutional controls
Brown's Dump (SA approach site): Temporary
institutional controls only
Jacksonville Ash Site (SA approach site): Temporary
institutional controls only
Hipps Road Landfill (NPL site): May or may not include
long-term institutional controls
SITE IN PAIRING LIKELY TO
RESULT IN UNRESTRICTED USE
Both
Neither
Neither
SA approach site (Only if
Sanford Gasification Plant does
not implement long-term
institutional controls)
Neither
SA approach site (only if other
RODs do not implement
institutional controls)
Both (NPL site only if ITT-
Thompson Industries Inc.
implements long-term
institutional controls)
NPL site
NPL site
Both (possibly SA approach site
only if Hipps Road Landfill
implements long-term
institutional controls)
As Exhibit 3-6 illustrates, five site pairs have similar options for future use, including
three (B, C, and E) in which both sites have long-term institutional controls and two (A
and H) where both sites have no long-term institutional controls.
Of the remaining six site pairs, results are evenly distributed. In two pairs (I and J) only
the NPL site has no long-term institutional controls. In two others (D and F), only the SA
approach site has no long term institutional controls. At the final two sites, (G and K) it
57
-------
is possible that neither site has long-term institutional controls, though it is also possible
that one NPL and one SA approach site will implement long-term institutional controls.
These data suggest that sites using the SA approach do not differ from NPL sites in use of
long-term institutional controls.
Overall, data on the effectiveness of remedies at SA approach and NPL sites are mixed;
NPL sites in the sample appear to employ more contaminant removal technologies than
paired sites using the SA approach, but long-term restrictions on use indicated by
institutional controls appear to be similar across sites. We emphasize that both the
remedy and institutional control analyses are screening-level efforts using available
summary data. To fully examine the effectiveness of remedies it would be necessary to
collect specific data such as target contaminant levels, project timeframes, and specific
institutional controls.
EVALUATION QUESTION #4: ARE SITES WITH SAA AGREEMENTS REUSED OR
REDEVELOPED MORE QUICKLY THAN SITES LISTED ON THE NPL? IF SO, DOES THE
EVIDENCE SUGGEST WHY?
As stated in the introduction, this evaluation question investigates whether sites using the
SA approach and NPL sites differ in their potential for reuse and/or redevelopment. We
examine this question using interview responses and reuse and redevelopment data
contained in RODs and in the NPL site summary section of EPA Region 4's website.30
This section first describes the kinds of qualitative information available via these data
sources, and then summarizes site reuse and/or redevelopment data for each site.
Information on reuse and/or redevelopment is not available within all site RODs: ten sites
using the SA approach have RODs with information on potential future use or
redevelopment, but no NPL RODs include this information. We therefore supplemented
ROD data with data from online site summary profiles. Ultimately, one SA approach and
one NPL site have no data available from either source. The Hipps Road Landfill NPL
site has no redevelopment information available from either source. Exhibit 3-5 above
summarizes the available reuse and/or redevelopment information provided by these two
data sources.
We considered two metrics for evaluating the potential for reuse.31 One approach is to
examine whether residential use is a potential option. Of the paired sites, four sites using
the SA approach identify residential use as a current or future option; in contrast, no NPL
sites identify residential use as a future use. However, as Exhibit 3-5 shows, two of the
sites using the SA approach anticipating residential future use, Ecusta Mill and Nocatee
See the listing of Region 4 Superfund sites at http://www.epa.gov/region4/waste/npl/index.htm. Information on
reuse/redevelopment for each specific site is available by clicking on the name of any site and looking at the
"reuse/redevelopment" line of the "Site Summary Profile" display.
31 Future recreational use was also considered as a benchmark. However, only one site, Agrico Chemical Co., may have
exclusively recreational future use, and our research indicates that the site is currently vacant and fenced to prevent
exposure to the contamination under a capping system.
58
-------
Hull Creosote, are paired with NPL sites that are currently operating as industrial
facilities, and therefore no change in use is considered. The other two sites with future
residential use are Brown's Dump and the Jacksonville Ash Site, which are unique in that
they involve residential contamination and must remediate for residential use. We
therefore conclude that no clear pattern of future residential use options differentiates the
SA approach sites from the NPL sites in our sample.
A second method for comparing site reuse/redevelopment potential is to compare the
breadth of potential future uses and residual contamination across pairs. As Exhibit 3-5
shows, three of 11 site pairs (A, H, J) feature sites that have virtually no difference in
their current and potential future uses, and another (B) differs only to the extent that the
NPL site, Agrico Chemical Co., has a potential recreational use in addition to potential
industrial use of the premises. By examining whether contamination was removed at the
site, as described in Exhibit 3-4, we can further conclude that the sites in pairs E and I do
not widely differ in terms of future potential uses because the remedies both will continue
to have on-site contamination. For six of 11 total site pairs, then, we do not identify any
substantial difference in future use potential between paired sites.
Of the remaining pairs, four (C, D, F, and G) have NPL sites with remedies that
emphasize contaminant removal, while the remedies at the counterpart SA approach sites
do not. While the NPL sites in these four pairs may theoretically have broader reuse
potential, in reality all of these sites are currently in active industrial use and unlikely to
change. Finally, the sites in pair K are located in a residential area and will have to
undergo a cleanup appropriate to residential standards, but we have no data on their NPL
pair, the Hipps Road Landfill.
When we consider future use potential as a function of whether all contamination was
removed from the site, we find that in over a third of our pairings, NPL sites may have a
broader potential for future use due to their remedies removing all contamination more
often than their SA approach counterparts.32 This is consistent with our findings under
Evaluation Question #3. However, because all of those sites are active industrial
facilities this distinction is unlikely to result in any practical difference in redevelopment
potential.
We conclude from ROD and site summary data that the differences between NPL and SA
approach sites are limited, with a weak indication that NPL sites may have slightly higher
potential for reuse due to their remedy emphasis on contaminant removal. Interview data,
however, provide a different perspective.
Generally, interview respondents noted that while no sites using the SA approach have
achieved reuse or redevelopment at this stage, it is generally believed that sites using the
SA approach may be easier to redevelop because they do not suffer from stigma
32 However, there are only two NPL sites, Cabot/Koppers and Harris Corp. (Palm Bay Plant) across these four pairings. Both of
these sites are continuing to operate in an industrial capacity while their remedies remove all contamination from the site.
The pattern we identify is evident solely because of the future use potential and remedies of two of 10 NPL sites within our
pairs.
59
-------
associated with the NPL. For example, the soil work is complete at Gurley Pesticide and
a prospective purchaser agreement has been signed to allow owners to use the property
and protect themselves since they are not the PRP. An RPM noted that this third-party
arrangement may be more attractive if the site is not an NPL site. Finally, one RPM
explained that redevelopment does not come into play for remedy selection, but EPA tries
to keep any known potential uses in mind regardless of SA or NPL approach.
Overall, our comparison of the potential effectiveness of remedies at SA approach and
NPL sites suggests that while remedies selected at sample sites differ to a degree, the
overall projected pattern of use and development on the sample sites is fairly similar.
Overall, we do not see clear patterns of difference between SA approach and NPL sites
across all indicators, suggesting that the two approaches are roughly similar in their
effectiveness as defined here.
EVALUATION PURPOSE #3: ASSESS THE EFFICIENCY OF THE
SA APPROACH IN TERMS OF POTENTIAL TIME AND COST
SAVINGS
This section examines the relative efficiency of the SA approach in two ways:
o The potential for the SA approach to reduce the time necessary for sites to
progress through certain steps of the remediation process; and
o The potential for the SA approach to reduce expenditures incurred by EPA (for
example, sites using the SA approach may reduce costs associated with NPL
listing process).
EVALUATION QUESTION #5: WHAT ARE THE COST AND TIME DIFFERENCES OF THE
SA AND NPL APPROACHES FOR BOTH EPA AND PRPS
lEc analyzed CERCLIS and IFMS data to review the time and costs associated with
action completed through the ROD:
o To examine the time differences between paired sites, lEc calculated average
times reported to complete key pre-ROD actions and compared them across
pairings. lEc also examined the overall average times to complete actions across
all paired sites.
o To examine the cost differences between paired sites, lEc calculated
expenditures, adjusted for inflation, through the ROD for each site and compared
these expenditures across pairings.
o lEc also conducted interviews with EPA staff to support and expand upon results
from analyzing CERCLIS and IFMS data to answer Evaluation Question 5.
In the initial methodology, lEc outlined an assessment of costs and time to complete three
specific stages of site operation, including initial site discovery and assessment, remedial
investigation, and remedial design and action. However, because the sites using the SA
approach we examine have not yet completed their remedial action stages (i.e., have not
60
-------
achieved construction complete), our analysis focuses primarily on the time and costs
associated with the planning stages (site discovery through ROD publication) for paired
sites.
Because this evaluation relies on available data in CERCLIS and IFMS, the evaluation of
these two aspects of SA approach site operations is limited to data and metrics that are
collected by EPA. Therefore, the cost and time assessments focus on EPA resources and
records, and do not address cost and time savings that may accrue to PRPs.
Analysis of Time Differences
The analysis of time differences between NPL and SA approach sites examines the time
required to complete several specific activities that occur between site discovery and
ROD publication. In addition, at sites that have complete remedial design (RD) and
remedial action (RA) activities, we examine the time required to complete related actions.
We note that the most obvious measure of time - from "beginning of site activity" to
ROD publication, remains elusive due to historical site activity patterns and CERCLIS
data limitations. First, the date of site discovery is not a meaningful estimate for the
beginning of site remediation activities, because many SA approach and NPL sites were
discovered in the late 1970s and then experienced long periods of "dormancy" before any
action was taken. lEc examined alternative actions, such as publication of notice letters
that could reasonably indicate the start of site assessment activities, but CERCLIS fields
did not provide consistent data for NPL and SA approach sites, and tracking of site
assessment activities has changed overtime.33
In the absence of a reliable "start date" for actions at sites, lEc's analysis is limited to
examining the time required to complete specific pipeline actions. Exhibit 3-7 notes key
actions in the early part of site remediation, and identifies the actions that we examined.
Actions examined include:
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) Negotiations: these
negotiations frame the scope and method for assessing site contamination and
developing remedy options to support the ROD. RI/FS negotiations may address
a single OU or multiple OUs.
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study: the RI/FS includes a detailed
assessment of site contamination and development of technology options for
addressing the contamination.
Consent Decrees: consent decrees are negotiated agreements that govern the
implementation of remedial actions and also site management activities such as
33 Based on input from Region 4, lEc also examined using the AOC start date or the date of the Notice Letter(s) Issued as a
starting point. However, the AOC data in CERCLIS includes only the end publication date, and the Notice Letter field is not
filled in for sites with SAA agreements.
61
-------
cost recovery. Consent decrees can address site-wide activities, OU-related
activities, or specific actions.34
Remedial Design/Remedial Action (RD/RA) Negotiations: these negotiations
develop implementation agreements for specific remediation actions as outlined
in the RODs. RD/RA negotiations may address a single OU or multiple OUs.
Remedial Design/Remedial Actions: these actions implement the remediation
process, and are typically performed at the OU level. In some cases multiple
RAs can happen at one OU.
To evaluate the potential difference in timing of the actions identified above, lEc
reviewed the amount of time to complete actions at each site and then compared the
performance of paired sites, as well as the mean and median time estimates for all sites in
the sample (Exhibit 3-7).
EXHIBIT 3-7: AVERAGE NUMBER OF DAYS TO COMPLETE ACTIONS AT PAIRED SITES
Total Pairs8
Faster SAA Pairs
Faster NPL Pairs
Average SAA Days
(mean)c
Average NPL Days
(mean) D
Average SAA Days
(median)
Average NPL days
(median)
CONSENT
DECREE*
2
2
0
129
443
133
175
RI/FS
NEGOTIATION*
8
5
3
285
341
217
175
RI/FS*
9
3
6
2,432
1.796
2,194
1.509
RD/RA
NEGOTIATION*
6
3
3
198
539
211
207
RD*
3
1
2
720
841
762
719
RA*
1
1
0
463
827
463
992
A. All of these actions may occur at sitewide or OU level. Results in this table are averaged across OUs where
appropriate to calculate site-wide average estimates.
B. This row reflects the number of pairs that had start and end dates for both the SA approach and NPL
paired sites.
C. Average SAA days reflects the average number of days to complete actions across all SA approach sites
that reported start and end dates for actions (sum of actions divided by the number of actions). Note: data in
this column are not limited to sites that also had a paired site with data.
D. Average NPL days reflects the average number of days to complete actions across all NPL sites that
reported start and end dates for actions (sum of actions divided by the number of actions). Note: data in this
column are not limited to sites that also had a paired site with data.
As Exhibit 3-7 illustrates, timing of different actions varies significantly across sites, and
the small number of sites examined limits the strength of conclusions that can be drawn.
In general, however, it appears that sites using the SA approach have a mixed
performance compared with NPL sites for the five actions examined. NPL sites clearly
34 We could not examine Administrative Orders on Consent using CERCLIS because the database fields include only an end-
date for this action.
62
-------
appear to complete the RI/FS stage faster than SA approach sites in the sample, with six
of nine pairs having better NPL performance, and both median and mean RI/FS values
favoring the NPL sites. See Appendix F for a detailed summary of site specific data and
the assumptions and calculations used to derive site-wide average values for each action.
In contrast, sites using the SA approach appear to be associated with shorter consent
decree negotiations, and appear to be comparable with NPL sites in completing RI/FS and
RD/RA negotiations. For both of these actions, the difference between mean and median
illustrates the variability of the underlying data. Among the very small number of RDs
and RAs completed at sites using the SA approach, these sites appear to complete actions
more quickly, but it is not possible to draw any clear conclusion from the limited data.
The results of this analysis suggest that it would be useful to revisit SA approach site
performance when more sites have completed remedial actions. Preliminary indications,
consistent with input from interviews, are that the process for both types of sites is
similar, and large differences in timing more likely reflect specific site conditions than
SAA or NPL status. Results also loosely support interview respondent input that the SA
approach may encourage more rapid negotiations, though results are not conclusive.
Finally, it is also possible that sites using the SA approach could involve fewer
negotiations, which could save time and resources. A more detailed assessment of the
course of negotiations at specific sites would be necessary to provide insights on this
potential dynamic.
In addition to the actions above, lEc examined the average time between NPL proposal
and NPL listing. The listing process ranges from 189 to 1,316 days at the NPL sites we
examined. While this information is only available for NPL sites, it suggests that overall
site progress may be speeded significantly if the listing process requires significant effort.
However, because it wasn't possible to examine "overall site progress" in a meaningful
way, it is not possible to measure the impact of avoiding the NPL listing process.
Analysis of Cost Differences
To compare SA and NPL approach costs, we use a combination of CERCLIS and IFMS
data. Because the sites using the SA approach we examine have not yet completed
remedial actions, our analysis attempts to exclude all costs that would normally be
incurred after the ROD for a given OU (e.g., remedial design or remedial action costs). A
detailed walkthrough of the steps taken to obtain accurate cost estimates for both SA
approach and NPL sites is in Chapter 2.
After obtaining cost estimates for each set of paired sites using the methodology
described in Chapter 2, we adjusted for site size first by dividing the total estimated costs
for each site by the number of OUs at the site, and then by diving the total estimated costs
by the number of OUs with completed RODs at the site. These supplementary analyses
are meant to identify any spurious correlation associated with the presence of consistently
large NPL sites compared to their SA approach counterparts, or vice versa. In addition,
by controlling only for the number of OUs with completed RODs at a site, we avoid
"crediting" a site for an OU that has not yet been remediated. Exhibit 3-8 summarizes the
63
-------
results of our cost analyses. Exhibit 3-9 graphs the cost estimates within each pairing,
with SA approach sites and NPL sites represented by pink and yellow bars, respectively.
EXHIBIT 3-8: SUMMARY OF COSTS BY SITE
PAIR
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1
J
K2
SITE
Admiral Home
Appliances
Shuron Inc.
Gurley Pesticide Burial
Agrico Chemical Co.
Nocatee Hull Creosote
Cabot/Koppers
Sanford Gasification
Plant
Cabot/Koppers
Sixty-One Industrial
Park
Diamond Shamrock
Corp. Landfill
Ecusta Mill
Olin Corp. (Mclntosh
Plant)
ITT-Thompson
Industries, Inc.
Harris Corp. (Palm Bay
Plant)
Solitron Devices Inc.
Harris Corp. (Palm Bay
Plant)
Lyman Dyeing and
Finishing
Leonard Chemical Co.
Inc.
Weyerhauser Co.
Plymouth Wood
Treating Plant1
Stauffer Chemical Co.
(Cold Creek Plant)
Brown's Dump1 &
Jacksonville Ash Site
Hipps Road Landfill3
SAA/NPL
SAA
NPL
SAA
NPL
SAA
NPL
SAA
NPL
SAA
NPL
SAA
NPL
SAA
NPL
SAA
NPL
SAA
NPL
SAA
NPL
SAA
NPL
TOTAL COST
$661.603.65
$456,641.79
$286,229.32
$553,903.75
$397,062.38
$1,397,190.34
$1,334,824.20
$1,397,190.34
$637,023.84
$490,797.84
$357,312.04
$792,736.36
$489,028.24
$796,474.09
$456,625.27
$796,474.09
$726,525.51
$728,324.82
$3,579,074.37
$856,165.72
$1,896,479.76
$1,842,293.28
NUMBER
OF OUS
1
1
1
2
1
2
3
2
1
1
2
3
1
2
1
2
1
2
4
3
2
1
COST PER
OU
$661.603.65
$456,641.79
$286,229.32
$276,951.88
$397,062.38
$698,595.17
$444,491.40
$698,595.17
$637,023.84
$490,797.84
$178,656.02
$264,254.45
$489,028.24
$398,237.04
$456,625.27
$398,237.04
$726,525.51
$364,162.41
$894,768.59
$285,388.87
$948,239.88
$1,842,293.28
NUMBER OF
COMPLETED
RODS
1
1
1
2
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
3
1
2
1
2
1
1
4
3
2
1
COST PER
COMPLETED ROD
$661.603.65
$456,641.79
$286,229.32
$276,951.88
$397,062.38
$1,397,190.34
$444,491.40
$1,397,190.34
$637,023.84
$490,797.84
$357,312.04
$264,254.45
$489,028.24
$398,237.04
$456,625.27
$398,237.04
$726,525.51
$728,324.82
$894,768.59
$285,388.87
$948,239.88
$1,842,293.28
1 - The Weyerhauser Co. Plymouth Wood Treating Plant is considered a "megasite," With expected cleanup costs of over $50 million.
The megasite status explains the large cost difference from nearly every other site. The Brown's Dump site is a potential megasite.
2 - For the purposes of this analysis, Brown's Dump and the Jacksonville Ash Site are considered to be one site with two OUs .
3 - The ROD for Hipps Road Landfill occurred prior to 1989, but the site has a ROD amendment that occurred in 1990.
Correspondingly, 1991 is being used as the cutoff year, as it is one year after the ROD amendment.
64
-------
EXHIBIT 3-9:
COMPARATIVE COSTS AT NPL AND SA APPROACH SITES
Pink (dark) bars indicate SA approach sites; Yellow (light) bars indicate NPL sites
$4 000 000
$3 500 000 -
$3 000 000 -
$2 500 000 -
$2 000 000 -
$1,500,000 -
$1 000 000 -
$500 000 -
$0 -
EXPENDITURES WITHIN ONE CALENDAR YEAR
*s* ^
~°° "00
ON -^ 4/1 "^
rm 1*° " OJ
° % £ 3
1 ll 1 ^o ~*
&..<£, ^..^ ..., ,...£ . .. ...^.£ . £"^£"£
ON O\ GO ^ *3 ^D° Ul ON NO 0x ^J
"^ 4^. "ij 2 O -^NO'OJ - - SJ |sj - -
1^° ^ ^ J 1 °° ^ °° <-n
n HI f i n n rn i
j>i/i O3> ooi ZN/IO ^O mQ j en ~r
§"c ^^ o~o ^^Q- ^.^ c^* 1^^
i 1 i n > U Q) -^1 Q v< 3 '^ 1 r~r ""<
~ o n>8 § "" °° 'o KT ^ o "'
S. = >< ° - mS_^ O^ » ? i
,+ "o m -D
» "S S
& a
i
0!
...
OJ
(J1
0
#
(1)
0!
01
C
c/>
0!
00
?
S
I
cn
Q)
J
EXPENDITURES WITHIN ONE CALENDAR YEAR - PER
$2 000 000 T
$1 800 000 -
$1,600,000 -
$1,400,000 -
$1 200 000 -
$1,000,000 -
$800 000 -
$600,000 -
$400,000 -
$200,000 -
so -
ou
1
iVT
4x
^o
0^. ................O.
"SEi. ^
n|.-g.g-.
1 1*° NO
'"
i-o
NO
m
OO
*C,
ON |3
OO oj J^
vi. iu la ibl "^ "^ ^C -«^ ^
^j ^ ^Xj -t/> "o - oo °^
vt S * I
... | | ...
t>l/i (Tit" r^T "71/10 l/in mr~) jl/i-p i i
i. 3 m" "' ^ "S "o^0 'S'B S^.3 -n^'3. a3
i 3 m -u
» ~% o
& a
i
ro
-fc.
^J
NO
...
...
90-
UJ
»3.
NO
< tn
"< c
5- ^
c
c/>
0)
65
-------
EXHIBIT 3-9: COMPARATIVE COSTS AT NPL AND SA APPROACH SITES (CONT'D)
Pink (dark) bars indicate SA approach sites; Yellow (light) bars indicate NPL sites
EXPENDITURES
$1 800 000 -
$1 600 000 -
$1 400 000 -
$1 200 000 -
$1,000,000 -
$800,000 -
$600 000 -
$400,000 -
$200,000 -
so -
WITHIN ONE CALENDAR YEAR - PER COMPLETED ROD
»
S-
^
Q)_
X
ON
"gx
i-o
c
~!
3
ON
KJ
ON
t/>
^O
L...K.S
NO [Sj
,...
0
'
><
j&
Q
0
...
1 1
r^n
i-o
OJ
OJ
JS
NO
O
t/>
T^ N
NO 4*.
° ^
...
NO
|SJ
"s "
4^. J"^ t^> ^ ON \O
OO Xo °° "K ^
::: ::r ::: m
^S i1^^ gl 2 R< Q Jo?
*^ a.o'S ^3 S- H"--
=- fD§_C 6 i " =ro"
^ « 3
S 3 i
S" «
i
0)
OO
Ul OJ 1 1
ho l-o
l-o
Ul
OJ
i i <. l/i
v; fD <(-!
30 ro o>
Q) ^ "^ S,
"^ ^- fD
Q- 7f~ -j
0)
Exhibits 3-8 and 3-9 reveal that neither SA approach nor NPL sites appear to have
consistently higher expenditures than their matched counterparts. Sites using the SA
approach were more expensive in four of 11 pairings when no adjustment is made for the
number of OUs at a site, in seven of 11 pairings when expenditures consider the number
of OUs at a site, and in six of 11 pairings when expenditures consider only OUs with a
completed ROD.
In addition, the exhibits show that some cost differences are small relative to total site
costs. For example, in the first and third analyses, Lyman Dyeing and Finishing and its
matched NPL site, Leonard Chemical Co. Inc. have expenditures that differ by fewer than
$2,000, or less than 0.003 percent of total expenditures incurred ($725,000). The
difference in expenditures between Gurley Pesticide Burial and Agrico Chemical Co. are
similarly small in the second and third analyses, less than $10,000 for site expenditures of
roughly $280,000.
Adjusting site expenditures on a per-completed ROD basis may be preferable, because it
considers site size without improperly discounting larger sites that have not yet incurred
expenses at some OUs. In all approaches, however, no clear pattern in cost differences
between SA approach and NPL sites is evident.
66
-------
Total site expenditures are generally driven by remedial costs (RI/FS through the ROD,
RD/RA after the ROD), though at some sites enforcement costs also contribute
significantly to overall expenditures, usually after the ROD has occurred.35 In contrast,
site assessment and response support costs do not make up a significant portion of overall
site expenses for most sites, though site assessment costs do constitute the majority of
overall expenditures in one year prior to the ROD for two sites using the SA approach,
Solitron Devices Inc., and Sixty-One Industrial Park.
Caveats in the Analysis of Cost Differences
Pre-1990 data: IFMS data does not provide year-by-year expenditures for years prior to
1990. Instead, it provides an aggregated total of all expenditures for that site under a
particular action code for all years prior to 1990. Because we do not know the years in
which these expenditures occurred, we cannot inflate pre-1990 expenditures to 2009 year-
dollars with the proper year's deflator; pre-1990 expenditures are currently inflated to
2009 year-dollars using the deflator for 1989. This issue raises large problems for Hipps
Road Landfill which had its RODs occurring prior to 1990. Correspondingly, our cost
estimate for Hipps Road Landfill may be strongly understated. In addition, costs for
other NPL sites, each of which likely incurred at least some expenditures prior to 1990,
may also be somewhat understated. To the extent that this is the case, the data may
exhibit a consistent cost savings associated with the SA approach in terms of
expenditures occurring through the ROD at a given site.
Missing and incomparable data: Interview respondents confirmed that over time EPA
has changed the way that it tracks and recovers costs, and that some data was likely lost
during the move to the IFMS system in 1989. Thus, cost recovery data from the early
years of Superfund is not comparable to current cost recovery data.
EVALUATION PURPOSE #4: IDENTIFY STRATEGIES TO IMPROVE
THE IMPLEMENTATION, EFFICIENCY AND EFFECTIVENESS OF
THE SA APPROACH
To address this evaluation purpose, lEc used interviews to update and expand upon a
review of findings from previous evaluations, and to provide input on potential changes
to the SA approach.
It is noteworthy that in all interviews with EPA staff, including CICs, RPMs, and
Managers, respondents expressed general satisfaction with and support for the Superfund
Alternative Approach. Respondents consistently noted that the SA approach appears to
provide an option that has value to PRPs and therefore facilitates site remediation. All
respondents stated that the SA approach status has no impact on the way enforcement,
remediation, oversight, or community coordination activities are conducted.
35 Note that while SA approach sites reflect generally cooperative and active PRPs, these sites still require enforcement costs
related to negotiations, development of consent decrees and administrative orders, and initial investigation of PRP
viability. Enforcement costs do not appear to differ substantially across different types of sites, though significant changes
in cost recovery accounting in the 1990s may limit the comparability of enforcement cost data available for older sites.
67
-------
EVALUATION QUESTION 6: WHAT HAS EPA DONE TO IMPROVE THE CONSISTENCY OF
IMPLEMENTING THE SA APPROACH SINCE AN INTERNAL EVALUATION AND AN IG
REPORT ON THE APPROACH WAS PUBLISHED IN 2007?
lEc reviewed the findings and recommendations from the OECA/OSWER and OIG
evaluations of the SA approach. The results of these evaluations provided information
that shaped our evaluation questions. lEc also conducted interviews with EPA staff to
identify changes that have been implemented since these evaluations were conducted.
lEc received the questions that were asked of stakeholders and EPA attorneys for the
OECA/OSWER Evaluation; however, lEc did not receive response data. Similarly, no
additional information was provided for the OIG Evaluation.
OECA/OSWER Evaluation
The OECA/OSWER evaluation of the SA approach focused on Regional procedures for
implementing the SA approach, examined whether the approach was likely to lead to
successful site cleanups, and considered concerns expressed by stakeholders. The
evaluation consulted with nine external stakeholders, including state representatives,
attorneys, PRPs, RPMs, and community groups. A summary of the results from the
evaluation were published in September 2007, Results of the Superfund Alternative
Approach Evaluation.
The evaluation found that the SA approach yielded about 20 agreements, primarily in
Regions 4 and 5 and that the SAA agreements generally used language that was
consistent with the Response Selection and Enforcement Approach for Superfund
Alternative Sites guidance. The evaluation recommended retaining the SA approach as
an available option in appropriate circumstances and identified several specific next steps
that typically focused on improving the consistency of tracking and implementation
procedures for the SA approach. Key recommendations included ensuring a consistent
definition of an SA approach site in CERCLIS, and developing training and case study
materials to ensure that EPA staff understood how the SA approach works with other
enforcement tools. One specific recommendation regarded the name of the approach:
Continue to evaluate how EPA refers to the approach (e.g., consider using the
term NPL-Equivalent or NPL-Alternative to more accurately reflect the intent of
the approach to be an alternative to listing on the NPL, not an alternative to the
Superfund process).
OIG Evaluation
OIG's June 2007 summary report on their audit of SA approach was entitled EPA Needs
to Take More Action in Implementing Alternative Approaches to Superfund Cleanups,
Report No. 2007-P-00026. OIG conducted interviews with Superfund program managers
and staff, PRPs, and representatives of National Association of Manufacturers (NAM)
and the Superfund Settlements Project (SSP) to review their experiences with the SA
approach. The report recommended that EPA track and report cleanup progress at sites
using the SA approach and improve communications, information, and transparency
68
-------
methods such as HRS scoring and site designation are well-documented and consistent
across all Regions, and that tracking of goals for GPRA and other purposes be expanded.
OIG has since closed the audit and their October 2009 Compendium ofUnimplemented
Recommendations As of September 30th 2009 indicates that the last unimplemented
recommendation was completed and removed prior to 9/30/2009.36
Changes to the Approach Since the Evaluations
EPA 's 2004 guidance - "Revised Response Selection and Settlement Approach for
Superfund Alternative Sites" - preceded the evaluations but speaks to many of the
concerns raised.37 The revised guidance outlines criteria for designation, key
community, financial assurance, and settlement requirements, and outlines a protocol
for involvement of states. Interview respondents noted that this guidance is still
current for many practices.
In addition, interview respondents offered other information on recent changes to the
approach. Specifically, respondents noted:
SA approach guidance has been updated to contain very specific language.
o However, the provisions are very clear that site agreements that were
developed prior to the guidance were not grandfathered.
The review process is now more thorough and structured to ensure that sites
meet criteria.
EPA has an official SA approach code. No different lead code because it is still
PRP lead. It mirrors NPL PRP lead site for CERCLIS, except for the flag.
GPRA still does not count sites using the SA approach as part of meeting goals,
but EPA tracks them.
Finally, respondents noted that Region 4 has worked to refine its list of official sites using
the SA approach to reflect the outcome of evaluations and updates to guidance, and also
identified specific changes to CERCLIS, such as tracking more community involvement
data and revising CERCLIS to include pop-up boxes to confirm SA approach site status.
Respondents were unable to identify any areas of inconsistent implementation between
NPL and SA approach sites, though one manager noted that the revision of site status has
left more than one site without a designation.
36 U.S. EPA. Available at https://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2010/20091028-10-N-0018
37 U.S. EPA. Available at http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/cleanup/superfund/rev-sas-04.pdf
69
-------
EVALUATION QUESTION 7: WHAT ADDITIONAL FACTORS OR VARIABLES SHOULD
EPA TAKE INTO ACCOUNT WHEN DECIDING IF AND WHEN TO USE THE SA APPROACH
IN THE FUTURE?
EPA staff supported continuing the SA approach, and did not express any concerns about
the approach. However, one respondent reiterated the OECA/OSWER recommendation
to consider a name more similar to the prior "NPL equivalent," to emphasize that the SA
approach is not different from the NPL. Respondents also suggested the following:
More specific language outlining community involvement requirements at both
NPL and SA approach sites; PRPs sometimes attempt to negotiate notification
and involvement actions that are actually requirements.
Incorporation of SA approach site achievements into GPRA goals to increase
use of the approach. One respondent noted that omitting SA approach site
progress is a disincentive for Regions to use the approach.
Improvement of outreach methods to address pre-remedial sites and introduce
the HRS method, to better explain to residents how HRS scoring and site
remediation options are linked.
Also, respondents provided the following answers to specific questions:
Do you have any concerns about the SA approach? Generally EPA staff
reported satisfaction with the approach and did not express any concerns.
Should EPA consider any additional requirements for sites to become SAA?
One respondent noted a need for strong financial assurance for both NPL and the
SA approach in the current economy. He noted that the Kerr McGee SA
approach site went bankrupt and is now on the NPL.
Are there advantages or disadvantages to the SA approach that are not
reflected in cost data or CERCLIS data? Respondents noted that the stigma and
improved cooperation are likely not reflected in time and cost data. One
Manager explained that greater cooperation at sites using the SA approach has
led to fewer negotiations than NPL PRP-lead sites.
Do you know of barriers to implementing the SA approach in other Regions?
Respondents reiterated that the failure to count SA approach site actions toward
GPRA is the key deterrent.
Do you have any suggestions, recommendations, or comments to improve the
SA approach? Respondents provided the following suggestions:
o Earlier community involvement for SA approach and PRP-lead NPL
sites, including the development of procedures to involve communities
earlier in the process.
o More coordination between EPA and public health agencies to inform the
public about risks at both NPL and SA approach sites.
70
-------
O The structure of the SA approach could potentially provide a useful
model or States or other authorities to use in addressing sites with HRS
scores below 28.5.
SYNTHESIS OF KEY EVALUATION FINDINGS
This section provides a synthesis of the key findings of this evaluation organized by
evaluation purpose and question.
Consistent with the general objective of the evaluation, we have explored the extent to
which the SA approach is achieving the same outcomes as the traditional NPL pipeline,
and the extent to which the SA approach is reducing site costs and speeding remediation.
Overall, interview respondents were uniformly positive in their opinions of the SA
approach. EPA respondents noted that all PRPs who are given the opportunity to pursue
the SA approach have agreed to do so, suggesting broadly that PRPs find value in the
approach. PRPs confirmed that the SA approach is preferable to an NPL listing due to
avoided negative publicity and a perception that the approach is more collaborative.
Overall, while communities differ in initial reactions to both SA approach designation
and NPL listing, the use of the SA approach does not appear to have a significant impact
on community participation in or impressions of the site remediation process. A
demographic review revealed no difference in the concentration of minority and low-
income populations at SA approach or NPL sites, and community representatives
interviewed confirmed that EPA's outreach to EJ and other communities is consistent
across sites.
EPA, PRP, and community interviewees stressed that the SA approach generally mirrors
the NPL process for most EPA activities. Consistent with this input, CERCLIS and
IFMS data reveal that the SA approach does not appear to result in significant cost or
time savings for EPA, though some preliminary data suggest that certain negotiations
proceed more quickly at some sites using the SA approach, and cost data are incomplete.
While identified remedies suggest that NPL sites employ more contaminant removal
remedies, anticipated future use patterns for NPL and SA approach sites are similar.
Interviews with EPA staff suggest that sites using the SA approach may have a higher
potential for redevelopment than comparable NPL sites if avoided "stigma" increases
financing options and willingness to redevelop.
These findings suggest that the SA approach has value to participants, particularly related
to avoiding "stigma" associated with NPL listings. PRP interviews have confirmed that
PRPs typically regard avoiding the NPL listing process as an advantage, in spite of
limited direct cost savings, because the SA approach eliminates the "adversarial"
structure of the NPL process. PRP respondents noted that community concerns about
stigma from NPL sites are often, but not always, a key factor; investors and lenders,
however, do not appear to differentiate NPL and SA approach sites. The issue of stigma
remains an elusive but potentially significant factor in assessing SA approach impacts.
71
-------
EVALUATION PURPOSE 1: EXAMINE THE FACTORS INFLUENCING THE USE OF THIS
APPROACH
RESPONSE OF PRPS TO THE SA APPROACH
General agreement by PRPs to pursue the SA approach when it is proposed by EPA
provides a strong indication that PRPs see value in this approach, though not all PRPs
reach SAA agreements with EPA. PRP interviews confirm a willingness to participate, in
spite of the fact that the SA approach involves additional financial liquidity requirements
and typically results in only modest cost savings. Interview data focus on two key
incentives for PRPs to participate:
Avoiding NPL stigma: Specifically, interview information collected suggests
that most PRPs, and many community leaders, are concerned about the
perceived reduction in property values and redevelopment opportunities
associated with an NPL listing. The SA approach provides an option for
avoiding this without altering the technical cleanup options. PRP respondents
also noted that customers and even prospective employees often are aware of
NPL sites and view them as a drawback, though one PRP respondent felt that
the differences between NPL and SA approach site stigma are no longer
significant.
Cost savings associated with multiple sites: EPA and PRP interview responses
indicate that a key potential benefit of the SA approach is the possibility of
developing multi-site protocols for PRPs with sites across states or Regions.
PRP respondents also noted that the more collaborative "tone" of the SA
approach typically simplifies the negotiation process for them, though cost
savings are limited by the overall similarity of the approaches.
A literature review confirmed that while stigma is a well-established phenomenon at
contaminated sites, economists have not yet considered whether stigma specific to NPL
sites is a greater impediment to site reuse than stigma at SA approach or other non-NPL
(e.g., Brownfields) sites.
Interview responses suggest that SA approach site PRPs have additional incentive to be
cooperative to avoid NPL listing, but respondents also noted that level of cooperation
varies widely among individual PRPs and sites.
COMMUNITY PERCEPTIONS OF THE SA APPROACH
Interviews with EPA and community representatives suggest that initial responses to the
SA approach can be mixed. The SA approach is often considered advantageous by
community members and leaders concerned about property values and stigma. Other
community members, however, require confirmation that the process will not result in
more limited resources or reduced remediation. EPA CICs conclude that most concerns
about both NPL and SA processes peak initially and abate as communities become
familiar with the sites and see progress.
72
-------
Data on community expenditures and on the demographics of communities surrounding
sites using the SA approach reveal no pattern of difference between SA approach sites
and NPL sites, but analysis of expenditures at sites with higher concentrations of minority
and low-income populations reveals a weak positive relationship (i.e., slightly higher
expenditures overall at sites with higher concentrations of minority and low income
populations).
EVALUATION PURPOSE 2: ASSESS THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE SA APPROACH IN
ACHIEVING THE GOALS OF THE SUPERFUND PROGRAM
In general, comparison of NPL and SA approach sites reveals that they are similar in
current and anticipated future use, and the majority of both NPL and SA approach sites
examined are industrial facilities and likely to remain industrial or commercial in nature.
SPECIFIC REMEDIES SELECTED
Available ROD data suggests that among the sites examined, NPL sites appear to employ
remedies that remove and treat contamination more often than paired SA approach sites,
while sites using the SA approach include more remedies related to long-term monitoring
and natural attenuation. Note that this pattern is inconclusive because it reflects limited
summary data, and does not consider site features (e.g., extent of contamination) or the
relative effectiveness of newer in situ treatment technologies.
INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS AND FUTURE USE
A screening assessment of "long-term" institutional controls reveals that use of
institutional controls such as restrictive covenants or "use restrictions" is comparable
among paired sites, suggesting that future site use is not affected by SA approach or NPL
status. Sites in the sample are generally not yet available for reuse, but examination of
potential future use options confirmed that sites in both groups have similar use options.
Interviews with EPA staff suggest that sites using the SA approach may have a higher
potential for redevelopment than comparable NPL sites if avoided "stigma" increases
financing options and willingness to redevelop.
EVALUATION PURPOSE 3: ASSESS THE EFFICIENCY OF THE SA APPROACH IN TERMS
OF POTENTIAL TIME AND COST SAVINGS
Generally, findings from the analysis of CERCLIS and IFMS data on the efficiency of the
SA approach concur with information provided in interviews: the similarity of the SA
approach to the NPL approach within EPA limits the opportunities to save significant
resources, with the exception of NPL listing effort. However, responses emphasize the
potential for the SA approach to improve the speed and tone of PRP negotiations.
TIME DIFFERENCES
A review of time to complete several specific actions reveals that sites using the SA
approach are not significantly different from NPL sites, though data also suggest that
negotiations at different stages of the process (e.g., RI/FS and RD/RA negotiations) may
in some cases be quicker at sites using the SA approach; this observation is consistent
73
-------
with PRP and EPA interviews noting that the tone of SA negotiations is more productive.
However, large variability across sites and small sample size prevent any clear
conclusions. In addition, data tracking limitations for both SA approach and NPL sites
prevent a comprehensive assessment of site progress.
COST DIFFERENCES
A review of available cost data similarly concludes that the SA approach has modest, if
any, cost savings for EPA. PRP costs are not reflected in available data, but PRP
representatives also noted that the costs do not differ significantly across approaches). In
addition to wide variability across sites, a key limitation of cost data is the change in cost
recovery practices after 1995; several sites with significant expenditures prior to 1995
may have incomplete cost data. Because NPL sites in this evaluation are typically older,
this analysis may understate NPL site costs and obscure differences between NPL and SA
approach costs. It is not possible, however, to quantify this impact.
EVALUATION PURPOSE 4: IDENTIFY STRATEGIES TO IMPROVE THE
IMPLEMENTATION, EFFICIENCY AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THE SA APPROACH
A review of EPA practices and interview responses suggests that EPA has effectively
implemented the recommendations of prior evaluations. EPA's OIG also indicated that
all recommendations from its 2007 audit were implemented by September 30, 2009.
A compelling outcome of this evaluation is that the interviewed EPA staff from Region 4
and PRPs are unanimously positive about the use of the SA approach. Respondents did
not identify any significant difficulties in implementing the SA approach, due in part to
its similarity to the NPL process.
A few respondents expressed frustration that EPA does not count SA approach and NPL
sites in the same manner for planning purposes (while in 2010 EPA began allocating
resources similarly across both SAA and NPL sites, SA accomplishments are not
reflected in GPRA scoring), and respondents offered a few suggestions to improve the
implementation of both NPL and SA approaches. Overall, however, the consistent,
positive tone and clear input from respondents presents a strong indication that the
Region 4 SA approach is well-integrated into general site management operations.
74
-------
CHAPTER 4 | RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on our analysis of the data collected from CERCLIS, IFMS, Superfund documents,
and conversations with stakeholders, including EPA, PRPs and community
representatives, we offer the following recommendations for consideration. We believe
that implementing these recommendations could help EPA examine further the extent to
which the SA approach is providing a valuable remediation pathway.
We note that overall feedback from interviews about the SA approach was consistently
positive, and data generally support the perceptions of interview respondents that the SA
approach represents an equivalent approach to the NPL. The SA approach also appears
attractive to PRPs and some communities, though community responses vary. Thus, lEc
primarily provides recommendations designed to focus further on the aspects of the
approach that may be most effective.
EVALUATION PURPOSE 1: EXAMINE THE FACTORS
INFLUENCING THE USE OF THIS APPROACH
Recommendation: EPA should further investigate the role that "stigma" may play
in the effectiveness of site remediation programs.
This program evaluation was designed in large part to examine whether empirical
information about cost and time savings aligned with perceived advantages of the SA
approach. A striking outcome of the interview process, however, was the focus on
"stigma" related to NPL sites.
Specifically, the most often cited advantage of the SA approach, in several contexts, is
the ability of PRPs and communities to avoid perceived "stigma" associated with NPL
sites. EPA, PRP, and community respondents noted that property value declines and
difficulty ensuring redevelopment might be more severe at NPL sites. However, stigma
is difficult to quantify, and empirical studies to date have not compared NPL sites with
other contaminated sites to determine whether a real "NPL stigma" exists.
lEc recommends that EPA further review the role of stigma to determine whether a true
"NPL-specific stigma" exists. The results of this exploration could have implications for
a range of cleanup programs managed by the Agency and could inform discussions with
other stakeholders such as states and communities. Ultimately, it may be important to
consider stigma in program design to ensure that site cleanup approaches best serve local
communities.
75
-------
Recommendation: Continue to improve tracking of community involvement
activities to document successes and challenges in remediation programs.
Overall community reaction to the SA approach appears to be similar to reaction to the
NPL approach. That is, over time, as community members are more informed about the
remediation process for both NPL and SA approach sites, communities tend to become
more satisfied with the process. However, community representatives stressed in
interviews that early and extensive community involvement is critical to the successful
remediation of both NPL and SA approach sites, particularly those with direct impacts on
residential areas.
Therefore, lEc also recommends that EPA continue to improve data on community
participation to ensure that outreach activities to communities at both NPL sites and SA
approach sites are effective.
EVALUATION PURPOSE 2: ASSESS THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE
SA APPROACH IN ACHIEVING THE GOALS OF THE SUPERFUND
PROGRAM
Recommendation: EPA should update and expand the analysis of SA approach
effectiveness as sites using the SA approach achieve construction completion and
reuse.
A key limitation of this evaluation is the fact that few sites using the SA approach have
completed remedial actions and none have achieved construction complete. It is
therefore difficult to make conclusive assessments of overall site performance, because it
is not possible to assess the costs and time required for the remediation action phase of
SA approach sites compared with NPL sites. As sites using the SA approach reach
construction complete, EPA should consider revisiting this analysis to determine whether
clear differences exist in the way that sites are remediated and reused.
EVALUATION PURPOSE 3: ASSESS THE EFFICIENCY OF THE SA
APPROACH IN TERMS OF POTENTIAL TIME AND COST SAVINGS
Recommendation: EPA should update and expand the analysis of SA approach
efficiency as sites using the SA approach achieve construction completion.
The screening-level analyses performed for this evaluation, combined with input from
interviews, suggest that in some cases the SA approach may have some potential to save
time and resources by encouraging a more cooperative process for EPA, PRP, and
community negotiations. However, the results of this evaluation are limited due in part to
the limited number of sites that have completed remedial actions and construction
completion. lEc therefore recommends that EPA revisit and update this analysis to
76
-------
examine potential cost and time savings after some sites using the SA approach have
completed the process.
lEc recommends that EPA examine the potential of the SA approach to be used as a
method to efficiently address multiple sites.
The SA approach has been used by several manufactured gas plants in Regions 4 and 5,
and input from interviews suggests that the approach may provide a model for negotiation
of multiple sites for PRPs or industrial sectors with several contaminated sites. Thus,
EPA may want to further review the progress and features of these sites to identify
whether specific features of the SA approach can be used to encourage PRPs with
multiple sites to enter agreements for site remediation.
In addition, EPA may also want to consider developing a model based on the SA
approach to work with willing PRPs in multiple states or Regions to address
contaminated sites that are not severely contaminated enough to become NPL or SA
approach sites.
EVALUATION PURPOSE 4: IDENTIFY STRATEGIES TO IMPROVE
THE IMPLEMENTATION, EFFICIENCY AND EFFECTIVENESS OF
THE SA APPROACH
Recommendation: investigate opportunities to integrate SA approach where
appropriate in other Regions, using Region 4 management approach as a template.
It is notable that interviews did not identify any significant difficulties related to SA
approach implementation. This suggests that Region 4 management has been successful
at integrating the approach into other remediation activities. lEc has no significant
recommendations for improvement of the SA approach, other than to consider whether
expansion of the approach to other Regions would be useful, and whether Region 4
experiences could facilitate integration of the approach in other Regions.
Recommendation: normalize accounting for SA approach site progress to reflect
similarity with NPL site activities.
Currently, achievements at sites using the SA approach are not considered in GPRA
goals, though allocation of resources for site management among regions has as of 2010
counted sites using the SA approach as "equal" to NPL sites. In response to comments
received in interviews, lEc also recommends that EPA examine options for measuring
progress on sites using the SA approach as part of regional performance, and
incorporating progress at these sites into estimates of workload and resource allocation.
77
-------
APPENDIX A
-------
APPENDIX A: FINAL METHODOLOGY
[Note: this appendix provides a copy of the methodology as of June 11, 2010. Chapter 2
of the evaluation report is a revised version of this methodology which identifies
additional caveats with the data and steps taken by lEc to address these issues.]
METHODOLOGY TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE
Overview of the Superfund Alternative Approach 1
Process for Selecting Sites with SAA Agreements 5
Superfund Alternative Approach Remediation Process 5
Evaluations of the Superfund Alternative Approach 6
Program Pipeline Logic Model 8
Evaluation Questions w
METHODOLOGY
Evaluation Design 16
Proposed Steps in Conducting the Evaluation 17
Site Selection for Matched Pairs Analysis 14
Collect and Analyze Data from Existing Files and Databases 23
Analysis of Existing Superfund Data 23
Analysis of Workload Allocation Model Data 25
Contextual Assessment of Results 26
Review of Previous Evaluations and Data Collection Efforts 27
OECA/OSWER Evaluation 27
DIG Evaluation 28
Additional Data Resources: RODs, Community Involvement Plans 28
New Data Collection Efforts 29
Report Results and Conclusions 32
Preliminary Outline of the Final Report 32
PROPOSED EVALUATION SCHEDULE
A-1
-------
INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE
Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA), commonly known as Superfund, EPA has, since 1980, evaluated
contaminated sites, and undertaken enforcement and remediation activities to ensure
protection of human health and the environment. The process of identifying,
investigating, and "listing" a site on the National Priorities List (NPL) requires a number
of detailed assessments and process requirements, including identification of and
negotiation with potentially responsible parties (PRPs), coordination with state and Tribal
jurisdictions, and assessment of the level of risk at the site. Sites that require a long-term
remedial response action, and have a hazard ranking system (HRS) score above a
threshold value of 28.5, are eligible for listing as an NPL site, though other authorities
(i.e., state or Tribal governments) may negotiate with EPA to remediate sites under their
authority. NPL sites are typically remediated by PRPs (PRP-lead sites), or, in the
absence of viable PRPs, by EPA (Fund-lead sites).
The NPL listing process is a significant undertaking involving a formal rulemaking, and
requiring a number of detailed steps to establish lead cleanup authority. Over the past
decade, EPA has developed the Superfund Alternative Approach (SA approach or SAA)
as an option for negotiating cleanups with PRPs without formally listing the sites on the
NPL. Sites using the SA approach are identified and investigated using the same
processes and standards that are used for sites listed on the NPL, and sites using the SA
approach undergo the same "pipeline" steps of remedial investigation, development of
records of decision (RODs) and remedial design and action. EPA's Superfund
Alternative Approach website indicates that the "Superfund alternative (SA) approach
uses the same investigation and cleanup process and standards that are used for sites
listed on the NPL. The SA approach is really an alternative to listing a site on the NPL; it
is not an alternative Superfund process."38
This evaluation will examine whether the SA approach is having the expected outcome of
reducing site costs and speeding remediation. In addition, this evaluation will examine
whether the remedies selected under sites using the SA approach are equivalent to those
at comparable NPL sites. Finally, the evaluation will revisit key questions of prior
evaluations, to update information about community and PRP experiences with the
approach.
http://www.epa.gov/oecaerth/cleanup/superfund/saa.html
A-2
-------
The purpose of this evaluation is to:
Examine the factors influencing the use of the SA approach
Assess the effectiveness of the SA approach in achieving the goals of the
Superfund program
Assess the efficiency of the SA approach in terms of potential time and cost
savings
Identify strategies to improve the implementation, efficiency and effectiveness of
the SA approach
This evaluation will use a range of data sources and analytic techniques. An initial step
in the evaluation is a review of existing published reports and site data from CERCLIS
and RODs to identify comparable SA approach and NPL sites in Region 4. The
evaluation will also include a quantitative comparative analysis focusing on site data from
CERCLIS and Office of the Chief Financial Officer's Integrated Financial Management
System (IFMS), and a qualitative assessment of information collected in targeted
interviews.
This report presents lEc's proposed methodology for conducting an evaluation of the
effectiveness of the Region 4 Superfund Alternative Approach. We begin by providing
background information and then describe the components of the program, as illustrated
through presentation of a program pipeline logic model. We then propose an overarching
evaluation design and a series of tasks to gather and analyze data, interpret findings, and
report results. The evaluation questions to be addressed guide this methodology.
Following this discussion, we propose a schedule for completing the evaluation.
OVERVIEW OF THE SUPERFUND ALTERNATIVE APPROACH
In 2002, EPA issued its first formal policy guidance on the SA approach. In June 2004,
EPA revised and reissued the guidance, and announced an 18-month pilot of the SA
approach. Findings from the pilot are discussed below in the "Evaluations of the
Superfund Alternative Process" section.
EPA developed the SA approach to achieve potential cost and time savings associated
with avoiding the complex (and often contentious) NPL listing process, and to provide an
alternative approach for cooperative PRPs and communities that wanted to avoid the
perceived stigma associated with NPL sites. As of May 31, 2010, EPA's web site lists 63
sites with Superfund alternative approach agreements in place (Exhibit A-l).39
Currently, sites with SA approach agreements are a small subset of all Superfund cleanup
agreements. Regions 4 and 5 collectively represent the largest number of sites using the
39 Some sites have more than one Superfund alternative approach agreement. Other sites share a single Superfund alternative
approach agreement (for example, six of the Wisconsin Public Service sites in Region 5 share a single Superfund alternative
approach agreement to perform a remedial investigation and feasibility study at each of the six sites and all eleven of the
Peoples Gas sites share one agreement for RI/FS). It is also possible for a site to have a Superfund alternative approach
agreement and another non-Superfund alternative approach agreement in place at the same time.
A-3
-------
SA approach, with 54 (or 86 percent) of the total sites listed. The web site reports that
Region 4 has 21 sites with SA agreements and Region 5 has 33 sites.40
EXHIBIT A-1: SITES WITH SAA AGREEMENTS BY REGION
REGION
PERCENT OF
ALL SITES
WITH SAA
AGRREEMENTS
3.17%
33.33%
52.38%
SUPERFUND ALTERNATIVE SITE
68th Street Dump, Rosedale, MD
Foster-Wheeler Energy Corp/Church Rd TCE, Mountain Top, PA
Admiral Home Appliances, Williston, SC
Anniston PCB Site, Anniston, AL
Browns Dump, Jacksonville, FL*
Copper Basin Mining District, Copper Hill, TN
Coronet Industries, Plant City, FL
Ecusta Mill, NC
Gurley Pesticide Burial, Selma, NC
Henry's Knob, Clover, SC
Holtra Chem, Riegelwood, NC
Illinois Central Railroad/Johnston Yard, Memphis, TN
ITT- Thompson, Madison, FL
Jacksonville Ash, Jacksonville, FL*
Kerr-McGee Chemical Corporation, Navassa, NC**
Lyman Dyeing and Finishing, Lyman, SC
National Fireworks, Cordova, TN
Orlando Gasification Plant, Orlando, FL
Sanford Gasification Plant, Sanford, FL
Sixty One Industrial Park, Memphis, TN
Solitron Devices, West Palm Beach, FL
Sprague Electric Company, Longwood, FL
Weyerhaeuser Plymouth Wood Treat. Plant, Plymouth, NC
ALCOA Properties, East St. Louis, IL
Cedar Creek, Cedarburg, Wl
Dow- Tittabawassee River/ Saginaw River/Saginaw Bay
Ellsworth Industrial Park, Downers Grove, IL
Evergreen Manor Groundwater Contamination, Winnebago, IL
Ford Road Landfill, Elyria, OH
Miller Compressing Co/Burnham Canal, Milwaukee, Wl
North Shore Gas - North Plant, Waukegan, IL
North Shore Gas - South Plant, Waukegan, IL
Old American Zinc Plant, Fairmont City, IL
Peoples Gas Former Manufactured Gas Plant, Crawford Station, Chicago,
IL
40 http://www.epa.gov/oecaerth/cleanup/superfund/saa-sites.html. Note that for Region 4, a more accurate estimate is 19
SA sites, reflecting the fact that the Kerr-McGee site North Carolina site has since been listed on the NPL, and two sites
(Brown's Dump and Jacksonville Ash) are now managed as one site.
A-4
-------
REGION
PERCENT OF
ALL SITES
WITH SAA
AGRREEMENTS
SUPERFUND ALTERNATIVE SITE
7
8
9
10
3.17%
1.59%
1.59%
3.17%
1.59%
Peoples Gas Former Manufactured Gas Plant, Hawthorne Ave, Chicago, IL
Peoples Gas Former Manufactured Gas Plant, Hough Place Station,
Chicago, IL
Peoples Gas Former Manufactured Gas Plant, North Shore Ave Station,
Chicago, IL
Peoples Gas Former Manufactured Gas Plant, Pitney Court, Chicago, IL
Peoples Gas Former Manufactured Gas Plant, South Station, Chicago, IL
Peoples Gas Former Manufactured Gas Plant, Throop St, Chicago, IL
Peoples Gas Light & Coke, 22nd St, Chicago, IL
Peoples Gas Light & Coke, Division St, Chicago, IL
Peoples Gas Light & Coke, North Station, Chicago, IL
Peoples Gas Light & Coke, Willow St Station, Chicago, IL
Peters Cartridge Factory, Kings Mills, OH
Solvay Coke and Gas Company, Milwaukee, Wl
South Dayton Dump, OH
Town of Pines Groundwater Plume, Town of Pines, IN
Tremont City Barrel Fill Site, Tremont City, OH
Wisconsin Public Service Company Manufactured Gas Plant, Green Bay,
Wl
Wisconsin Public Service Company Manufactured Gas Plant, Manitowoc,WI
Wisconsin Public Service Company Manufactured Gas Plant, Marinette,WI
Wisconsin Public Service Company Manufactured Gas Plant, Oshkosh, Wl
Wisconsin Public Service Company Manufactured Gas Plant, Stevens
Point,WI
Wisconsin Public Service Company Manufactured Gas Plant, Two Rivers,
Wl
Wisconsin Public Service Company Manufactured Gas Plant/Camp Marina,
Sheboygan, Wl
Falcon Refinery, Ingleside, TX (PDF) (5pp, 260KB, About PDF)
Highway 71/72 Refinery, Bossier City, LA (PDF) (4pp, 361KB)
Iowa City Former Manufactured Gas Plant (FMGP), Iowa City, IA
Kennecott - South Zone, Copperton, UT
Asarco - Hayden Plant, AZ
Cyprus Tohono Mine, AZ
Alaska Railroad Anchorage Yard , Anchorage, AK
Brown's Dump and Jacksonville Ash sites are being managed as a single site.
Kerr-McGee has been listed on the NPL.
lEc considered including Regions 4 and 5 in this evaluation. However, over half of the
SA agreements in Region 5 were negotiated primarily with two potentially responsible
parties (Peoples Gas and Wisconsin Public Service Corporation), and reflect an
ownership pattern for sites not likely to be broadly relevant. In addition, very few sites
outside Region 4 have completed RODs; this limits the use of these sites in comparison
with NPL sites. This evaluation therefore addresses sites in Region 4, as these sites
A-5
-------
represent a broad range of site types within a single region, and provide a sound basis for
comparing sites using the SA approach to NPL sites with similar characteristics.41 While
this evaluation focuses on Region 4 sites, the sites using the SA approach in this region
reflect a range of contaminants and media, and therefore, the evaluation results will be
generally relevant to other Regions that utilize the SA approach.
PROCESS FOR SELECTING SUPERFUND ALTERNATIVE SITES
Under the SA approach, a PRP enters into an SA consent agreement with EPA and stays
in compliance with that agreement, which requires a remediation process designed to be
equivalent to that under the NPL. EPA does not list the site on the NPL unless a PRP
fails to meet the obligations of the agreement.
Eligibility for the SA approach is based on the following three criteria:
1. Site contamination is significant enough that the site would be eligible for listing
on the NPL (i.e., the site's HRS score is 28.5 or greater;
2. A long-term response (i.e., a remedial action) is anticipated at the site; and
3. There is at least one willing, capable party (e.g., a company or person) that has
responsibility under Superfund, who will negotiate and sign an agreement with
EPA to perform the investigation and cleanup.
EPA has discretion to determine whether the SA approach is appropriate at a particular
site. If a site meets criteria 1 and 2 above, EPA may approach a PRP, or a PRP may
approach EPA, to negotiate an SA agreement. The SA agreement is equivalent to an
agreement negotiated at an NPL site, with the additional clause that EPA may unilaterally
list the site on the NPL if the PRP fails to meet the terms of the SA agreement. If EPA or
the PRP decides not to negotiate an SA agreement, the site remediation will proceed
either as a NPL listing or as a remediation under another authority (e.g., a state cleanup
program).
SUPERFUND ALTERNATIVE APPROACH REMEDIATION PROCESS
EPA negotiates agreements with PRPs for site investigation and site cleanup. For sites
using the SA approach, the agreement for investigation is usually in the form of an
Administrative Order on Consent (AOC). The agreement for remedial action is always in
the form of a judicial Consent Decree (CD). Both the AOC and the CD should include
language specific to the SA approach that keeps sites using the SA approach in an
equivalent position to sites listed on the NPL. EPA has model language for SA provisions
that address technical assistance for communities, financial assurance and natural
resource damage claims, and potential NPL listing for partial cleanups.
After site studies are completed and the hazards identified, the SA approach anticipates
that EPA will undertake remedy selection in the same manner as NPL remedy selection.
41 Only one SA site each in Regions 6, 7, and 8, have achieved RODs, and it is therefore difficult to identify patterns among
these sites, because differences in performance could reflect regional or site-specific conditions that cannot be isolated.
A-6
-------
At sites listed on, or proposed to be listed on the NPL, a qualified community group may
apply for a technical assistance grant (TAG) to hire an independent technical advisor. In
SA agreements, EPA negotiates a technical assistance provision for the PRP to provide
funds should a qualified community group apply for such an advisor.
Under the SA approach, EPA's oversight role is the same as its role on PRP-lead NPL
sites. When the cleanup is complete, EPA maintains an oversight role in monitoring and
reviews.
The benefits of the SA approach can vary depending on the site circumstances. EPA staff
in Region 4 have implemented the SA approach with the expectation that resources and
time are saved by avoiding the NPL listing process. In addition, in some cases
community and PRP support for the SA process may facilitate other parts of the pipeline
process. In addition, the remedies at sites using the SA approach should be equivalent to
those at comparable NPL sites, resulting in improved cost-effectiveness.
EVALUATIONS OF THE SUPERFUND ALTERNATIVE PROCESS
Since EPA issued its first formal policy guidance on the SA approach in 2002, EPA has
conducted assessments of the SA approach, both focusing on the process of program
implementation. EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) and
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) conducted a joint internal
evaluation of the SA approach and EPA's Office of the Inspector General conducted an
audit of the approach. Both of these evaluations were completed in 2007.
OECA's Office of Site Remediation Enforcement (OSRE) and the OSWER's Office of
Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation (OSRTI) conducted an evaluation of
the SA pilot to better understand how EPA Regions are implementing the SA approach,
whether it leads to successful site cleanups, and the concerns expressed by stakeholders.
Nine external stakeholders were consulted for the evaluation, including state
representatives, attorneys, PRPs, RPMs, and community groups. A summary of the
results from the evaluation were published in September 2007, Results of the Superfund
Alternative Approach Evaluation.
The evaluation found that the SA approach yielded about 20 agreements, primarily in
Regions 4 and 5 and that the SA agreements generally used language that was consistent
with the Response Selection and Enforcement Approach for Superfund Alternative Sites
guidance. The evaluation recommended retaining the SA approach as an available option
in appropriate circumstances and recommends several specific next steps:
Track SA agreements rather than sites using the SA approach by flagging only
agreements consistent with the guidance at sites satisfying the SA approach
eligibility criteria.
o Revise the SPIM language for national consistency.
Improve consistency of SA approach implementation.
o Offer training to regional staff on the SA approach, including the SA
criteria, setting the CERCLIS flag, negotiating model language,
improving transparency, approaching the PRP and community, and
A-7
-------
understanding how the SA approach fits with other CERCLA
enforcement tools.
o Consider developing case studies of successful agreements at sites using
the SA approach and best practices summaries as additional guidance.
o Modify Superfund model settlement documents to include the approach's
provisions.
Continue to improve the transparency of the SA approach.
o Use CERCLIS to provide an accurate picture of how the SA approach is
used (e.g., develop standardized national reports).
Continue to evaluate how EPA refers to the approach (e.g., consider using the
term NPL-Equivalent or NPL-Alternative to more accurately reflect the intent of
the approach to be an alternative to listing on the NPL, not an alternative to the
Superfund process).
In June of 2007, EPA's Inspector General issued a summary report on their audit of SA
approach entitled EPA Needs to Take More Action in Implementing Alternative
Approaches to Superfund Cleanups, Report No. 2007-P-00026. OIG conducted
interviews with Superfund program managers and staff, PRPs, and representatives of
National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) and the Superfund Settlements Project
(SSP) to review their experiences with the SA approach. The report recommended that
EPA track and report cleanup progress at sites using the SA approach, and improve
communications, information, and transparency associated with the SA approach.
Specific recommendations included:
Publish a universe of sites using the SA approach that meet the Superfund
Alternative site eligibility criteria and are designated as officially "Superfund
Alternative" and regularly update the list as the universe changes.
Develop specific instructions on when to use the SA designation (e.g., for sites or
agreements) and update the Superfund Program Implementation Manual (SPIM)
accordingly.
o The instructions should include provisions that state the Superfund
Alternative site flag should not be removed even if the site is deleted,
cleaned up, or proposed for the NPL, so that controls over documentation
of sites using the SA approach are maintained.
Establish and direct Regions to use a consistent HRS scoring method that is
acceptable and reliable for designating a Superfund Alternative site.
Track and report all Superfund GPRA measures at sites using the SA approach.
o This includes construction completions, final remedy selection, human
exposure under control, migration of contaminated groundwater under
control, and sitewide ready-for-reuse.
o Report GPRA measures at sites using the SA approach separately from
GPRA measures at NPL sites.
A-8
-------
Revise applicable guidance, manuals, or directives to reflect that these
performance measures will be tracked and reported for sites using the SA
approach.
lEc reviewed the findings and recommendations from these previous evaluations to shape
our evaluation questions. lEc also requested access to the underlying data to review those
questions that have been previously asked of stakeholders. This evaluation builds upon
those previous evaluations and expands the scope to consider the costs and level of effort
associated with activities at SA and NPL sites.
PROGRAM PIPELINE LOGIC MODEL
To illustrate the various components of the Superfund NPL and SA approach and to
inform development of specific evaluation questions, EPA has developed an alternate
logic model (i.e., a graphical representation of the relationships between program inputs,
outputs, and intended outcomes). As shown in Exhibit A-2, the key components of the
model include:
Activities the specific procedures or processes used to achieve program goals.
Outputs the immediate products that result from activities and are often used to
measure short-term progress. For example, EPA outputs include listing on the NPL,
negotiating RI/FS', preparing administrative orders of consent, and achieving records
of decision (RODs).
Outcomes the overarching goals of the program, which include achieving
construction complete, preparing final closeout reports, and deleting sites from the
NPL.
As authorized by CERCLA, the Superfund program has a primary goal of identifying and
remediating the most serious contaminated sites in the country. The program's structured
"pipeline" summarizes the key activities needed to assess and remediate each site that is
discovered.
For this evaluation, the pipeline is used as the central structure of an alternative design for
a logic model. The pipeline represents the program activities, which are typically
conducted in a structured, linear fashion. While atypical site remediation has many
outputs in the form of legal agreements, public information, and in some cases,
enforcement actions, this logic model focuses on the outputs that are most relevant to the
SA approach and the ability to measure its progress.
A-9
-------
EXHIBIT A-2: SUPERFUND PROGRAM PIPELINE LOGIC MODEL
EPA regions
State agencies
Citizen groups
Site identification and
addition to CERCLIS
Community involvement,
enforcement, and
emergency response can
occur at any time.
no risk
..HRS..^..2$..5 :::'.:::'.:::""1
i I
Site Inspection and HRS
Scoring
JNPL Approach
Compile FR Package
Site Characterization
Congressional letters
Publish FR Notice
Review of Site Complexity
Strength of liability case
Enforcement issues
Financial stability
# of PRPs
Potential remedies
Community and site history
Evaluate Feasibility of SA Approach
Ability to pay for cleanup
Extent of contamination
Motivation/desire to use SA approach
i Agreement with PRPs to Pursue SAA
Review Public Comments
List on NPL
OUTPUT
T^)
Negotiate RI/FS Administrative ,
Order on Consent
Negotiate and Coordinate TAG
Community Assistance
KEY OUTPUT^)^
^
Negotiate RI/FS Administrative Order
on Consent
Add disclaimer that PRPs cannot
challenge NPL listing
Include TAP provision
Remedial Investigation and
Feasibility Study
Key Community Input
Negotiate Judicial Consent
Decree
Review Financial Assurance
Negotiate further TAG
assistance
Final Closeout Report
EPA Review, shift to NPL if
SA not succeeding
'KEYOUTCOM^)
'
A-10
-------
While the evaluation will not be specifically organized around measuring the
development of key outputs, to the extent data allow, the comparisons between the SAA
and NPL sites will focus on the effort needed to reach key milestone outputs such as NPL
listing, RODs, and SA agreements. NPL sites are generally further along in the
"pipeline" and have completed more actions such as remedial design, remediation
actions, and in some cases, construction complete designations. For these sites,
comparisons with sites using the SA approach will be limited to the most recently
completed phase for the paired site.
EVALUATION QUESTIONS
To develop and refine evaluation questions, lEc conducted an initial data and document
review, and engaged in several discussions with EPA regarding the implications of our
findings for the scope of this evaluation. Subsequently, lEc and EPA finalized the
following evaluation questions:
1. What is the response of potentially responsible parties (PRPs) to the Superfund
Alternative Approach (SA approach)?
a. What aspects of the SA approach are appealing or unappealing to PRPs,
and why?
b. Do PRPs generally prefer the SA approach over NPL listing, or vice-
versa? Why or why not?
2. What do available data reveal about community member involvement in and
perceptions of the NPL and SAA processes?
a. What is the initial response of community members to NPL listing
compared to EPA's decision to use the SA approach?
b. Ultimately, what do available data reveal about the satisfaction of
community members with the SAA process and structure compared to
the NPL process and structure?
c. To what extent do communities use technical assistance funding at SA
approach and NPL sites? Is there a difference in funding availability
and/or expenditures for SA approach or NPL sites?
3. Does a pattern of difference exist in the specific remedies selected for sites using
the SA approach?
a. Do sites with SAA agreements use capping remedies, institutional
controls, or other remedies that mitigate risk but do not remove all
contamination, more frequently or less frequently than similar sites listed
on the NPL?
b. Do data suggest that SA remedies are comparable to remedies used for
similar sites listed on the NPL (e.g., Do sites using the SA approach
involve greater or fewer remedies resulting in unrestricted use)?
A-11
-------
4. Is there a difference in the potential for reuse/redevelopment at sites using the
SA approach compared with more sites listed on the NPL? If there is a
difference, does the evidence suggest why this difference exists?
5. What are the total cost, cost net of cost recovery, and time differences of the SA
and NPL approaches, for both EPA and PRPs?
a. What are differences in the early part of the process (from discovery
through RIFS)?
b. What are differences in the middle part of the process (from RIFS
through ROD)?
c. What are differences in the later part of the process (from ROD through
RD/RA, or through construction complete where applicable)?
6. What has EPA done to improve the consistency of implementing the SA
approach since an internal evaluation and an IG report on the approach was
published in 2007?
e. Do areas of inconsistent implementation remain? If yes, how should EPA
address them?
f. Have other questions related to implementation of guidance and consistent
tracking of site data been addressed?
7. What additional factors or variables should EPA take into account when deciding
if and when to use the SA approach in the future?
Exhibit A-3 on the next page provides a summary of the evaluation questions as they link
to the key objectives (purpose) of the evaluation. Exhibit A-3 also includes a brief map
of the key data sources expected to be employed in answering each of the questions.
Note that preliminary data collection suggests that no sites with SAA agreements have
achieved construction complete status yet, and thus evaluation questions 4 and 5 may not
be able to be systematically addressed. We include it, however, in case our final data
collection effort reveals information that may provide quantitative or qualitative insights.
A-12
-------
EXHIBIT A-3: RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN QUESTIONS AND EVALUATION PURPOSE
EVALUATION QUESTION
DATA SOURCES
PREVIOUS
EVALUATIONS
CERCLIS
WORKLOAD
ALLOCATION
MODEL/IFMS
SUPERFUND
RECORDS
(E.G., RODS)
INTERVIEWS
(UP TO 12
TOTAL)
NOTES ON DATA SOURCE(S):
EVALUATION PURPOSE: EXAMINE THE FACTORS INFLUENCING THE USE OF THE SUPERFUND ALTERNATIVE APPROACH
1. What is the response of potentially responsible parties (PRPs) to the Superfund Alternative Approach (SA approach)?
1a) What aspects of the SA approach
are appealing or unappealing to PRPs,
and why?
1b) Do PRPs generally prefer the SA
approach over NPL listing, or vice-
versa? Why or why not?
Interviews with all community
involvement coordinators in Region 4,
other EPA staff, PRPs
Review existing evaluation data
Interviews with all community
involvement coordinators in Region 4,
Interviews with other EPA staff,
Interviews with PRPs
Review existing evaluation data
2. What do available data reveal about community member involvement in and perceptions of the NPL and SA processes?
2a) What is the initial response of
community members to NPL listing
compared to EPA's decision to use the
SA approach?
2b) Ultimately, what do available data
reveal about the satisfaction of
community members with the SA
process and structure compared to the
NPL process and structure?
2c) To what extent do communities
use technical assistance funding at SA
and NPL sites? Is there a difference in
funding availability and/or
expenditures for SA or NPL sites?
Interviews with all community
involvement coordinators in Region 4,
other EPA staff, PRPs
Review existing evaluation data
Interviews with all community
involvement coordinators in Region 4,
other EPA staff, PRPs Review existing
evaluation data
Interviews with all community
involvement coordinators in Region 4,
other EPA staff, PRPs Workload
Allocation Model
Consent Decree Document
Community involvement plans
Review existing evaluation data
A-13
-------
EVALUATION QUESTION
DATA SOURCES
PREVIOUS
EVALUATIONS
CERCLIS
WORKLOAD
ALLOCATION
MODEL/IFMS
SUPERFUND
RECORDS
(E.G., RODS)
INTERVIEWS
(UP TO 12
TOTAL)
NOTES ON DATA SOURCE(S):
EVALUATION PURPOSE: ASSESS THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE SA APPROACH IN ACHIEVING THE GOALS OF THE SUPERFUND PROGRAM
3. Does a pattern of difference exist in the specific remedies selected for sites using the SA approach? If yes:
3a) Do sites with SAA agreements use
capping remedies, institutional
controls, or other remedies that
mitigate risk but do not remove all
contamination, more frequently or less
frequently than similar sites listed on
the NPL?
3b) b) Do data suggest that SA
remedies are comparable to remedies
used for similar sites listed on the NPL
(e.g., Do sites with SAA agreements
involve greater or fewer remedies
resulting in unrestricted use)?
4. Is there a difference in the potential for reuse/redevelopment at sites with SAA agreements s compared with more sites listed on the NPL? //
there is a difference, does the evidence suggest why this difference exists?
What plans exist for
CERCLIS fields: Remedies,
Unrestricted Use Designations,
Institutional Controls
Superfund Records: Institutional
Controls listed in RODs
CERCLIS fields: Remedies,
Unrestricted Use Designations,
Institutional Controls
Superfund Records: Institutional
Controls listed in RODs
reuse/redevelopment of sites?
CERCLIS fields: date of discovery,
date of Sitewide Anticipated for Reuse
Interviews with all community
involvement coordinators in Region 4,
other EPA staff
CERCLIS website: Online
Reuse/Redevelopment information
from CERCLIS profiles
EVALUATION PURPOSE: ASSESS THE EFFICIENCY OF THE SA APPROACH IN TERMS OF POTENTIAL TIME AND COST SAVINGS
5. What are the total cost, cost net of cost recovery, and time differences of the SA and NPL approaches, for both EPA and PRPs?
A-14
-------
EVALUATION QUESTION
5a) What are differences in the early
part of the process (from discovery
through RIFS)?
5b) What are differences in the middle
part of the process (from RIFS through
ROD)?
5c) What are differences in the later
part of the process (from ROD through
RD/RA, or through construction
complete where applicable)?
DATA SOURCES
PREVIOUS
EVALUATIONS
CERCLIS
X
X
X
WORKLOAD
ALLOCATION
MODEL/IFMS
X
X
SUPERFUND
RECORDS
(E.G., RODS)
X
X
INTERVIEWS
(UP TO 12
TOTAL)
X
NOTES ON DATA SOURCE(S):
CERCLIS fields: date of discovery,
date of RI/FS
Workload Allocation Model: effort
involved in reviewing site complexity,
evaluating feasibility of SA approach,
negotiating administrative order of
consent, negotiating and oversight of
TAG /TAP assistance.
Interviews with EPA staff
Superfund Documents: AOCs, CDs
IFMS: FTE data
CERCLIS fields: ROD date(s)
IFMS data on FTEs
Workload Allocation Model: effort
involved in preparing ROD(s).
Superfund Documents: ROD
Documents
Interviews with EPA Staff
CERCLIS fields: dates for: RD/RA,
Construction Complete, and Sitewide
Anticipated for Reuse
EVALUATION PURPOSE: IDENTIFY STRATEGIES TO IMPROVE THE IMPLEMENTATION, EFFICIENCY AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THE SA APPROACH
6. What has EPA done to improve the consistency of implementing the SA approach since an internal evaluation and an 1C report on the approach
was published in 2007?
6a) Do areas of inconsistent
implementation remain? If yes, how
should EPA address them?
X
X
Interviews with community
involvement coordinators in Region 4.
other EPA staff
Review existing evaluations
Review of current documentation and
procedures
A-15
-------
EVALUATION QUESTION
DATA SOURCES
PREVIOUS
EVALUATIONS
CERCLIS
WORKLOAD
ALLOCATION
MODEL/IFMS
SUPERFUND
RECORDS
(E.G., RODS)
INTERVIEWS
(UP TO 12
TOTAL)
NOTES ON DATA SOURCE(S):
6b) Have other questions related to
implementation of guidance and
consistent tracking of site data been
addressed?
Interviews with community
involvement coordinators in Region 4,
other EPA staff
Review existing evaluations
Review of current documentation and
procedures
7. What considerations should EPA take into account when deciding if and when to use the SA approach in the future?
What considerations should EPA take
into account?
Interviews with community
involvement coordinators in Region 4;
other EPA staff; PRPs
Review of existing evaluation data
A-16
-------
METHODOLOGY
EVALUATION DESIGN
This evaluation seeks to synthesize available information on the effectiveness of the
Region 4 Superfund Alternative approach.
The information needed to support the evaluation will come from a variety of sources,
including data from:
EPA's Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Information System (CERCLIS)
EPA's Workload Allocation Model (an internal EPA model which integrates
CERCLIS schedule and action data with cost data from the Integrated Financial
Management System (IFMS) data system)
Superfund records, including Records of Decision (RODs) and Community
Involvement Plans
Findings from EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA)
and Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) evaluation of the
SA Pilot
Recommendations from EPA's Office of the Inspector General audit
Interviews
This evaluation uses a mixed methods approach involving both qualitative and
quantitative methods to collect data that will enable the comparison of NPL sites and sites
using the SA approach. The design for this evaluation assumes that most data will come
from existing sources. In addition, lEc will conduct interviews to collect supplemental
data and/or resolve issues raised by the analysis of quantitative data.
To quantitatively assess the cost-effectiveness of sites using the SA approach relative to
NPL sites, lEc plans to use a matched pairs approach. This approach will compare data
for a limited number of paired SA approach and NPL sites in Region 4 with viable and
willing potentially responsible parties (PRPs) that have at least one Record of Decision
(ROD). We estimate that roughly six to nine pairs of sites will be examined; we currently
are assessing eleven sites with SAA agreements and RODs to determine how many of
these sites can be effectively matched. The limited number of sites using the SA
approach precludes a robust statistical analysis of differences between sites, but the
matched pairs assessment can provide quantitative information about specific sites, as
well as descriptive information about patterns among different site types. Sites will be
A-17
-------
paired as closely as possible to allow us to conduct a review of our matched pairs and to
identify patterns that may exist among paired sites.
The matched pairs approach examines differences in costs and time required for paired
sites to achieve key outputs, with a specific focus on publications of RODs. lEc will
review existing quantitative data from CERCLIS and the Workload Allocation Model to
determine if a pattern of difference exists in the cost or time associated with actions
completed at paired sites. If differences exist, lEc will review conditions that may
contribute to differences. However, this evaluation will not attempt to determine
causality.
To supplement the quantitative assessment and provide insights into factors that influence
the use of the SA program, lEc will review findings and data from prior OECA/OSWER
and OIG evaluations. This information will also be used to identify and verify strategies
to improve the SA approach and identify potential reasons why differences may exist
between SA approach and NPL sites.
After analyzing and reviewing the existing data and evaluations, lEc will conduct
interviews to expand on results and issues identified with existing data, and to gather
perspectives on key aspects of the SA approach. This effort will involve a limited
number of interviews with individuals experienced with both the SA and NPL approach.
Interviewees may include EPA Superfund and OECA staff, PRPs, community groups,
and state or local government officials.
PROPOSED STEPS IN CONDUCTING THE EVALUATION
The four broad steps anticipated for this evaluation involve: (1) developing and
implementing a selection process for identifying paired sites; (2) collecting and analyzing
data from existing evaluations, files, and databases to assess paired sites and other key
aspects of the program; (3) collecting and analyzing information and data from interviews
to expand on existing data; and (4) reporting results and conclusions. Exhibit A-4
summarizes our approach to each of these steps.
A-18
-------
EXHIBIT A-4: PROPOSED STEPS IN THE EVALUATION
1. Develop list of variables to align for comparison of sites using the Superfund
Alternative approach and NPL sites.
Collect site-level CERCLIS data for SA and NPL sites in Region 4
Match sites using the SA approach with similar NPL sites
2. Collect and Analyze Data from Existing Databases and Files
Analyze quantitative data from CERCLIS
Analyze quantitative data from the Workload Allocation Model/IFMS
Review findings from previous evaluations
3. Collect New Data through Interviews
Identify EPA Community Coordinators to interview
Identify other EPA staff, PRPs, state officials, or other stakeholders to
interview
Schedule and conduct interviews
Analyze trends and patterns in data from interviews
4. Prepare Final Evaluation Report, in Accordance with EPA Guidelines:
Introduce SA approach and the purpose of the evaluation
Describe methods for data collection and analysis
Summarize key findings from quantitative and qualitative data analyses,
and consider relationship between quantitative and qualitative finding
Develop conclusions and identify recommendations
SITE SELECTION FOR MATCHED PAIRS ANALYSIS
To evaluate the cost-effectiveness and other key aspects of the SA approach, lEc has
identified nine NPL sites to pair with the 12 sites using the SA approach in Region 4 that
have obtained at least one Record of Decision (ROD). lEc identified paired sites that are
similar enough in key site descriptors to provide a reasonable basis for comparison of the
two approaches to remediation. As previously noted, lEc initially considered including
paired sites from Regions 4 and 5 in order to capture the majority of sites in the SA
universe. However, lEc limited the evaluation to sites in Region 4, because Region 5
sites reflected unique, multi-site agreements and were generally in the early stages of the
pipeline. Region 4 sites represent a large percentage of all sites using the SA approach in
the U.S. that have achieved RODs.
The SA approach is an option only when there is at least one willing and capable PRP
who will negotiate and sign an agreement with EPA to perform the investigation and site
remediation. Thus, this evaluation will examine only sites using the SA approach and
A-19
-------
"PRP-lead" NPL sites in Region 4 that have agreements with one or more private parties.
Federal facility and fund-lead sites will not be included in this analysis as they are not
eligible for the SA approach.
In 2005, lEc conducted research on site variables that appear to have a causal relationship
with cost at Fund-lead NPL sites. While this research did not focus on the site
management costs that are specific to PRP-lead NPL sites and sites using the SA
approach, it did examine the factors that drove overall costs at sites where EPA undertook
every aspect of the remediation. Results of this research and an accompanying review of
the literature assessing Superfund cost drivers suggested that the following variables are
potentially important indicators of site complexity and cost:
Number of PRPs
Type and number of media contaminated
Number of operable units (OUs) and extent of contamination
Type of contamination.
To the extent possible, paired sites should be similar with regard to these variables.
To identify additional variables that might affect pairing of PRP-lead sites and sites in
Region 4, lEc also consulted with subject matter experts from EPA staff in Region 4 and
Headquarters. In addition, lEc collected qualitative insights about potential thresholds for
pairing (e.g., the extent to which variations were acceptable). Based on this input, lEc
used the following variables to develop an initial list of paired sites:
Industry: To the extent possible, paired sites should be related to similar types of
industrial activity, to ensure similarity in likely contaminants and facility
configurations. For example, to the extent possible, a wood-treatment plant
should be paired with a wood-treatment plant, or a landfill with a landfill).
Number and type of media contaminated: To the extent possible, paired sites
should have the same types of contaminated media (e.g., soil and groundwater
contamination). In addition, lEc will focus on matching the media type as closely
as possible (e.g., a NPL site with groundwater and sediment contamination would
be best matched with an site using the SA approach with the same media
contamination).
Type of contaminant: To the extent possible, paired sites should have the same
general types of contamination (e.g., metals, organics, etc.) lEc plans to match
sites using the following assumptions:
o PCBs, PAHs, POPs, and pesticides likely involve similar amounts of
effort for planning and investigative phases.
o Inorganics and base neutral acids likely require similar amounts of effort
for the planning and investigative phase
A-20
-------
o Dioxins/Dibenzofurans, Metal, and VOCs are each unique substances
that likely require different efforts, even in the early stages of the
pipeline. Therefore, these contaminants should be paired accordingly.
o Other specific contaminant profiles (e.g., mercury, creosote) may also be
used to describe and match specific facilities, based on CERCLIS and
Region 4 staff input.
Proximity to residential or densely populated areas: Paired sites should be
similar in the type of location (e.g., industrial zoned areas, residential areas).
o Population density may be a factor driving differences in time and cost.
Thus, when analyzing data lEc may utilize the CERCLIS Population
Within One Mile field in conjunction with estimates of population
density to review possible explanations for differences.
Population within one mile of the site was available only for NPL
sites. lEc reviewed the site address, Google maps, Wikipedia,
and the site description section in the sites' RODs to estimate
population density for sites with SAA agreements. lEc developed
estimates for population within one mile at sites with SAA
agreements using three categories: fewer than 1,000 people,
1,000 - 10,000 people, and over 10,000 people.
State governments: To the extent that state government involvement affects
remediation processes, lEc matched sites in similar states.
o Region 4 staff indicated that Florida NPL sites and Florida sites using the
SA approach should be paired. All other states in Region 4 were
comparable.
Number of PRPs: To the extent possible, paired sites should have similar
numbers of viable PRPs. In most cases these will be sites with six or fewer PRPs.
Number of Records of Decision (RODs): To the extent possible, paired sites
should have a similar number of RODs.
Number of Operable Units (OUs): To the extent possible, paired sites should
have similar numbers of OUs.
In addition, lEc considered the following variables to ensure that specific sites do not
differ significantly in complexity as a result of one or more of the following variables:
Specific contaminants: Presence or absence of specific contaminants that require
very specific remediation technologies. For example, sites with radiological
contamination may merit specific consideration.
o To the extent possible, paired sites should have similar specific
contaminants of concern when differences in contaminants may drive
cost and time.
A-21
-------
Specific contaminant age/source: It may be important or useful to compare sites
with similar contaminant history (e.g., manufacturing facilities or waste facilities
of similar ages).
o To the extent possible, paired sites should have published at least one
ROD since 1995. Actions completed prior to 1995 have limited financial
information, and actions completed prior to 1989 have only single
estimates of cost data for general categories of costs.
Extent of infrastructure near site: It may be important to ensure that sites have
comparable infrastructure to support remediation (e.g., roads, utilities).
o To the extent possible, sites with limited infrastructure should be paired
with sites with similar issues.
At this time, no sites appear to have issues with limited
infrastructure.
Environmental justice (EJ) or disadvantaged communities: Sites in
communities with inequitable environmental burdens should be matched with
sites in communities with similar issues.
o Sites located in areas with inequitable environmental burdens may have
differences in time and cost.
At this time, no sites have been noted as being in EJ or
disadvantaged communities.
lEc adopted a ranked but qualitative decision tree format for selecting sites to ensure that
variables above are documented for each pair of selected sites, and that the selection
process is transparent. However, because the number of sites in Region 4 is limited and
sites have a range of unique features, and because management of sites (e.g., definition of
OUs) often varies, it is unlikely that paired facilities will be "perfect matches" across all
variables. lEc will work with Region 4 staff to ensure that the selection process for each
paired site is carefully documented to explain any circumstances necessitating divergence
from the selection process. See Exhibit A-5 for site pairs and Exhibit A-6 for the
decision logic for site selection. Appendix B contains details of the paired sites,
including contamination, number of PRPs, number of OUs, and other data.
A-22
-------
EXHIBIT A-5: SAA AND NPL PAIRED SITES
SA APPROACH SITE
NPL SITE
LOGIC FOR PAIRING
Weyerhaeuser Co Plymouth
Wood Trtng Pt
NCD991278540
Gurley Pesticide Burial
NCD986172526
Brown's Dump
FLD980847016
Jacksonville Ash Site
FL0002264810
Admiral Home Appliances
SCD047563614
Sixty One Industrial Park
TND987790300
Ecusta Mill
NCD003166675
Solitron Devices Inc
FLD032845778
Itt-Thompson Industries, Inc
FLD043047653
Lyman Dyeing And Finishing
SCD987584653
Nocatee Hull Creosote
FLD980709398
Sanford Gasification Plant
FLD984169193
Stauffer Chemical Co. (Cold
Creek Plant)
ALD095688875
Agrico Chemical Co.
FLD980221857
Hipps Road Landfill
FLD980709802
Shuron Inc.
SCD003357589
Diamond Shamrock Corp.
Landfill
GAD990741092
Olin Corp. (Mcintosh Plant)
ALD008188708
Harris Corp. (Palm Bay
Plant)
FLD000602334
Martin-Marietta, Sodyeco,
Inc.
NCD001810365
Cabot/ Koppers
FLD980709356
Chlorine manufacturing
Mercury contamination of fish
and sediment
Phosphate fertilizer
manufacturer
Arsenic and Lead in soil
Sites are all in Jacksonville
Residential contamination
Manufacturing plant
Drinking water contamination
VOC and metal contaminants
Metals and VOCs in
groundwater
Chlorine production
Mercury contamination
Electronics manufacturing
Solvents in groundwater and
drinking water
Metal industry
Solvent groundwater plume
Dye operation
Landfill component
Wood treater
Creosote
Arsenic contamination
Waste from coal tar
PAH contaminants
A-23
-------
EXHIBIT A-6: LOGIC FOR PAIRING OF SUPERFUND ALTERNATIVE APPROACH AND NPL SITES
1. Site Characteristics
EPA ID
Site Name
State
Zip Code
County
Region: 4
Federal Facility: N
Non-NPL Status: SA
NPL Status: Currently on the Final NPL
Responsibility: Potentially Responsible Party (limited to sites that are
PRP-lead)
2. Site Selection Criteria (in order of importance for selecting sites)
Site Characterization (as provided by Region 4 staff)
Major Contaminants/Contaminants of Concern (If Applicable, also
provided by Region 4 staff)
Contaminated Media
Types of Contaminants
Site Description (Region 4 NPL caliber sites website)
3. Additional Fields for Consideration in Pairing Sites
Number of PRPs
Number of OUs
Most Recent ROD (limited to sites that have obtained at least one ROD
since 1995)
Number of RODs
COLLECT AND ANALYZE DATA FROM EXISTING FILES AND DATABASES
This evaluation relies primarily on existing data sources, including EPA's CERCLIS
database, Workload Allocation Model, RODs, and prior evaluations. Data from
CERCLIS and EPA's Workload Allocation Model will support assessment of time and
cost for differences between paired sites. Findings from prior evaluations support review
of key program perception issues. They also identify how these have evolved, and how
EPA has updated the program implementation since the internal evaluation and OIG
report. Ultimately, these data and findings may be used to frame questions for
interviewees on the factors influencing the use of SA and NPL approaches.
A-24
-------
EXHIBIT A-7:
Analysis of Existing Superfund Data
lEc will analyze CERCLIS data provided by Randy Hippen at EPA Headquarters and
CERCLIS data downloaded from the public CERCLIS website
(http://www.epa. gov/superfund/sites/phonefax/products .htm). A-7 lists the key
CERCLIS fields that will support the comparison of SA approach and NPL sites for
Evaluation Questions 3, 4, and 5.
CERCLIS FIELDS FOR COMPARISON OF SITES WITH SAA AGREEMENTS AND NPL
SITES
Site Activities
Action
Action ID
Actual Start Date
Actual End Date/Completion
Planned Outcome
Urgency
Initial Remedial Measure
Institutional Controls
Long Term Response Action
Site-Wide Ready for Anticipated Use (if any paired sites achieve
SWRAU)
Cleanup Technologies Used
Cleanup Status (at OU)
Human Exposure Environmental Indicator Measure
lEc plans to review and analyze available CERCLIS data on site actions and designations
for the paired sites to answer the following evaluation questions using the CERCLIS
fields noted below each question:
Evaluation Question 3a): Do sites using the SA approach use capping remedies,
institutional controls, or other remedies that mitigate risk but do not remove all
contamination, more frequently or less frequently than similar sites listed on the NPL?
Key CERCLIS fields include:
Remedies
Unrestricted Use Designations
Institutional Controls
Evaluation Question 3b): Do data suggest that SAA remedies are comparable to remedies
used for similar sites listed on the NPL (e.g., Do sites using the SA approach involve
greater or fewer remedies resulting in unrestricted use)? Key CERCLIS fields include:
A-25
-------
Remedies
Human Exposure Environmental Indicator Measure
Contaminated Ground Water Migration Environmental Indicator Measure
Evaluation Question 5a): What are differences in the time needed to complete the early
part of the site remediation process (from discovery through RIFS)? Key CERCLIS
fields include:
Date of discovery
DateofRI/FS
Evaluation Question 5b): What are differences in the time needed to complete the
"middle part" of the site remediation process (from RIFS through ROD)? Key CERCLIS
fields include:
ROD date(s)
Evaluation Question 5c): What are differences in the time needed to complete the later
part of the process (from ROD through RD/RA, or through construction complete where
applicable)? Key CERCLIS fields include:
ROD date(s)
RD start and completion dates
RA start and completion dates
Note that available data may not support analysis of Evaluation Question54c because
most sites using the SA approach have not yet completed remedial actions.
lEc plans to review the above findings and to identify any patterns of difference in the
time to complete actions, or any differences in the outcomes at SA approach and NPL
sites. Due to the limited number of sites that will be compared, an evaluation of
statistical significances will not be possible, but we plan to review differences and
patterns amongst and across paired sites.
In addition, it may be possible to review some descriptive statistics for PRP-lead sites and
evaluate if there are any differences between SA approach and NPL sites. Example
measures could include the average number of days from date of discovery to date of
RI/FS and average number of days from RI/FS to ROD.
A preliminary review of sites using the SA approach and available data has indicated that
few sites with SAA agreements have completed the remedial design and remedial action
stages. In addition, many sites have a lengthy time lag between discovery and Superfund
action. Thus, lEc will work with EPA to identify how this lag should be addressed, and
analytic emphasis will be placed on the RI/FS and ROD dates, rather than on question 4c.
Findings will be used in conjunction with cost data from the Workload Allocation Model
to review the efficiency and effectiveness of the SA approach.
A-26
-------
Analysis of Workload Allocation Model Data
Alan Youkeles from EPA Headquarters provided lEc with detailed data on Superfund
obligations and expenditures from his workload allocation model for all sites in Region 4,
except for those sites in Florida. While the workload allocation data is limited to
activities conducted by EPA (and therefore does not include PRP costs for remediation),
this limitation does not affect our analysis because no sites using the SA approach have
completed remedial actions (i.e., achieved construction complete). We are therefore
focusing on EPA actions prior to and including development of RODs.
To the extent possible, lEc plans to review expenditure data to determine whether data
support review of specific costs associated with the following actions that EPA
undertakes in the process of negotiating SA agreements:
Review of site complexity (including PRP identification)
Evaluation of feasibility of S A approach (including evaluation of PRP viability)
Negotiation of administrative order of consent with PRP
Negotiation and oversight of TAG/TAP assistance
Development of ROD(s)
lEc plans to review expenditure data for individual actions as well as general categories
of expenditures by different EPA staff, such as site management, enforcement, and
extramural expenditures. We note that the grouping of actions may affect lEc's ability to
break out specific stages, but we expect to be able to compare total EPA costs from
discovery through development of ROD; and to identify the distribution of those costs
across actions, and across EPA enforcement, site management, and extramural
expenditures.
To reduce the potential for double counting, lEc will review only expenditure data, and
not obligation data. lEc's analysis of expenditure data in conjunction with CERCLIS
data will answer the following evaluation questions:
Evaluation Question 5a): What are differences in the early part of the process (from
discovery through RIFS)?
Amount of effort involved in reviewing site complexity;
Evaluating feasibility of SA approach;
Negotiating administrative order of consent; and
Negotiating and oversight of TAG/TAP assistance.
Evaluation Question 5b): What are differences in the middle part of the process (from
RIFS through ROD)?
Effort involved in preparing ROD(s).
Analyses of expenditure data is only possible through the ROD stages of the pipeline
because EPA does not track PRP spending for remedial actions. In addition, few sites
A-27
-------
with SAA agreements have completed remedial actions. As a result, data on the time and
resources required to achieve the Remedial Action or Construction Complete stages are
limited. Thus, lEc plans to review expenditure data and the amount of time involved to
complete actions only through the ROD stage. This limitation applies to both the
matched pairs approach and reviews of average time and expenditures for actions at
paired sites.
Contextual Assessment of Results
lEc will focus analysis of CERCLIS and Workload Allocation Model data on identifying
both important differences between individual sites, and broader patterns or trends that
emerge when comparing SA and NPL sites "across pairs." In addition, lEc will work
with EPA to identify documentation of "average" site cost and time data for sites in
Region 4 and nationally, to determine how cost and time differences compare with the
broader program performance.
Our priorities in identifying these contextual data will be to ensure that they are relevant
to the sites (e.g., that they do not focus on Fund-lead sites or remedial action costs) and
that they reflect existing methods, analyses, and data recognized by the Agency.
REVIEW OF PREVIOUS EVALUATIONS AND DATA COLLECTION EFFORTS
EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) and Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) conducted a joint internal evaluation of the
SA approach and EPA's Office of the Inspector General also conducted an audit of the
approach. Both of these evaluations were completed in 2007.
lEc requested access to the methodology and data collection efforts used to collection
information on opinions and perceptions via surveys, questionnaires, and interviews.
OECA/OSWER Evaluation
OECA's Office of Site Remediation Enforcement (OSRE) and the OSWER's Office of
Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation (OSRTI) conducted an evaluation of
the SA pilot to better understand how EPA Regions are implementing the SA approach,
whether it leads to successful site cleanups, and the concerns expressed by stakeholders.
The results of that evaluation were published in September 2007, Results of the Superfund
Alternative Approach Evaluation.
In addition to RPMs, nine external stakeholders were consulted for this evaluation,
including state representatives, attorneys, PRPs, and community groups. lEc requested
access to examine the survey questions, responses, and a list of survey recipients. If these
materials are received, lEc will review the surveys to identify questions that may have
already been asked and to identify stakeholders that may have already been consulted.
For example, the evaluation indicated that attorneys reported that negotiating the TAP
provision was difficult and that some regional community involvement coordinators
reported that local community groups preferred SA's TAP assistance compared to NPL's
TAG. lEc plans to interview community involvement coordinators and inquire about the
extent that communities use technical assistance funding at SA approach and NPL sites.
A-28
-------
lEc will first carefully review all available data related to the OECA/OSWER evaluation
to avoid duplicating efforts.
lEc reviewed the findings and requested access to the underlying data from the
OECA/OSWER Evaluation to inform the answers to Evaluation Questions 1,2,6 and 7,
specifically:
Evaluation Question la): What aspects of the SA approach are appealing or
unappealing to PRPs, and why?
Evaluation Question Ib): Do PRPs generally prefer the SA approach over NPL
listing, or vice-versa? Why or why not?
Evaluation Question 2a): What is the initial response of community members to NPL
listing compared to EPA's decision to use the SA approach?
Evaluation Question 2b): Ultimately, what do available data reveal about the
satisfaction of community members with the SA process and structure compared to
the NPL process and structure?
Evaluation Question 2c): To what extent do communities use technical assistance
funding at SA approach and NPL sites? Is there a difference in funding availability
and/or expenditures for SA approach or NPL sites?
Evaluation Question: 6a) Do areas of inconsistent implementation remain? If yes,
how should EPA address them?
Evaluation Question 6b): Have other questions related to implementation of
guidance and consistent tracking of site data been addressed?
Evaluation Question: 7): What considerations should EPA take into account when
deciding if and when to use the SA approach in the future?
We anticipate that this prior evaluation will provide contextual information for framing
interviews to address these questions.
DIG Evaluation
In June of 2007, EPA's Inspector General issued a report on the SA approach entitled
EPA Needs to Take More Action in Implementing Alternative Approaches to Superfund
Cleanups, Report No. 2007-P-00026. OIG conducted interviews with Superfund program
managers and staff, PRPs, and representatives of NAM and the Superfund Settlements
Project (SSP) to review their experiences with the SA approach. lEc requested access to
the interview questions, responses, and list of interviewees. However, OIG did not
release any of the requested data.
In addition, OIG administered six short questionnaires on PRP general views and
experiences with the SA approach. Detailed information about the specific interviews
conducted is not available from the OIG; lEc will therefore rely on publicly available
report data to inform additional data collection through interviews to address Evaluation
Questions 1,2,6, and 7.
A-29
-------
The collected data from both prior evaluations will support the following actions:
Inform Evaluation Questions 1, 2, 6, and 7
Identify and/or exclude potential interviewees
Provide meta data about issues previously identified and addressed
Ascertain potential interview questions or additional data sources
Additional Data Resources: RODs, Community Involvement Plans
lEc reviewed EPA Superfund Alternative Approach website to review SA criteria and
requirements (http://www.epa.gov/compliance/cleanup/superfund/saa.html) and Region
4's NPL Caliber website (http://www.epa.gov/region4/waste/npl/index.htmtfFL) to fill in
missing data items and provide supplemental information (e.g., location/population
density, technical assistance funding). Individual profiles on the Region 4 website also
contain links to:
Site fact sheets
o Site background
o Site reuse/redevelopment
o Community Involvement
RODs
o Institutional controls
Consent decrees
o Provisions for technical assistance funding
Community involvement plans
o Plans for community involvement and engagement of community groups
lEc will contact Superfund staff in Region 4 or Headquarters to request additional
information or documents if the above websites do not provide the necessary resources to
conduct this evaluation.
NEW DATA COLLECTION EFFORTS
In addition to using existing files and data sources, lEc will conduct a limited number of
in-person or telephone interviews to support this evaluation. lEc plans to use interviews
in three ways: 1) to provide central information on specific evaluation questions that have
not been well-documented using available data (e.g., Questions 1 and 2); 2) to
supplement information available in existing data sources (e.g., follow-up on EPA
activities to address prior evaluation recommendations); and 3) to investigate specific
data questions that may arise as a result of the quantitative analyses of existing data.
Because the optimal number and type of interviews will be driven in part by the analysis
of existing data, it is premature to develop the specific content or target of the interviews.
However, we anticipate that the interviews will be focused roughly as follows:
A-30
-------
EPA Staff
Community Involvement Coordinators (CICs)
o All four community involvement coordinators from Region 4
o Interviews with CICs will address many facets of the SA and NPL
approaches, but the primary focus will be on Evaluation Question 2:
2a) What is the initial response of community members to
NPL listing compared to EPA's decision to use the SA
approach?
2b) Ultimately, what do available data reveal about the
satisfaction of community members with the SA approach
process and structure compared to the NPL process and
structure?
2c) To what extent do communities use technical assistance
funding at SA approach and NPL sites? Is there a difference
in funding availability and/or expenditures for paired sites?
Remedial Project Managers (RPMs) and other EPA staff
o Interviews may be used to fill-in data gaps and to collect experiences
with the SA and NPL approaches to inform and provide supplemental
information, particularly for Evaluation Questions 4, 6, and 7:
4. Is there a difference in the potential for
reuse/redevelopment at sites with SAA agreements compared
with more sites listed on the NPL? If there is a difference,
does the evidence suggest why this difference exists?
6a) Do areas of inconsistent implementation remain? If yes,
how should EPA address them?
6b) Have other questions related to implementation of
guidance and consistent tracking of site data been addressed?
7) What considerations should EPA take into account when
deciding if and when to use the SA approach in the future?
State Or Local Officials
o Officials may be interviewed to supplement data collection efforts for the
following evaluation questions:
1. What is the response of potentially responsible parties
(PRPs) to the SA approach?
2. What do available data reveal about community member
involvement in and perceptions of the NPL and SA
processes?
A-31
-------
6. What has EPA done to improve the consistency of
implementing the SA approach since an internal evaluation
and an IG report on the approach was published in 2007?
7. What considerations should EPA take into account when
deciding if and when to use the SA approach in the future?
Community Groups
o Community groups with experience with SA approach and NPL sites
may be interviewed to provide supplemental information for Evaluation
Question 2
2a) What is the initial response of community members to
NPL listing compared to EPA's decision to use the SA
approach?
2b) Ultimately, what do available data reveal about the
satisfaction of community members with the SA approach
process and structure compared to the NPL process and
structure?
2c) To what extent do communities use technical assistance
funding at SA approach and NPL sites? Is there a difference
in funding availability and/or expenditures for SA approach
or NPL sites?
Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs) (if applicable)
PRPs may be interviewed to solicit responses for the following evaluation questions:
o la) What aspects of the SA approach are appealing or unappealing to
PRPs, and why?
o Ib) Do PRPs generally prefer the SA approach over NPL listing, or vice-
versa? Why or why not?
o 7) What considerations should EPA take into account when deciding if
and when to use the SA approach in the future?
lEc plans to conduct up to 12 interviews with individuals to fill in data gaps, particularly
on perceptions of the SA process and the perceived stigma of sites with SAA agreements
compared to NPL sites. Interviews may include individuals with differing perspectives
on the SA approach including EPA Superfund and OECA staff, PRPs, community
groups, and state or local government officials. lEc plans to seek interviewees that have
experience with both the sites with SAA agreements and NPL sites. Thus, for example,
lEc plans to interview all four community involvement coordinators for EPA Region 4.
Because we propose to use the interviews as a follow up to the review of previous data
collection efforts, we plan to wait until we have results available to develop the list of
interviewees and an interview guide. After the results are compiled, lEc will draft the
A-32
-------
interview guide and produce a final guide based on EPA comments. lEc will schedule
and conduct phone interviews with identified participants.
REPORT RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS
lEc will produce interim deliverables including: an analysis of existing data and
preliminary results. lEc expects that EPA will provide feedback on interim deliverables
as we submit them. Upon completion of interim deliverables, lEc will develop a draft
evaluation report that incorporates EPA comments on interim deliverables, synthesizes
findings across deliverables, and provides recommendations for improving the Superfund
Alternative Approach.
The following outline of the report is preliminary; the details of the final report structure
will likely evolve based on evaluation findings. The final report will be prepared and
delivered in accordance with the Evaluation Support Division's report formatting and
presentation guidelines.
PRELIMINARY OUTLINE OF THE FINAL REPORT
1) Executive Summary
2) Introduction
a) Background on Superfund and the Superfund Alternative Approach
b) Program Pipeline Logic Model
c) Purpose/Objectives of the Evaluation
d) Evaluation questions and rationale for the questions
e) Structure of the Report
3) Methods
For each method, we will discuss the rationale for the method, the evaluation question(s)
that the method is designed to support, data collection technique(s) and instruments
employed.
a) CERCLISData
b) Workload Allocation Model
c) Existing Evaluations/Data
d) Interviews
e) Strengths and Weaknesses of Methodology
4) Findings
We expect to have several findings for each evaluation question. For each finding, we
will discuss the method(s) that produced the data, analytical techniques employed, and
any limitations to our analyses. We will use tables and graphs to communicate findings
as appropriate.
A-33
-------
a) Findings on Evaluation Question 1
b) Findings on Evaluation Question 2
c) Findings on Evaluation Question 3
d) Findings on Evaluation Question 4
e) Findings on Evaluation Question 5
f) Findings on Evaluation Question 6
g) Findings on Evaluation Question 7
5) Recommendations
A-34
-------
Proposed Evaluation Schedule
lEc proposes the following schedule for completing the evaluation, as outlined below:
PROPOSED EVALUATION SCHEDULE
TASK
2
3
4
DELIVERABLE
ESTIMATED COMPLETION
SCHEDULE
Document review
Finalize logic model
Finalize evaluation
questions
Draft evaluation
methodology
Final Evaluation
Methodology
Draft Quality Assurance Plan
Final Quality Assurance Plan
Review Existing Data:
Review and analyze CERCLIS
data, pair sites, analyze
paired sites
Interviews: Identify EPA
interview participants
(among HQ and area staff),
community representatives
(if applicable), and PRPs (if
applicable), schedule
interviews, develop draft
interview guide
Finalize interview guide and
conduct interviews
Interview summaries
Draft final report
Oral presentation, if desired
Final report
2 weeks after updating
evaluation questions
TARGET DATE
Complete
Complete
Complete
Submitted on April 2, 2010
2 weeks after receiving
comments
Within 7 days of final
methodology approval
If applicable, within 3
working days of receiving
EPA comments
Within 5 weeks of finishing
methodology
Within 4 weeks after
completing review of
existing data
Within 3 weeks of
scheduling and/or receiving
comments on interview
guide
Within 2 weeks of
interviews
Within 4 weeks of receiving
comments on all interim
deliverables
2 weeks after draft report
3 weeks after receipt of
comments on draft report
May 10, 2010
May 12, 2010
May 26, 2010
May 28, 2010
June 11, 2010
June 30 2010
July 12, 2010
August 9, 2010
August 23, 2010
September 1 3,
2010
A-35
-------
APPENDIX B
-------
APPENDIX B: SA APPROACH AND NPL PAIRED SITES
EPA ID AND
SITE NAME
CHARACTERIZATION
MAJOR
CONTAMINANTS
(IF APPLICABLE)
MEDIA
CONTAMINATED
CONTAMINANT
CATEGORIES
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
#OF
PRPS
#OF
OUS
MOST
RECENT
ROD
#OF
RODS
Site with SAA Agreement
ADMIRAL
HOME
APPLIANCES
SCD04756361
4
Miscellaneous
manufacturing plant
Chromium, Zinc,
Nickel, Lead
Mercury in local
wells
Groundwater,
Sediment, Sludge,
Soil, Surface
Water
Metals, PAH,
VOC,
NPL Match
SHURON INC. VOCs and metals in
SCD00335758 soil and GW
9
Groundwater,
Soil, Surface
Water
Metals, PAH, VOC
Site of a former wastewater treatment plant,
initially used for the treatment of domestic
wastewater for a trailer park. After the trailer park
ceased operation, a variety of manufacturing
operations started up at the site. These
manufacturing operations continued to use the
wastewater plant to inadequately treat industrial
wastewater until 1982, when the adjacent
manufacturing plant began to pre-treat their
wastewater and discharge to Williston's Sewage
Treatment Plant N/A
Site investigations detected heavy metals,
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and volatile
organic compounds (VOCs) in ground water, soil,
sediments, surface water, and sludge at the site.
Metals including chromium, zinc, nickel, and lead
were found in the wetland discharge area, as well
as in sediments of Spur Branch. In addition to VOCs,
mercury was found in six residential wells in a
neighborhood adjacent to the plant
^^^
The Shuron Inc. site is located adjacent to the city of
Barnwell in Barnwell County, South Carolina. A former
manufacturing facility occupies about 34 acres of the 85-
acre property, with wetlands comprising the remaining
acreage. From 1958 to 1992, the facility was used for
manufacturing single-vision and multi-vision glass ocular
lenses. Waste byproducts of plant operations included
grinding compounds, glass, polishing compounds, asbestos,
hydraulic oils, motor oils, and perchloroethylene sludge.
Improper disposal practices at the former manufacturing
facility have led to contamination of soils, sediments,
ground water, and surface water. The primary contaminants
of concern were volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in
ground water and metals, including lead, arsenic, zinc, and
copper, in soils and wetland sediments.
Approximately 5,600 people within 4 miles of the site use
ground water as a drinking water source.
9/28/2006
09-Sep-98 1
Site with SAA Agreement
B-1
-------
EPA ID AND
SITE NAME
CHARACTERIZATION
MAJOR
CONTAMINANTS
(IF APPLICABLE)
MEDIA
CONTAMINATED
CONTAMINANT
CATEGORIES
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
#OF
PRPS
#OF
OUS
MOST
RECENT
ROD
#OF
RODS
GURLEY
PESTICIDE
BURIAL
NCD98617252
6
NPL i
Phosphate fertilizer
manufacturer.
Arsenic and Lead in
soil.
Heavy metals
Groundwater,
Sediment, Soil,
Surface Water
AGRICO
CHEMICAL
CO.
FLD98022185
7
Arsenic and lead in
soil and gw from
phosphate fertilizer
manufacturing
Groundwater,
Sludge, Soil,
Inorganics,
Metals, POPs,
Pesticides,
VOC,
Halogenated
SVOCslnorganic
s, Metals,
Nitroaromatics,
PAH, Persistant
Organic
Pollutants,
Pesticides,
Radioactive,
VOC
103-acre Gurley Pesticide Burial site is the location
of both a former phosphate fertilizer production
facility and an agricultural chemical distribution
facility. There are two major areas of interest at
the site, designated as the pesticide burial area
9/28/2006
Operations at the site began in 1889 with Agrico
Chemical producing sulfuric acid from pyrite (iron
sulfide). Several companies produced fertilizer on
site between 1920 and 1975, including Conoco, Inc.
(now ConocoPhillips, Inc.) and Agrico Chemical
Company.
18-Aug-94
Site with SAA Agreement
NOCATEE
HULL
CREOSOTE
FLD98070939
8
Wood treater
CTGOSOtS'TGlstGCl
pahs and BTEX
(bGHZGHG
tnl i ipnp
LULUd ICj
ethylbenzene,
3nd xvlsnG)
Arsenic, benzene,
boron, carbazole,
dibGnzof ursns
naphthalene,
PAHs and
pentachloropheno
I, arsenic and
bGHZGHG
Groundwater,
Sediment, Soil
Soil, ground
water, and
drainage-
system
sediments at
the site are
contaminated
with creosote-
related
polycyclic
aromatic
hydrocarbons
and BTEX
(benzene,
toluene,
ethylbenzene,
and xylene).
Nocatee Hull Creosote is listed as an SAA on
www.epa.gov/region4/waste/npl/index.htm#NC,
but not on
www.epa.gov/compliance/cleanup/superfund/saa-
sites.html#4
The Nocatee-Hull Creosote site is comprised of
three parcels - a former treatment plant area
(approximately 38 acres), the Peace River flood
plain area to the west (approximately 35.5 acres),
and the Oak Creek area to the east - a rural
residential area (approximately 63 acres). The site
is the former location of a creosote plant
constructed in 1913 to treat railroad ties. Site
operations consisted of treating railroad timbers
using a pressurized treatment cylinder.
1
2
6/15/2009
1
B-2
-------
EPA ID AND
SITE NAME
NPL Match
CHARACTERIZATION
MAJOR
CONTAMINANTS
(IF APPLICABLE)
MEDIA
CONTAMINATED
CONTAMINANT
CATEGORIES
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
CABOT/
KOPPERS
FLD98070935
6
Manufacturer
(charcoal) / wood
treating with a
residential
component
Arsenic, PAH,
creosote, and
dioxin in soil,
sediment
(freshwater
stream), and
groundwater
Groundwater, Soil
Dioxins/Dibenz
ofurans,
Metals,
Nitroaromatics,
Organics, PAH,
Pesticides,
VOC, Base
Neutral Acids
Site with SAA,
SANFORD
GASIFICATIO
N PLANT
FLD98416919
3
Coal and coke
gasification
VOCs, PAH,
Dioxin, Metals
Groundwater,
Sediment, Soil,
Subsurface Soil,
Surface Soil,
Surface Water
Dioxins/
Dibenzofurans,
Metals, PAH,
VOC,
A wood-treating operation on the Koppers portion
of the site, currently operated by Koppers
Industries, has been active since 1916. Cabot
Carbon formerly operated a charcoal production
operation on the Cabot Carbon portion. This pc
has been redeveloped and currently contains a
commercial shopping mall, car dealership and a
series of smaller stores and businesses.
Poor waste handling practices in the past have
resulted in contaminated ground water, soil and
possibly off-site surface water. Contaminants
include arsenic, pah, and creosote.
DN
jpers portion
inprc
JLJCI 3
>. Cabot
production
n. This portion
:ontains a
-ship and a
s.
sast have
sr, soil and
minants
#OF
PRPS
4
#OF
OUS
3
MOST
RECENT
ROD
^H
27-Sep-90
#OF
RODS
1
The site includes the former SGP facility, an
unnamed tributary and Cloud Branch Creek from
the unnamed tributary to where it discharges into
Lake Monroe.
From the 1880s until 1951, water gas and
carbureted water gas were manufactured at the
SGP by carbonization or destructive distillation of
bituminous coal and coke. At the end of the
manufacturing process, gas holder tanks, frequently
used to store waste tars and condensates,
frequently leaked resulting in contamination.
The site has been contaminated with metals,
volatile organic compounds, polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons, and Dioxins/ Dibenzofurans.
9/21/2006
B-3
-------
EPA ID AND
SITE NAME
NPL Match
CABOT/
KOPPERS
FLD98070935
6
CHARACTERIZATION
Manufacturer
(charcoal) / wood
treating with a
residential
component
Site with SAA Agreement
SIXTY ONE
INDUSTRIAL
PARK
TND98779030
0
NPL Match
Miscellaneous
manufacturing plant
MAJOR
CONTAMINANTS
(IF APPLICABLE)
MEDIA
CONTAMINATED
Arsenic, PAH,
creosote, and
dioxin in soil,
sediment
(freshwater
stream), and
groundwater
Groundwater,
Soil,
CONTAMINANT
CATEGORIES
Dioxins/Dibenz
ofurans,
Metals,
Nitroaromatics,
Organics, PAH,
Pesticides,
VOC, Base
Neutral Acids
VOCs - Vinyl
chloride,
trichloroethene,
tetrachloroethene
Metals -
antimony,
arsenic, barium,
iron, manganese,
and thallium
Groundwater
Metals, VOC,
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
A wood-treating operation on the Koppers portion
of the site, currently operated by Koppers
Industries, has been active since 1916. Cabot
Carbon formerly operated a charcoal production
operation on the Cabot Carbon portion. This portion
has been redeveloped and currently contains a
commercial shopping mall, car dealership and a
series of smaller stores and businesses.
Poor waste handling practices in the past have
resulted in contaminated ground water, soil and
possibly off-site surface water. Contaminants
include arsenic, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
and creosote.
The 78-acre site was previously developed for
industrial use as a pyrotechnic and ordnance
production facility. Metal plating was also part of
site operations. Production waste was treated in
unlined lagoons on site, and later site operations
included storage and salvage of industrial
equipment and components.
Former site activities resulted in contamination of
ground water with volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) and metals. The primary contaminants of
concern (COCs) for the site included the VOCs vinyl
chloride, trichloroethene, and tetrachloroethene
and the metals antimony, arsenic, barium, iron,
manganese, and thallium.
#OF
PRPS
#OF
OUS
MOST
RECENT
ROD
#OF
RODS
27-Sep-90
9/26/2008
B-4
-------
EPA ID AND
SITE NAME
DIAMOND
SHAMROCK
CORP.
LANDFILL
GAD99074109
2
CHARACTERIZATION
Uncontrolled
Industrial Landfill
MAJOR
CONTAMINANTS
(IF APPLICABLE)
MEDIA
CONTAMINATED
Groundwater
CONTAMINANT
CATEGORIES
Metals, VOC
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Prior to 1968, property was agricultural. In 1972,
1,500 gallons of oil pitch and 600 - 800 drums
containing reportedly obsolete, off -specification
products and raw materials from operations were
buried in unlined disposal trenches at the site. In
1980, the current site owner/operator, Diamond
Shamrock Corporation, reported the burials to
Georgia Environmental Protection Division. COCs
include 1,2-dichloroethane, manganese, toluene,
trichloroethylene. Manganese and TCE are the onl
respective groundwater standards.
#OF
PRPS
3
#OF
OUS
2
MOST
RECENT
ROD
03-May-94
#OF
RODS
1
Site with SAA Agreement
B-5
-------
EPA ID AND
SITE NAME
ECUSTA MILL
NCD003 16667
5
CHARACTERIZATION
Chlorine production
MAJOR
CONTAMINANTS
(IF APPLICABLE)
Mercury
MEDIA
CONTAMINATED
Ground water,
Soil, Sediment
CONTAMINANT
CATEGORIES
Metals
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
The Ecusta Mill is a former pulping and paper
manufacturing facility located in Pisgah Forest. The
facility is approximately 527 acres situated in a
mixed-use commercial/residential setting near the
confluence of the Davidson and French Broad
Rivers. The site consists of the former
manufacturing facility, as well as industrial solid
waste landfills and an Aerated Stabilization Basin.
In addition to the pulping and paper-making
operations, the following activities have occurred
at the site: chlorine production operations using
Sorenson mercury cells; caustic storage; water and
wastewater treatment; and printing.
Mercury contamination associated with the chlorine
production operations has been documented in the
soils and ground water beneath and adjacent to the
mercury cell building. Mercury contamination has
also been documented in sediment in the Davidson
River.
#OF
PRPS
3
#OF
OUS
3
MOST
RECENT
ROD
29-Sep-09
#OF
RODS
1
B-6
-------
EPA ID AND
SITE NAME
CHARACTERIZATION
MAJOR
CONTAMINANTS
(IF APPLICABLE)
MEDIA
CONTAMINATED
CONTAMINANT
CATEGORIES
NPL Match
OLIN CORP.
(MCINTOSH
PLANT)
ALD00818870
Mercury in sediment
Groundwater, Soil
Inorganics,
Metals,
Pesticides,
VOC, Base
Neutral Acids
Site with SAA Agreement
ITT-
THOMPSON
INDUSTRIES,
INC
FLD04304765
3
Solvent groundwater
plume
TCE, cis-1,2,-
dichloroethylene
(DCE), and vinyl
chloride in ground
water and private
wells.Lead, zinc,
and chromium in
sediments of
unnamed natural
pond adjacent to
the site.
Groundwater, Soil
Metals, VOCs
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
The Olin Corporation Mclntosh Plant site is located
approximately one mile east-southeast of the Town
of Mclntosh in Washington County, Alabama. The
Olin main plant and associated properties cover
approximately 1,500 acres. From 1952 until 1982
Olin produced chlorinated organic pesticides,
chlorine, caustic soda and sodium hypochlorite at
the site. Presently, Olin produces chlorine, caustic
soda, sodium hypochlorite and blends and stores
hydrazide compounds at the site.
Releases of mercury and organic chemicals have
contaminated the shallow ground water beneath
the site. Discharges of wastewater containing
mercury have contaminated wetlands adjacent to
the Tombigbee River. Approximately 500 people
live within the area of the site. Everyone in the
area utilizes ground water as a source of drinking
water. Investigations have also indicated
contamination in a 65-acre natural basin, which is
located on the Olin property east of the active
plant facilities. Mercury and chloroform are the
principal contaminants identified at the site.
^^^^B
ITT-Thompson Industries site is located in the
northeastern section of the City of Madison,
Madison County, Florida. The site consists of a
former manufacturing plant, an office trailer, a
small storage shed, and a parking area.
ITT Thompson Industries operated an automobile
stamping business at this site from 1970 to 1991,
manufacturing wheel ornamentation for cars,
including wheel covers and wire wheel products.
Residential neighborhoods surround the site and
several ponds are near the site, including an
adjacent unnamed natural pond and nearby man-
made drainage ponds.
#OF
PRPS
#OF
OUS
MOST
RECENT
ROD
#OF
RODS
16-Dec-94
9/25/2008
B-7
-------
EPA ID AND
SITE NAME
NPL Match
CHARACTERIZATION
MAJOR
CONTAMINANTS
(IF APPLICABLE)
MEDIA
CONTAMINATED
CONTAMINANT
CATEGORIES
HARRIS
CORP. (PALM
BAY
PLANT) FLDOO
0602334
Electronics
Manufacture -
solvents in GW
Groundwater, Soil
Inorganics,
Metals, PAH,
VOC
Site with SAA Agreement
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
An electronics firm supporting the aerospace
industry operated at the site in the 1950s and
1960s. Harris Corporation purchased the firm and
has been operating in Palm Bay since 1967. Harris
Corporations expanded from the original facilities
onto undeveloped property, with the exception of
the former Building 100 area. Two previous
manufacturing firms operated at the former
Building 100 area and used the site for painting
operations, a chromium plating operation, a
machine shop, and drum storage area.
Plumes of contaminated ground water were
identified beneath the Harris Corporation facility
and the adjacent well field owned by Palm Bay
Utilities Corporation (PBUC) in the early 1980s.
PBUC provides potable water supply, sewage
treatment and disposal for residents of Palm Bay.
Numerous contaminants were eventually identifii
in on-site ground water, including vinyl chloride,
trichloroethylene, and chromium. EPA determine
that concentrations of some of these contaminar
in ground water could cause unacceptable human
health risks.\
DN
rospace
950s and
:he firm and
1967. Harris
nal facilities
exception of
evious
Fnrmpr
I Ul 1 1 Id
>r painting
tion, a
.
r were
tion facility
Palm Bay
rly 1980s.
sewage
of Palm Bay.
a|l\/ iHpn1"ifipH
any IUCIIL.II icu
yl chloride,
^ determined
contaminants
:able human
#OF
PRPS
1
#OF
OUS
3
MOST
RECENT
ROD
^H
08-0ct-08
#OF
RODS
2
SOLITRON
DEVICES INC
FLD03284577
8
Solvent groundwater
plume
Metals, municipal
water supply
contaminated by
solvents
, Groundwater,
Soil,
Metals PAH
Persistant
Orconip
\JI 50! 1 H-
Pollutants
PpcfipiHpc
r C3LII.IUC3,
VOC, Base
Neutral Acids
In 1959 Honeywell, Inc. constructed a facility at the
site and began manufacturing electronic
components. Solitron Devices, Inc. assumed
ownership in 1965, continuing similar operations
until 1992 when operations ended. Heavy metals
and organic solvents were commonly used and
industrial wastewater from the plant was
discharged to the Riviera Beach sewer system.
Solvents from the site contaminated some of the
municipal supply wells in the City of Riviera Beach.
Investigations also indicated on-site soil and ground
water contamination at the site.
2
2
12/17/200
4
1
B-8
-------
EPA ID AND
SITE NAME
NPL Match
HARRIS
CORP. (PALM
BAY PLANT)
FLD00060233
4
CHARACTERIZATION
MAJOR
CONTAMINANTS
(IF APPLICABLE)
MEDIA
CONTAMINATED
CONTAMINANT
CATEGORIES
Electronics
Manufacture -
solvents in GW
Groundwater,
Soil,
Inorganics,
Metals, PAH,
VOC
Site with SAA Agreement
LYMAN
DYEING AND
FINISHING
SCD98758465
3
Industrial waste
landfill
Solvents
Groundwater,
Sediment, Soil,
Surface Water
VOC, PAH,
metals
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
An electronics firm supporting the aerospace
industry operated at the site in the 1950s and
1960s. Harris Corporation purchased the firm in
1967. Two previous firms used the site for painting
operations, a chromium plating operation, a
machine shop, drum storage.
Contaminated groundwater was identified at the
facility and the adjacent PUBC well field. PBUC
provides potable water supply for residents of Palm
Bay. Contaminants identified included vinyl
chloride, trichloroethylene, and chromium. EPA
determined that some concentrations in ground
water could cause unacceptable human health
risks.
The Lyman Dyeing and Finishing site is located on a
12-acre. From 1924 to 1965, Lyman Dyeing and
Finishing operated a landfill, which was used for
disposal of various solid wastes from the facility
mill operations.
Potential chemicals associated with the solid
wastes from the facility include residues of dyes,
hydraulic liquids, waste solvents, adhesive
materials and office supplies. CoCs: Arsenic and
benzo
#OF
PRPS
#OF
OUS
MOST
RECENT
ROD
#OF
RODS
08-0ct-08
9/29/2009
B-9
-------
EPA ID AND
SITE NAME
NPL Match
LEONARD
CHEMICAL
CO., INC.
SCD991 27932
4
CHARACTERIZATION
Industrial waste
disposal. VOCs in GW
MAJOR
CONTAMINANTS
(IF APPLICABLE)
^M
MEDIA
CONTAMINATED
^^^H
Groundwater,
Liquid Waste,
Soil, Subsurface
Soil, Surface Soil,
CONTAMINANT
CATEGORIES
^^M
Metals, PAH,
VOC
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
The 7-acre Leonard Chemical Company site, located
in Rock Hill, York County, South Carolina, began
operating as a hazardous waste treatment facility
in the late 1960s. The primary treatment method
used by the facility was distillation, and the
resulting recovery residues were placed in various
locations on the site. When plant operations ceased
in 1982, approximately 3,400 drums and 11,500
gallons of various chemicals were left on the site.
Materials included solvents, volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), printing inks, polyester solids,
still bottom residues, and filters for paint, water,
and fiberglass.
Numerous spills and leaks from former site
activities and abandoned waste materials occurred
at the site, resulting in soil and ground water
contamination with metals, polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons, and VOCs. Abandoned equipment
and machines remained at the site, numerous
sludges lay on the ground, and vegetation was
spotty where chemical wastes and still bottom
residues had been used as fill material.
#OF
PRPS
16
#OF
OUS
2
MOST
RECENT
ROD
^M
20-Aug-01
#OF
RODS
1
B-10
-------
EPA ID AND
SITE NAME
CHARACTERIZATION
MAJOR
CONTAMINANTS
(IF APPLICABLE)
MEDIA
CONTAMINATED
CONTAMINANT
CATEGORIES
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
#OF
PRPS
#OF
OUS
MOST
RECENT
ROD
#OF
RODS
Site with SAA Agreement
WEYERHAEUS
ER CO
PLYMOUTH
WOOD
TRTNG PT
NCD
991278540
Mercury in soil
and GW, dioxin,
metals, VOCs
Fish Tissue,
Groundwater,
Sediment, Soil,
Surface Water
Dioxins/
Dibenzofurans,
Metals, PAH,
Persistant
Organic
Pollutants,
Pesticides,
VOC,
The 2,400-acre Weyerhaeuser Company Plymouth
Wood Treating Plant site is an active wood and
paper products manufacturing facility located near
the confluence of Welch Creek and the Roanoke
River in Plymouth, Martin County, North Carolina.
Site operations have resulted in the contamination
of soil, sediments, and ground water with dioxins,
dibenzofurans, metals, and volatile organic
compounds (VOCs). Site-related compounds have
also been found in tissue of fish and other biota
that inhabit surface waters near the site. The areas
of the plant that are being investigated include: 1 )
the Former Chlorine Production Plant, which has
contributed to mercury contamination in soil and
ground water; 2) the Former Landfill No.1, the
former disposal areas for mercury cells from the
Chlorine Production Plant; and 3) Welch Creek,
which has received pre-permitted discharge of
wastewater.
1
5
9/24/2008
4
B-11
-------
EPA ID AND
SITE NAME
CHARACTERIZATION
MAJOR
CONTAMINANTS
(IF APPLICABLE)
MEDIA
CONTAMINATED
CONTAMINANT
CATEGORIES
NPL Match
STAUFFER
CHEMICAL
CO. (COLD
CREEK
PLANT)
ALD09568887
5
Mercury in sediment;
misc manufacturer
Groundwater,
Sediment, Soil,
Surface Water
Inorganics,
Metals,
Organ ics,
Pesticides, VOC
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
#OF
PRPS
#OF
OUS
The Cold Creek Plant began operations in 1966,
manufacturing a variety of agricultural chemicals.
Wastewaters from the Stauffer processes were held
in clay-lined lagoons and discharged to the nearby
650-acre Cold Creek Swamp until approximately
1975. The plant is currently owned by Zeneca, Inc.
and continues to operate.
Manufacturing processes at both Superfund sites
involved numerous contaminants including carbon
disulfide, sulfuric acid, carbon tetrachloride,
caustic/chlorine, Crystex (a sulfur compound),
thiocarbamates and various metals including
mercury. Across both sites, several ponds
containing contaminated soils and/or sludges were
identified.
Thiocarbamates were detected in the ground water
at the Cold Creek site. Carbon tetrachloride,
carbon disulfide and thiocarbamates were found in
wells in nearby off-site property. Assessments
conducted during the late 1980s did not detect any
contaminants in nearby drinking water wells.
Therefore, it was concluded that no risk appeared
to exist from exposure to contaminated ground
water at the sites. However, humans could be
exposed primarily to mercury contamination by
consuming sediments and fish in Cold Creek Swamp.
MOST
RECENT
ROD
#OF
RODS
16-Aug-95
B-12
-------
EPA ID AND
SITE NAME
CHARACTERIZATION
MAJOR
CONTAMINANTS
(IF APPLICABLE)
MEDIA
CONTAMINATED
CONTAMINANT
CATEGORIES
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
#OF
PRPS
#OF
OUS
MOST
RECENT
ROD
#OF
RODS
Site with SAA Agreement
B-13
-------
EPA ID AND
SITE NAME
BROWN'S
DUMP
FLD98084701
6
CHARACTERIZATION
Residential yard soil
MAJOR
CONTAMINANTS
(IF APPLICABLE)
Arsenic
Pesticides
PCBs
Dioxin
MEDIA
CONTAMINATED
Groundwater,
Soil,
CONTAMINANT
CATEGORIES
Dioxins/
Dibenzofurans,
Metals, PAH,
PCBs,
Persistant
Organic
Pollutants,
Pesticides,
VOC,
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Located in the City of Jacksonville. Approximately
80 acres in size, the site consists of the former Mary
McLeod Bethune Elementary School, an electrical
substation of the Jacksonville Electric Authority
(JEA), surrounding single family homes and multiple
family complexes (e.g., apartments)
From the late 1940s until the mid-1950s, the site
was an operating landfill used to deposit ash from
the City of Jacksonville's municipal incinerators.
Investigations have indicated that ash is present
within the site at depths varying from the surface
to, in some locations, greater than 20 feet below
land surface.
Elevated levels of lead, arsenic, other inorganics,
organics, pesticides/PCBs and dioxin/furans were
found in soils. During the early investigations, soil
exposure to students of the elementary school and
residents living on and near the site was the
primary concern. Exposure to ground water and
surface water were also of concern.
#OF
PRPS
1
#OF
OUS
2
MOST
RECENT
ROD
8/24/2006
#OF
RODS
1
B-
-------
EPA ID AND
SITE NAME
CHARACTERIZATION
Site with SAA Agreement
MAJOR
CONTAMINANTS
(IF APPLICABLE)
MEDIA
CONTAMINATED
CONTAMINANT
CATEGORIES
JACKSONVILL
E ASH SITE
FL000226481
0
Residential yard soil
Arsenic
Metals
Pesticides
PCBs
Dioxin
Groundwater,
Sediment, Soil,
Surface Water
Dioxins/
Dibenzofurans,
Metals, PAH,
PCBs,
Persistant
Organic
Pollutants,
Pesticides,
VOC,
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
The Jacksonville Ash site is comprised of three
facilities in Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida: the
Forest Street Incinerator, the 5th & Cleveland
Incinerator, and the Lonnie C. Miller, Sr. Park. The
Forest Street Incinerator occupies approximately
460 acres of land and, together with the 5th &
Cleveland Incinerator, operated as the City of
Jacksonville's municipal solid waste incinerator
from the 1940s until the 1960s. Combustion ash,
clinker, and ash residues were disposed of on each
of the incinerator properties and also on the land
that was later redeveloped into the Lonnie C.
Miller, Sr. Park.
The City of Jacksonville conducted a Preliminary
Contamination Assessment at the site and found
significantly elevated lead levels in the soil and
ground water due to the presence of incinerator
ash on the site. Elevated levels of arsenic, metals,
and pesticides, including polychlorinated biphenyls
and dioxins, were also found in soils, surface water,
sediments, and ground water at each of the three
facilities.
#OF
PRPS
#OF
OUS
MOST
RECENT
ROD
^^^ ^^^~
#OF
RODS
^^^^^
8/24/2006
B-15
-------
EPA ID AND
SITE NAME
NPL Match
HIPPS ROAD
LANDFILL
FLD98070980
2
CHARACTERIZATION
Uncontrolled landfill
with residential
component
MAJOR
CONTAMINANTS
(IF APPLICABLE)
Waste in soil,
VOCs in
groundwater
MEDIA
CONTAMINATED
Air, Groundwater,
Soil, Surface
Water
CONTAMINANT
CATEGORIES
Metals, PAH,
VOC, Base
Neutral Acids
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
The Hipps Road Landfill Superfund site is a 12-acre
site located on the southeastern corner of Hipps
Road and Exline Road in Jacksonville Heights,
Florida. Landfill operations were conducted on
approximately six acres of the site. The landfill
area was initially a cypress swamp, and in the mid
1960s, the site owner at the time contracted with
Waste Control of Florida (WCF) to use the low lying
areas of the property as a landfill. One source of
the landfill materials was nearby U.S. Navy
Facilities. Landfill operations ceased in 1970 and
were covered by a thin layer of soil. The site owner
then subdivided the property into residential lots.
In the early 1980s, resident complaints about
unusual tastes and odors in private well water led
to investigations that identified contamination in
the ground water. The City of Jacksonville
completed installation of city water lines to the
affected area in October 1983 and connected area
residents to the city water supply.
The primary contaminants of concern at the site
are vinyl chloride, benzene, and other volatile
organic compounds in the ground water.
#OF
PRPS
13
#OF
OUS
2
MOST
RECENT
ROD
03-Sep-86
#OF
RODS
1
B-16
-------
APPENDIX C
-------
APPENDIX C: INTERVIEW APPROACH
lEc is conducting an evaluation of Region 4's Superfund Alternate Approach to examine
whether the SA approach is having the expected outcome of reducing site costs and
speeding remediation, and whether the remedies selected at sites with SAA agreements
are equivalent to those at comparable NPL sites. In addition, the evaluation revisits key
questions of prior evaluations to gather and update information about community and
PRP experiences with the approach.
The purpose of the SA evaluation is to:
1) Examine the factors influencing the use of the SA approach
2) Assess the effectiveness of the SA approach in achieving the goals of the
Superfund program
3)Assess the efficiency of the SA approach in terms of potential time and cost
savings
4)Identify strategies to improve the implementation, efficiency and effectiveness of
the SA approach
After analyzing and reviewing the existing data and evaluations, lEc plans to conduct
interviews to expand on results and issues identified with existing data, and to gather
perspectives on key aspects of the SA approach, including perceptions of the SA process
and perceived stigma of sites using the SA approach compared to NPL sites. This effort
will involve conducting up to 12 in-person or telephone interviews, primarily with
individuals experienced with both the SA and NPL approach. Interviewees may include
EPA Superfund and OECA staff, PRPs, community groups, and state or local government
officials.
lEc plans to use interviews in three ways:
To provide central information on specific evaluation questions that have not
been well-documented using available data (e.g., Questions 1 and 2);
To supplement information available in existing data sources (e.g., follow-up on
EPA activities to address prior evaluation recommendations); and
To investigate specific data questions that may arise as a result of the
quantitative analyses of existing data.
C-1
-------
IDENTIFYING INTERVIEWEES
lEc proposes the following list of potential interviewees as well as the target questions for
the interviews. lEc is seeking insight and recommendations on this list from subject
matter experts in Region 4 that are familiar with the individuals and sites mentioned
below. Once EPA has provided feedback on the proposed interviewees, lEc will begin
scheduling interviews. lEc has identified the following groups and individuals as
potential interviewees:
lEc seeks to interview four EPA Community Involvement Coordinators (CICs)
with extensive experience working with SA and NPL sites
o lEc identified four Community Involvement Coordinators from Region 4:
Stephanie Brown (currently at TVA location full-time)
Angela Miller
LaTonya Spencer
Linda Starks
lEc seeks to interview three EPA Remedial Project Managers (RPMs) with
extensive experience working with SA and NPL sites
o lEc identified three RPMs:
Joe Alfano (Jacksonville ash sites)
Randy Bryant (Weyerhaeuser and other sites)
Ken Mallary
lEc seeks to interview two EPA Managers with experience with both SA and NPL
sites
o lEc consulted with EPA Region 4 staff and identified two Managers to
interview
David Clay (Legal)
Anita Davis (Enforcement)
lEc seeks to interview one EPA staff member with extensive experience working
with CERCLIS
o Region 4 suggested one CERCLIS staff member
Charlotte Whitley
lEc seeks to interview two Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs) that may have
insight as to the factors that influence the use of the SA approach and the
perceived stigma associated with each approach
C-2
-------
o lEc identified two PRPs in Region 4 that appear to have used the NPL
and SA Approach.
Solitron
Monsanto
lEc may consider interviewing one or more individuals from community
organizations if the representatives have experience with both SA and NPL sites.
lEc has drafted questions under Evaluation Question 2 designed to identify any
groups.
o In an initial review, lEc identified ten communities that appear to contain
both SA and NPL sites; it is not clear whether any of these communities
has a group with multi-site experience.
ANNISTON, CALHOUN, AL
BRUNSWICK, GLYNN, GA
CORDOVA, RICHMOND, NC
JACKSONVILLE, DUVAL, FL
LONGWOOD, SEMINOLE, FL
MADISON, MADISON, FL
MEMPHIS, SHELBY, TN
ORLANDO, ORANGE, FL
PLANT CITY, HILLSBOROUGH, FL
WASHINGTON, BEAUFORT, NC
The questions included in this interview guide are organized by evaluation question.
Responses to the interview questions will ultimately inform the overarching
evaluation/study questions. lEc anticipates that interviews with different stakeholders
(e.g., with RPMs or PRPs) will focus on subsets of the following interview questions.
However, we anticipate that in some cases targeted interviewees have broad knowledge
of the SA approach and will provide information to address several evaluation questions.
For each interviewee, lEc plans to collect the following information:
Name:
Title/Position:
Identify the number of NPL sites you have worked on and your role
in addressing these sites:
Identify the number of NPL sites you have worked on and your role
in addressing these sites:
The following questions represent a "master list" of questions that will be used to develop
interview-specific question lists. When possible, interviewees from different
C-3
-------
backgrounds will be asked the same questions to allow comparison, though it is expected
that different respondents (e.g., PRPs and RPMs) will provide different viewpoints and
reflect different levels of experience.
EVALUATION QUESTION 1
lEc proposes to interview CICs, Managers, PRPs, and RPMs to address Evaluation
Question 1. The key focus of this evaluation question is the role of PRPs. Each set of
stakeholders will be asked to provide their impressions of PRP interactions as these affect
their work. This includes the extent to which ease or complexity of PRP interactions
affects overall cost/time reqired for site actions.
Evaluation Question 1. What is the response of potentially responsible parties (PRPs) to
the Superfund Alternative Approach (SA)?
la) What aspects of the SA are appealing or unappealing to PRPs?
What is the perceived speed in cleaning up sites with SAA
agreements compared to NPL sites?
Does the amount of time or effort required to complete any of the
following actions differ for SA or NPL sites?
Site Inspection
HRS Scoring and NPL listing versus the process for
determining if PRP is willing and viable for the SA approach
AOC
RI/FS
RD
RA
Do sites with SAA agreements tend to have more or less PRP-EPA
cooperation than NPL sites?
Do sites with SAA agreements tend to get more/less publicity than
NPL sites?
Ib) Do PRPs generally prefer the SA over NPL listing, or vice-versa? Why or
why not?
Who typically suggests the SA Approach?
How many times has a PRP refused if EPA suggested using SA
approach?
Why did PRP prefer the NPL approach?
How many times have PRPs suggested the SA approach and EPA
refused?
Why was the SA Approach not selected?
C-4
-------
EVALUATION QUESTION 2
lEc proposes to interview CICs, Communities, Managers, PRPs, and RPMs to address
Evaluation Question 2. Similar to question 1, each set of stakeholders will be asked to
answer these questions based on the stakeholder's perspective. In addition, some
questions may not be appropriate for all stakeholders (e.g., PRPs or community groups
may not have considered environmental justice unless it has been raised as an issue at a
specific site).
Evaluation Question 2. What do available data reveal about community member
involvement in and perceptions of the NPL and SA processes?
Does community involvement tend to be different at sites with SAA
agreements than at NPL sites?
More or fewer meetings?
More or fewer comments on actions/RODs?
Other?
Can you name any community groups who have been very actively
involved with both SA approach and NPL sites, and would be good
to talk with about both approaches?
Are any sites with SAA agreements located in Environmental Justice
communities?
How is Environmental Justice considered at SA approach
and NPL sites?
2a) What is the initial response of community members to NPL listing compared
to EPA's decision to use the SA?
Do community groups more typically ask for NPL listing or prefer
the SA approach?
2b) Ultimately, how satisfied are community members with the SA process and
structure compared to the NPL process and structure?
Does community satisfaction vary throughout the process or is it
consistent?
How do community groups express satisfaction with a process or
event?
2c) To what extent do communities use technical assistance funding at SA and
NPL sites? Is there a difference in funding availability and/or expenditures
for SA or NPL sites?
Do SA and NPL groups spend similar amounts of TAG and TAP
funding?
Is community participation generally equal at SA and NPL sites?
C-5
-------
EVALUATION QUESTION 3
lEc does not propose to collect any specific interview data on this question, which is
driven by review of RODs. It is possible that site-specific follow-up questions regarding
specific remedies will be included in RPM interview. lEc proposes to interview
Managers, and RPMs to address Evaluation Purpose 2.
Evaluation Question 3. Does a pattern of difference exist in the specific remedies
selected for sites using the SAA? (no interview questions)
EVALUATION QUESTION 4
lEc proposes to interview CICs and RPMs to address Evaluation Question 4.
Evaluation Question 4. Is there a difference in the potential for reuse/redevelopment at
sites with SAA agreements compared with more sites listed on the NPL? If there is a
difference, does the evidence suggest why this difference exists?
Do SA or NPL sites typically have greater potential for reuse?
How does the potential reuse of the site get considered in the SA and
NPL processes?
At what point in each process is it considered?
What sort of action is taken to identify reuse?
Are you familiar with any plans for SA or NPL sites to be reused or
redeveloped?
Which sites?
Does one type of site (SA or NPL) typically have a greater potential
for reuse?
What drives a potential difference for reuse?
How is re-use addressed in development of site remedies?
Is the emphasis on re-use different for NPL sites v. sites with
SAA agreements?
If "yes" - what causes this difference?
C-6
-------
EVALUATION QUESTION 5
lEc proposes to interview Managers and RPMs to address Evaluation Question 5
In addition, lEc plans to target Managers and RPMs with experience with NPL sites and
sites with SAA agreements to participate in interviews to provide site-specific
supplemental information for Evaluation Question 5, but those questions will be driven
by results of CERCLIS data analysis.
Evaluation Question 5. What are the total cost, cost net of cost recovery, and time
differences of the SA and NPL approaches, for both EPA and PRPs?
Has the process for tracking expenditures at SA approach and NPL
sites changed overtime?
Specifically, has the policy for submission and recovery of expenses
changed since the 1980s?
5a) What are the differences in the early part of the process (from discovery
through RIFS)?
If EPA LOE is different, what costs vary between SA and NPL sites
(e.g., enforcement)?
HRS Scoring
The process for determining if PRP is willing and viable for
the SA approach
Enforcement
Legal
What actions tend to drive differences in cost/time at SA approach
and NPL sites?
AOC
Enforcement
Legal?
5b) What are the differences in the middle part of the process (from RIFS
through ROD)?
Do costs/process of RI/FS differ for NPL sites and sites with
SAA agreements?
Does ROD publication process differ for SA approach and
NPL sites??
C-7
-------
5c) What are the differences in the later part of the process (from ROD through
RD/RA, or through construction complete where applicable)?
What actions tend to drive differences?
RD
RA
Enforcement
Legal?
EVALUATION QUESTION 6
lEc proposes to interview Managers and RPMs to address Evaluation Question 6 and
Evaluation Purpose 4.
Evaluation Question 6. What has EPA done to improve the consistency of implementing
the SA since an internal evaluation and an IG report on the approach was published in
2007?
Are you aware of the general recommendations from the Office of
the Inspector General Evaluation of the SA approach?
Have steps been taken in Region 4 to address the
recommendations:
Publish a universe of sites with SAA agreements that
meets the Superfund Alternative site eligibility criteria
and are designated sites with SAA agreements and
regularly update the list as the universe changes.
Develop specific instructions on when to use the SA
designation (e.g., for sites or agreements) and update the
Superfund Program Implementation Manual (SPIM)
accordingly.
Establish and direct Regions to use a consistent HRS
scoring method that is acceptable and reliable for
designating a site with an SAA agreement.
Track and report all Superfund GPRA measures at sites
with SAA agreements.
This includes construction completions, final remedy
selection, human exposure under control, migration of
contaminated groundwater under control, and sitewide
ready-for-reuse.
Report GPRA measures at sites with SAA agreements
separately from GPRA measures at NPL sites.
Revise applicable guidance, manuals, or directives to
reflect that these performance measures will be tracked
and reported for sites with SAA agreements.
If no (to any of the above recommendations), why not?
C-8
-------
Have SA processes become more transparent (e.g., listing the
universe of sites)?
If no, why not?
What else could or has been done to address the issues raised
by OIG?
Are you aware of the prior recommendations from the joint
evaluation by Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assistance
(OECA) and Office of Solid Waster and Emergency Response
(OSWER)?
Have steps been taken in Region 4 to address the
recommendations:
Track SA agreements by flagging only agreements
consistent with the guidance at sites satisfying the SA
eligibility criteria.
o Revise the SPIM language for national
consistency.
Improve consistency of SA approach implementation.
o Offer training to regional staff on the S A
approach, including the SA criteria, setting the
CERCLIS flag, negotiating model language,
improving transparency, approaching the PRP
and community, and understanding how the SA
approach fits with other CERCLA enforcement
tools.
o Consider developing case studies of successful
SAA agreements and best practices summaries
as additional guidance.
o Modify Superfund model settlement documents
to include the approach's provisions.
Continue to improve the transparency of the SA
approach.
o Use CERCLIS to provide an accurate picture of
how the SA approach is used (e.g., develop
standardized national reports).
Continue to evaluate how EPA refers to the approach
(e.g., consider using the term NPL-Equivalent or NPL-
Alternative to more accurately reflect the intent of the
approach to be an alternative to listing on the NPL, not
an alternative to the Superfund process).
If no (to any of the above recommendations), why not?
What else could or has been done to address the issues raised
by OECA/OSWER?
C-9
-------
6a) Do areas of inconsistent implementation remain? If yes, how should EPA
address them?
Should EPA do anything else to improve the consistency of
implementing the SA approach?
Have other inconsistencies been identified by Region 4?
How are these being addressed?
What else do you think should be done?
6b) Have other questions related to implementation of guidance and consistent
tracking of site data been addressed?
Should EPA do anything else to improve the consistency of
implementing the SA approach?
EVALUATION QUESTION 7
lEc proposes to interview CICs, Communities, Managers, PRPs, and RPMs, to address
Evaluation Question 7 and Evaluation Purpose 4.
Evaluation Question 7. What additional factors or variables should EPA take into account
when deciding if and when to use the SA approach in the future?
Do you have any concerns about the SA approach?
o Should EPA consider any additional requirements for sites to become
SA?
o Are there advantages or disadvantages to the SA approach that are not
reflected in cost data or CERCLIS data?
Do you know of barriers to implementing the SA approach in other regions?
o Is there anything unique about Region 4 that makes the SA approach
more or less viable for R4?
Do you have any suggestions, recommendations, or comments to improve the SA
approach?
C-10
-------
APPENDIX D
-------
APPENDIX D: SUMMARY OF INTERVIEWS
lEc is conducting an evaluation of Region 4's Superfund Alternate Approach to examine
whether the SA approach is having the expected outcome of reducing site costs and
speeding remediation, and whether the remedies selected under sites with SAA
agreements are equivalent to those at comparable NPL sites. In addition, the evaluation
revisits key questions of prior evaluations to gather and update information about
community and PRP experiences with the approach.
The purpose of the SA evaluation is to:
1) Examine the factors influencing the use of the SA approach
2) Assess the effectiveness of the SA approach in achieving the goals of the
Superfund program
3)Assess the efficiency of the SA approach in terms of potential time and cost
savings
4)Identify strategies to improve the implementation, efficiency and effectiveness of
the SA approach
After analyzing and reviewing the existing data and evaluations, lEc conducted in-person
interviews with thirteen EPA staff members to expand on the results and issues identified
with existing data, and to gather perspectives on the key aspects of the SA approach,
including perceptions of the SA process and perceived stigma of sites with SAA
agreements compared to NPL sites.
lEc interviewed six managers who are responsible for different aspects of site
remediation for both SA approach and NPL sites; this set of interviews included a group
interview with three managers. In addition, lEc interviewed four Community
Involvement Coordinators (CICs), and three remedial project managers (RPMs) who
have experience with both the SA and NPL approaches. In addition, lEc plans to
interview representatives from one or two Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs) and one
or two community organizations; we plan to contact PRPs and community organizations
that have experience with both NPL SA approach sites.
D-1
-------
INTERVIEWS CONDUCTED
lEc interviewed Community Involvement Coordinators and Remedial Project Managers
who have experience with both SA and NPL sites, and Managers who are familiar with
both approaches. lEc conducted the following in-person interviews on July 6 and July 7,
2010:
lEc interviewed four EPA Community Involvement Coordinators (CICs):
o Stephanie Brown
o Angela Miller
o LaTonya Spencer
o Linda Starks
o Pamela Scully (Anniston site)
lEc interviewed three EPA Remedial Project Managers (RPMs):
o Joe Alfano (Jacksonville ash sites)
o Randy Bryant (Weyerhaeuser and other sites)
o Ken Mallary
o Bill Denman (CSX and Solitron Devices)
lEc interviewed two EPA Managers with experience with both SA and NPL sites
and expertise in issues related to development of SA agreements and cost recovery
o David Clay (Legal)
o Anita Davis (Enforcement)
lEc interviewed one EPA staff member with extensive experience working with
CERCLIS
o Charlotte Whitley
lEc conducted a group interview with three EPA evaluation team members to
address issues raised in interviews and provide clarification
o Sean Flynn
o Don Rigger
o Dawn Taylor
lEc interviewed representatives of three Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs) that
have experience with both the use of the SA approach and the NPL process:
o Solitron Devices: John Alonso, Prashant Gupta, and James Linton
o CSX: Jeff Styron, Raghu Chatrathi, Keith Brinker, and Don Anderson
D-2
-------
o Solutia: Gayle McColly
In addition, lEc conducted two interviews with individuals from community
organizations that have experience with both SA and NPL sites. Specifically, lEc
interviewed representatives from:
o Anniston, Alabama: Shirley Carter and David Baker
o Jacksonville, Florida: Diane Kerr
Finally, lEc conducted a brief interview with Oliver Pau, a representative from
Cherokee Group, an investment company that focuses on remediation and reuse of
contaminated sites. The focus of this interview was on the impact of "stigma" in
valuing properties that are on the NPL.
See Appendix C for the "master list" of interview questions. When possible, respondents
from different backgrounds were asked the same questions to allow comparison.
D-3
-------
GENERAL INTERVIEW INSIGHTS
This section provides an overview of the key themes that emerged from the interviews to
inform the four main purposes of the evaluation. Responses are grouped by each
evaluation purpose.
Evaluation Purpose #1: Examine the factors influencing the use of the SA approach
A key theme that emerged in discussions was the potential importance of "stigma" related
to NPL sites. Respondents cited stigma of the NPL as a key reason that PRPs and
communities prefer the SA approach. Respondents did not define stigma, but mentioned
that residents, PRPs, and communities are often concerned with maintaining property
values and maximizing potential reuse and redevelopment or continued use of property.
This appears to be particularly important when there is an active site that employs local
residents.
Respondents noted that PRPs and local officials tend to prefer the SA approach while
community preference tends to vary among individuals and communities. Respondents
explained that some communities do not express a preference for an approach while
others are initially apprehensive about using the SA approach due to concerns that they
may receive fewer resources or that the site will not be cleaned up as well as an NPL site.
However, concerns tend to disappear as the site progresses so that ultimately
communities are satisfied with the SA approach.
Another possible motivation for use of the SA approach is the potential for PRPs with
multiple sites to develop a more "standardized" approach. One RPM noted that some
PRPs or industries with multiple contaminated sites across the Region or Regions may be
interested in using the SA approach to ensure consistency across remediation at different
sites in different states. The RPM noted that manufactured gas sites have frequently used
the SA approach, including one gasification plant that approached EPA to negotiate a
cleanup agreement.
This RPM also suggested that the SA approach could provide a model for cleanup of
"non-NPL-caliber sites" among PRPs with multiple sites. For example, Region 4
negotiated multiple cleanups at numerous Exxon Mobile sites in different states using a
model similar to the SA approach. These sites received an HRS score below 28.5, but the
PRP was interested in working with EPA on a voluntary cleanup process for sites in
multiple states in Region 4.
While the evaluation has not consulted state and local government representatives, one
EPA Manager indicated that state directors in Region 4 endorsed the SA approach when
polled by Headquarters staff two years ago.
Note that lEc interviews with PRPs may provide additional insights on this subject.
D-4
-------
Evaluation Purpose #2: Assess the effectiveness of the SA Approach in achieving
the goals of the Superfund program
No sites with SAA agreements are to the point of reuse or redevelopment. Thus,
evaluation purpose #3 will be primarily informed from existing data (e.g., data from
CERCLIS and Records of Decision (RODs) on expected outcomes and current conditions
at sites.
Interviews did not focus on the effectiveness of the SA approach; however, respondents
noted that sites with SAA agreements may afford more opportunities for redevelopment
by avoiding the NPL stigma.
Evaluation Purpose #3: Assess the efficiency of the SA approach in terms of
potential time and cost savings
Respondents frequently cited that avoiding the NPL listing process and facilitating
negotiations represent the best chances that the SA approach will save time and resources.
One CIC noted that having more willing PRPs can produce an easier process. However,
respondents also note that SA PRPs vary in their level of cooperation with EPA - and in
some cases their level of cooperation changes over time. For example, negotiations at
Weyerhauser have become more complex as more RODs and actions have been
negotiated.
Note that lEc is also analyzing CERCLIS and IFMS data to review the time and costs
associated with the early stages (through ROD) for remediating Superfund Alternate
Approach and NPL sites. However, respondents explained that overtime EPA changed
the way that it tracks and recovers costs and that some data was likely lost during the
move to the Integrated Financial Management System (IFMS) system in 1989. Thus,
cost recovery data from the early years of Superfund is not comparable to current cost
recovery data.
Evaluation Purpose #4: Identify strategies to improve the implementation,
efficiency and effectiveness of the SA Approach
CICs, RPMs, and Managers all expressed support for the Superfund Alternative
Approach, and generally state that it provides an option that appears to have value to
PRPs and therefore facilitates site remediation. All respondents stated that the approach
has no impact on the way enforcement, remediation, oversight, or community
coordination activities are conducted.
However, one CIC would like to see more specific language to outline community
involvement requirements; PRPs at both SA approach and NPL sites often try to
negotiate about notification and involvement actions that are actually requirements.
Two RPMs and one Manager suggested that EPA include SA achievements in GPRA
goals to increase the use of the approach. One RPM explained that not counting sites
with SAA agreements is a disincentive to use the approach if Regions will not receive
same credit.
D-5
-------
One Manager noted that the SA approach is an effective tool that has been used
frequently in Region 4. However, the approach was received better when it was called
"NPL equivalent." The previous name provided a better and more self explanatory term
for the use of the SA approach. Returning to the term "NPL Equivalent" may decrease
questions and concerns from communities and PRPs about whether the approaches are
designed to be similar.
Note that lEc plans to review public documentation of the SA approach to supplement
interview findings and to review the status of recommendations from previous
evaluations.
DETAILED INTERVIEW RESPONSES
This section documents the detailed responses provided by respondents to all questions.
Interview responses are organized by the evaluation purpose and evaluation questions.
Under each evaluation question we include direct responses to the specific evaluation
question and any sub-parts (labeled as l.a, etc.). We also include answers to several
specific interview questions (not numbered) about key aspects of each evaluation
question. While some of the information provided by respondents may overlap, each set
of answers is unique (e.g., the answers under "Evaluation Question 1" represent direct
answers to that question and are not a summary of answers to more detailed question).
This interview summary presents responses in the following order: CICs, RPMs, and
Managers. Responses are grouped to preserve confidentiality.
Whenever possible, respondents were asked the same questions. However, due to the
diversity of roles and experiences, the focus of each interview varied and every
respondent did not respond to all questions. Thus, some questions received numerous
responses while others were only answered by one or two respondents.
For example, CICs and RPMs tend to be familiar with many sites, but these are often
specific sites and each group has a diverse perspective as a result of their different types
of work and interactions. Managers understand trends of different types across all sites,
but their understanding is dependent on their function and focus (e.g., legal,
enforcement).
Thus, we have broken down responses into the 3 categories (CICs, RPMs, and Managers)
to identify the perspective associated with the comment. We also specify how many
respondents provided answers to indicate whether the response is universal or only
applicable to specific respondents.
Evaluation Purpose #1; Examine the factors influencing the use of the SA approach
lEc is using interview responses as the primary data sources for Evaluation Questions 1
and 2.
D-6
-------
Evaluation Question #1: What is the response of potentially responsible parties
(PRPs) to the Superfund Alternative Approach (SAA)?
Three CICs noted that PRPs generally appear to prefer the SA approach, in that
they typically enter negotiations for this approach when given the opportunity.
Two CICs emphasized that PRPs are aware that they will have to pay for
remediation regardless of the approach. The CICs all noted that the SA approach
appears to offer an opportunity to avoid the potential "stigma" associated with
being listed on the NPL.
o While the CICs did not specifically define stigma, two CICs mentioned
that PRPs are concerned about the impact on property values for their
own site and within the community, particularly if the PRP still owns the
property.
o One CIC noted that PRPs "tend to jump at" the opportunity to use the SA
approach to avoid stigma for community and PRP.
One Manager explained that PRP attorneys like the SA approach in many
instances because their clients want to avoid being "stigmatized" by being on the
NPL. PRP representatives (including attorneys) agreed that "all things equal" it
is better not to be on the NPL, and noted that in some cases communities also
were interested in avoiding NPL listings.
All respondents specifically noted the similarity between the two approaches, and
understood the reason for maintaining consistency. Respondents also noted,
however, that this consistency reduced the ability of the SA approach to
demonstrate significant cost or time savings.
PRPs all agreed that the SA approach has potential advantages due to its more
cooperative tone that could result in cost savings related to quicker negotiations.
o However, one PRP expressed disappointment that the actual SA
approach process had not ultimately been different at the site with the
SAA agreement, and had involved delays related to negotiations and also
external litigation. However, this PRP also stated that the SA approach
had potential advantages related to the cooperative tone. The PRP also
noted that their site was a "pilot" site and the real drivers of delay were
related to changes in personnel at both EPA and the PRP.
o Though the PRPs interviewed are not in the position to have multiple
sites using the SA approach, one PRP noted that the company has a site
using the SA approach in Region 5 and feels that the process has worked
well in both regions. Another PRP noted that while its Region 4 site
using the SA approach has taken longer than anticipated, the company
has entered another SAA agreement in a different Region.
D-7
-------
Community representatives stated that community priorities for site remediation
differ, and therefore interest in the SA approach differs.
o Two community representatives stressed that working with EPA is the
critical factor in all remediation: most community members do not
recognize that an SAA agreement is different from an NPL site process if
EPA is there and it's a "Superfund" site.
All community representatives noted that it is critical to get PRPs and EPA
involved and coordinating with community members, and felt that the SA
approach sometimes did this.
o Community members also all stated that priorities in favoring the SA
approach resulted from concerns about stigma by business and property
owners.
o However, community representatives also noted that property value
impacts vary, with parcels near the sites, particularly in poor areas, often
unable to be sold regardless of whether the site is an NPL or an SA
approach site.
While in all cases, respondents did not define "stigma" with quantitative specific
examples, they generally referred to lasting impacts on property values near the site
and limitations on redevelopment.
Evaluation Question #la: What aspects of the SAA are appealing or unappealing to
PRPs, and why?
Several CICs and RPMs noted that communities and PRPs are often concerned
about avoiding the NPL to maintain property values and potential for
redevelopment
All four RPMs noted that PRPs want to avoid the stigma or "gravitas" associated
with the NPL.
o One RPM noted that even though SA falls under Superfund, the biggest
benefit is avoiding the stigma of being on the NPL or the "list of worst
sites in country."
Representatives of all three PRPs interviewed concurred with EPA interviewees
that avoiding "stigma" is a motivation for using the SA approach, and concurred
with EPA respondents that some local officials are concerned about
redevelopment, though representatives of one PRP note that stigma is less of an
issue than it used to be, and does not differ between NPL and SA approach sites.
PRP respondents also noted that NPL sites historically have had more publicity
and can require more coordination in response. One PRP representative noted
that high-profile sites can affect company reputation and even hiring, if
D-8
-------
candidates have a negative perception of the company's record due to
contaminated sites. Finally, representatives from all PRPs noted that
participation in the SA approach supports company reputations as proactive and
cooperative, which can have value among company stakeholders.
The investor representative stated that the differences between SA approach and
NPL sites are less important than they may have been, and noted that changes in
banking since 2008 have resulted in processes that treat sites very consistently
regardless of jurisdiction or status. He noted that while "Superfund" stigma may
exist, investors and bankers do not typically see a difference between SA
approach and NPL sites. More important to investors and developers is the
intended use of the property. While redevelopment of an industrial site may be
relatively straightforward, it requires additional outreach effort to ensure that a
mixed-use or residential redevelopment is financially successful.
Again, while specific examples of stigma were not provided, the general suggestion is
that to PRPs, stigma may extend beyond the local community and represent an issue
for a firm's national reputation.
In addition, one RPM and two PRP representatives mentioned that the SA
approach is particularly attractive for PRPs with multiple NPL-caliber sites in
different states, who would generally prefer the universal SA approach to
coordinating with multiple state lead agencies or multiple NPL sites.
o Multiple sites with similar contamination could allow for the
development of a conceptual model with a "presumptive remedy." This
could reduce negotiation costs, particularly if all sites fall under a single
authority (e.g., EPA's SA approach rather than agencies in different
states).
o Several RPMs noted manufactured gas plants as examples of entities
where similarity of contamination, facility function, and ownership
patterns appeared to encourage use of a multi-site strategy that in many
cases involves the SA approach.
Managers noted that the entire process for SAA and NPL approaches is similar,
including negotiations to become an SA or NPL site, and conducting the remedial
investigation and remediation. The differences that emerge reflect the
willingness on the part of the PRP to ensure smooth and raid negotiations.
o For example, SA and NPL PRPs generally do not like either the TAG
(i.e., NPL) and TAP (i.e., SA approach) provisions for community
involvement because there is a provision that communities can request
additional requests under both.
o PRPs agreed that approaches are similar, and stated that cost savings to
them during the process were therefore limited, though one PRP noted
D-9
-------
that the potential for cost savings during the remedial action phase might
remain as a result of the cooperative approach in developing the RODs.
o EPA and PRP respondents noted that avoiding the listing process could
save up to a year, and would save EPA resources but not significantly
affect PRP costs.
One Manager noted that one specific aspect of the SA approach that PRPs do
NOT appear to like is the more stringent liquid financial assurance requirement
for the SA approach.
o One CIC also noted that financial assurance appeared to be an issue for
some PRPs, though as a CIC she did not deal directly with that issue.
o PRPs concurred with this finding, though two PRPs who mentioned it
said that it was generally considered to be outweighed by potential for
cooperative approach.
Do sites with SAA agreements tend to have more or less PRP-EPA cooperation than
NPL sites?
Most EPA respondents believe that PRPs at sites with SAA agreements tend
to be more cooperative.
o Several respondents mentioned that one possible incentive to
cooperate is that PRPs know that EPA can list the site on the NPL.
Thus, the "threat" of becoming an NPL site may provide some
incentive to cooperate. They noted, however, that the level of
cooperation varies by PRP at both SA approach and NPL sites.
CICs noted that PRPs tend to be more cooperative because they want to make
sure that cleanups get completed, and their agreements usually have
stipulated penalties.
o The respondents did not specify stipulated penalties in detail, but the
ability to list the site on the NPL appears to be the most significant
penalty.
One CIC noted that for both SA and NPL sites, agreements usually do not
clearly outline the community involvement requirements that EPA employs
through policy, such as notification procedures, announcement requirements,
and public meeting requirements. The result is that PRPs try to interpret
guidance to limit community involvement requirements for both NPL and SA
approach sites. More substantial language in SA and NPL PRP-lead
agreements to spell out requirements would be helpful.
One RPM noted that the SA approach may encourage cooperation, but that
the experience for both SA and NPL sites is similar because AOCs and
Consent Decrees direct the process. RPMs generally do not threaten to list
D-10
-------
on the NPL unless absolutely necessary, though this possibility is clear.
Thus, this RPM has not experienced a difference between PRP-lead NPL
sites and sites with SAA agreements.
One Manager noted that SA approach negotiations tend to proceed more
quickly and another Manager noted that working with cooperative PRPs
under the SA approach can reduce enforcement costs in some instances.
PRP respondents stressed the cooperative nature of the SA approach as the
most significant difference, and as the main advantage to the approach.
What is the perceived speed in cleaning up sites with SAA agreements compared to
NPL sites?
Among all respondents, one CIC noted that sites with SAA agreements still take
a long time to cleanup, and PRP respondents also noted that site remediation time
frames were not different for NPL sites and sites with SAA agreements.
o One PRP noted that the original hope had been that the process would be
much more rapid than the NPL approach, and the similarity of the
approach was initially a source of disappointment. However, the same
PRP also noted that requirements under CERCLA limit EPA's ability to
speed the process. This PRP also stressed that it was involved at one of
the "first" sites with an SAA agreement, and that the process may have
evolved. Finally, representatives of this PRP stated that they would
pursue the SA approach again if given the option.
One RPM noted that at least one site with an SAA agreement had a very
motivated party that wanted to cleanup as quickly as possible.
Other EPA respondents indicated that negotiations may be easier at sites with
SAA agreements and some SA PRPs are more motivated than others, but they did
not indicate that there are differences in speed for remedial actions, and overall
they felt that the similarity of the two processes resulted in similar time frames.
o In discussing differences among specific sites, all respondents typically
identified the issues driving costs as ones not related to SA or NPL status
(e.g., the complexity of contacting residences in the Jacksonville Ash
sites).
o One RPM and two PRP respondents also noted that changes in staff at
both EPA and PRP organizations was often a driving factor in adding
delays and complexity to the management of the site remediation process
for both SA approach and NPL sites.
PRP and community respondents generally provided similar responses to EPA
regarding the length of time needed to address both SA approach and NPL sites,
D-11
-------
and noted that the processes were designed to be equivalent. PRPs noted that
avoiding the listing process appeared to save some time and effort for EPA, but
did not alter their actions.
Most respondents noted that site specific issues and costs not related to NPL or
SA approach were most likely to have the biggest impacts on schedule and costs;
several respondents (including community members and the PRP) specifically
noted that the process for contacting and remediating residential contamination at
the Jacksonville Ash sites is the most significant driver of schedule and cost at
that site.
Evaluation Question #lb: Do PRPs generally prefer the SAA over NPL listing, or
vice-versa? Why or why not?
EPA CICs, RPMs, and Managers all noted that PRPs and communities may
prefer the SA approach because it avoids any potential stigma from being listed
on the National Priorities List (NPL). The avoidance of perceived stigma of
becoming an NPL community or PRP was the most often cited advantage of the
SA approach, though respondents were not able to document a specific "value"
for this (e.g., preserving the value of properties or stocks).
o All respondents stressed the similarity of the activities that they
undertake in dealing with PRPs in their respective roles. As a result,
while PRP willingness to participate in the SA approach suggests an
advantage, the respondents did not identify significant advantages
associated with the process for PRPs.
All three RPMs indicated that PRPs at sites that they manage seem to prefer the
SA approach, and the RPMs believe that the key reason is to avoid NPL stigma.
o RPMs did not specifically define stigma, but noted in response to other
questions that PRPs noted the impact of NPL status on property values
and future opportunities to reuse and redevelop properties.
One Manager indicated that most PRPs who start the SA process prefer to
continue with the approach, unless the PRP thinks that they may be able to
establish that they are not liable and collect reimbursement under CERCLA
Section 106b; that process is linked to the NPL.
One Manager noted that he had not heard of any PRP requests to use the NPL
approach over the SA approach, indicating that PRPs prefer the SA approach
when it is available. However, PRPs in some cases prove to be unwilling to
cooperate during SA negotiations - this can result in NPL listings.
As outlined above, all PRP respondents agreed that in general, the cooperative
model presented by the SA approach is preferable to the NPL approach.
D-12
-------
o One PRP representative (an attorney) did note that given the more
extensive financial assurance requirements, PRPs should consider
whether the opportunities presented by the SA approach had enough
benefit to outweigh the costs associated with these requirements. In most
cases, he noted that the costs were not significant enough to outweigh the
opportunities to save time and money in negotiations.
Who typically suggests the SA approach?
One RPM noted that typically EPA approaches PRPs to negotiate the remediation
process, but Orlando Gasification stepped forward and approached EPA.
o Most PRPs do not begin negotiations at all until after EPA has begun to
review the site. However, Orlando Gas may have requested the approach
after seeing other gasification plants (e.g., Sanford Gasification Plant)
utilize the SA approach.
No other respondents commented on who suggests the approach. However,
previous discussions with EPA revealed that typically EPA approaches PRPs and
proposes the approach that will be used. PRP respondents generally concurred
with this, though most representatives on the interviews were not involved in
initial discussions.
How many times have PRPs suggested the SA approach and EPA refused? Why was
the SA approach not selected?
No EPA staff members cited specific examples when EPA refused to negotiate an
SA Agreement, though some negotiations did not end in agreements. However,
EPA staff provided insight on situations when EPA prefers the NPL approach.
One RPM explained that EPA will not negotiate with non-viable PRPs to
undertake the SA approach. Thus, EPA requests financial assurance early in the
SA approach negotiation process.
In addition, one Manager also emphasized that over the past year Region 4 has
become more reluctant to use the SA approach when there are many unorganized
PRPs. EPA prefers to work with a limited number of PRPs or have numerous
PRPs form a steering committee or organization for one point of contact.
Several respondents stressed that if SA negotiations or even site remediation do
not progress well, EPA will use the NPL.
D-13
-------
Evaluation Question #2: What are community member perceptions of the NPL and
SAA processes?
Two CICs noted that some community members are initially concerned that the
SA approach may not be comparable to listing on the NPL, and may offer fewer
resources to the community as part of the remediation. However, these concerns
tend to be addressed as the sites progress.
Two CICs noted that sometimes communities are not aware and/or do not
understand the difference between the two approaches. Sometimes communities
lump together the SA and NPL approaches because they are both under
Superfund.
Two CICs noted that communities tend to be less concerned about the stigma for
sites with SAA agreements, while in contrast, another CIC noted that some
communities still consider the SA approach to be associated with the Superfund
stigma.
One RPM explained that the SA approach may not completely eliminate negative
stigma, but "local banks and lending institutions would be less likely to devalue
properties around a site with an SAA agreement.
Community representatives, as noted in Question 1 above, generally noted two
characteristics of initial response to the SA approach:
o Many communities do not express a preference for either the NPL or SA
approach, and many community members are concerned only that EPA
be involved and that the site be a "Superfund" site rather than a site run
by a state or another agency.
o Among community members who express a preferences, some prefer the
SA approach to avoid the stigma of the NPL, and others are concerned
that the SA approach will produce fewer resources and/or a less effective
cleanup.
o Interviews with community leaders at the Jacksonville Ash sites and the
Anniston site confirmed that the key concern of most residents is that the
EPA remains active in the cleanup. One of the interviewees - a
community leader - was not able to identify whether the sites were NPL
or Superfund Alternative approach.
Does community involvement tend to be different at sites with SAA agreements than at
NPL sites?
All four CICs explained that they use the same community involvement guidance
and strategy for SA and NPL sites. As a result, they believe that opportunities for
involvement are comparable. Different sites/communities require and request
D-14
-------
varying levels of community involvement and CICs strive to meet those needs
regardless of the type of agreement.
o One CIC also noted that communities may be more involved at sites with
SAA agreements in some cases because they see more potential for
funding from viable PRPs.
o One CIC noted that community involvement appears to depend greatly
on whether or not the PRP is still a local employer. At those sites,
whether SA or NPL, community opposition to proposed remedies
appears to be more muted, probably in part due to concerns about
ensuring that the company continues as an employer.
RPMs noted that Community Involvement should be equal regardless of the
approach because EPA does the same mailings and announcements for both
approaches because the outreach is "expected to be equivalent."
o One RPM explained that the SA approach lacks an ability to comment
via the Federal Register, but in the RPM's experience, this option tends
to only be utilized by PRPs, and is not a real source of community
involvement. In addition, the RPM said that in practice, communities
have several opportunities for communities to comment.
Managers noted that EPA has the same relations and meetings, and communities
tend to be interested regardless of the approach.
o Concerns in communities appear to be similar - ensuring the elimination
of residential contamination and exposure, ensuring the health of
community members and their children, and then a secondary concern
about development and property value.
Community representatives all agreed that the SAA agreement did not have any
impact on their ability to participate in the sites, and two representatives
confirmed that the outreach process for both NPL sites and sites with SAA
agreements in their communities were the same. Representatives also did not
provide any responses that indicated that responding to comments on the listing
Federal Register notice at an NPL site was important. In two cases, community
representatives did not appear to be aware of the comment period for listings,
even though they were involved in NPL site coordination.
Are any sites with SAA agreements located in Environmental Justice communities?
CICs noted the following Environmental Justice communities: Anniston, Picky
Union, Jacksonville Ash and Kerr McGee in Jacksonville, IMC Spartanburg,
Cabot Koppers may or may not be an EJ community, Coronet Industries has a
portion that is disadvantaged, but the rest is not.
D-15
-------
All four CICs explained that EPA identifies Environmental Justice communities
so that staff can be aware and adjust their approach, if necessary, to effectively
communicate with communities that often have difficult working relationships
with government officials. While EPA tries to be more sensitive and informative
for EJ communities, the overall community involvement process is still the same.
CICs reiterated that their goal is to meet community needs regardless of the site
status.
o One CIC explained that for a couple of sites (both SA and NPL) it was
necessary to develop relationships with non-governmental community
organizations to ensure that community members were informed about
the remediation process by trusted sources.
One CIC indicated that EJ communities often use more TAG and TAP grants, at
both SA approach and NPL sites. The CIC explained that non-EJ sites seem to
leverage resources more easily while EJ sites are just learning about leveraging
and sustainability.
o The CIC also noted that EPA often has to go out and seek leaders in EJ
communities, while other communities may already have associations.
However, that is not always the case. For example, Jacksonville was a
very organized EJ community with existing associations.
One CIC also noted that EJ communities are an emerging Agency priority and
they are responding to the increased focus. For example, though not a Superfund
Alternative Approach issue, Community Involvement Director Freda Lockhart
left for the Gulf Coast on July 7 to meet with the NAACP because the NAACP
wants to have more of a voice during disasters. NAACP is requesting more
involvement in Agency activities than has been the case in recent administrations.
One RPM also explained that EPA tries to do the same things for all communities
and that EPA may also go above and beyond required outreach for EJ
communities and hold additional meetings and provide additional guidance or
information.
Evaluation Question 2a: What is the initial response of community members to
NPL listing compared to EPA's decision to use the SAA?
Two CICs noted that some community members are initially concerned that sites
with SAA agreements will not get the same attention, care, or cleanup because
they believe it has to be placed on the NPL in order to be "given priority" and
remediated.
o For example, one CIC noted that the communities near the TVA ash spill
and landfill for ash disposal are upset that these sites are not EPA-lead
NPL sites (note: these are also not designated as SAA agreement sites;
D-16
-------
the TVA spill involves an emergency removal action and a community
that is unhappy about receiving the ash that was spilled). The
community is concerned that the pace of the TVA cleanup will be too
slow if left to the PRP to remediate and the other community is
concerned about receiving the materials from the site. This example was
cited because sometimes similar concerns are raised about sites with
SAA agreements.
Two CICs noted that typically community members are generally not concerned
about NPL v. SA approaches, but local community and political leaders are
sometimes interested in avoiding the NPL, due to concerns about property values,
tax revenues, and development opportunities.
Two CICs noted that communities tend to have similar concerns regardless of the
approach (e.g., is my health in danger?, are my children in danger?, will I have to
move?). Thus, in many instances the communities just want sites cleaned up
regardless of the approach.
Two RPMs also noted that "most" people at the sites they are familiar with "do
not know the difference" between NPL and SA approach sites; both are
"Superfund." One RPM explained that responses vary across sites, but when
concerns about the SA approach are raised, they generally come from the strong
activists.
o One RPM indicated that communities tend to be focused on concerns
related to property values and relocation. The RPM indicated that
responses sometime conflict among residents, with some residents
expressing concerns that EPA wants to "take" their properties, while
others want EPA to purchase their properties and relocate them.
Community representatives and PRP responses were similar to EPA responses,
and representatives also noted that reaction to an SAA designation can differ
within a community, with community and business leaders favor the SA
approach designation, because they are often worried about long-term
development, property values, and stigma. In contrast, residents in or near
contaminated areas worry more about the pace and extent of cleanup, and are
concerned that the approach chosen will ensure the most effective remediation.
All respondents said that as the remediation process progresses, community
members tend to become more informed confident about the process.
Do community groups more typically ask for NPL listing or prefer the SA approach ?
Two CICs and two community representatives mentioned that sometimes
communities worry that there is a disadvantage if "their" site is not an NPL site
and that their site may not receive the same attention and resources as an NPL
site. To address concerns, EPA explains that SA uses the same process, just a
different approach to encourage PRPs to be more cooperative.
D-17
-------
o Generally politicians, PRPs, and local land developers prefer the SA
approach primarily due to a stated perception that the SA approach
preserves an increased potential for redevelopment.
Two RPMs explained that responses vary amongst communities and individual
community members. EPA Superfund still shows up on the documents, so it
looks the same to many communities.
Evaluation Question 2b: Ultimately, how satisfied are community members with the
SAA process and structure compared to the NPL process and structure?
Three CICs and all community representatives noted that it is difficult to satisfy
everyone, but most times people are satisfied that EPA is using the SA approach
once they understand process. Community representatives, in particular, noted
that they received "fewer complaints and questions" as the projects progressed.
o For example, one CIC noted that the Escambia site is producing
"satisfied customers." The CIC explained that some community
members were initially concerned about the SA approach, but most are
now satisfied with the approach.
o Community representatives all stressed that active EPA leadership and
early and extensive community involvement in the process was the really
critical need in gaining community approval for any approach. The
respondents all stressed that this was not an "SAA" issue, and all noted
that the organization of the PRP was a critical factor as well.
One RPM and two community representatives explained that residents are
sometimes unhappy about the length of time to do sampling and evaluation for
Jacksonville, but that is true of both SA and NPL sites. Residential
contamination, in particular, requires extensive coordination (e.g., to gain access
and test each affected property).
One RPM noted that he has not come across any sense of dissatisfaction from
communities on sites with SAA agreements. The RPM noted that there has been
a big push in Region 4 to ensure that RPMs do everything needed for community
involvement, at both SA approach and NPL sites.
Does community satisfaction vary throughout the process or is it consistent?
Three CICs and all community representatives indicated that support tends to
increase overtime as EPA builds trust and credibility and the process progresses.
"Not many people trust the government initially," but that improves once they
start seeing the process being implemented.
D-18
-------
o For example, Anniston's relationship with EPA and PRP has improved
over time and the fact that it was not listed on the NPL no longer appears
to be a point of discussion for community members. One CIC noted that
once the work starts and communities see progress, the NPL issue "goes
out the window."
To what extent do communities use technical assistance funding at SA and NPL sites?
Is there a difference in funding availability and/or expenditures for SA or NPL sites?
Two CICs indicated that there is no difference between the funding approaches at
SA approach and NPL sites, although funding may be used more heavily at EJ
sites.
o One CIC expressed concern that NPL communities may have more
funding opportunities for community involvement at the beginning of the
process because NPL communities may be able to receive grants once a
site is proposed for the NPL, whereas SA communities must wait until
the SA agreement is signed.
o One CIC noted that TAPs tend to require more negotiation and that
unlike TAG provisions, the standard language for TAPs does not provide
for additional requests leading to a potential for insufficient funding
down the road. However, another respondent noted that communities
can request additional TAP funding. We are examining this
contradiction.
o Regardless of the approach, one CIC explained that PRPs that are still
operating in communities have more of an incentive to provide more
community outreach and funding.
One RPM also indicated that the opportunities are equal, although Jacksonville
has four TAP grants because of the extensive residential contamination across
multiple areas and the fact that the PRP is the City of Jacksonville, which has a
governmental responsibility to ensure that its residents are informed.
o Respondents explained that the Jacksonville Ash sites are unique in that
they are located in an EJ community, have a public sector PRP, and
include contamination that is spread across multiple residential
neighborhoods.
Community representatives and PRPs did not have specific input on cross-site
comparisons for this question but the community representatives interviewed
noted that their funding for sites has been adequate to date.
o One community representative did note that the PRP at the site was not
emphasizing local hiring enough, and was focusing on contractors from
D-19
-------
outside the region. However, this representative also noted that this was
not an "SAA" issue.
Evaluation Purpose 2: Assess the effectiveness of the SA approach in achieving the
goals of the Superfund program
This Evaluation Purpose includes Evaluation Questions 3 and 4. Evaluation Question 3
will be informed primarily informed from existing data (e.g., data from CERCLIS and
Records of Decision (RODs). lEc is using interviews to support and expand upon results
from analyzing CERCLIS data and RODs to inform Evaluation Question 4.
Evaluation Question 4: Are SAA sites reused or redeveloped more quickly than sites
listed on the NPL? If so, does the evidence suggest why?
Overall, respondents noted that no sites with SAA agreements have achieved
reuse or redevelopment at this stage. Some will likely continue in their current
(usually industrial) use. And again, respondents posited that the SA approach
may afford more opportunities for redevelopment by avoiding the NPL stigma at
sites.
One CIC noted that potential for reuse and redevelopment appears to be equal at
NPL sites and sites with SAA agreements.
o The CIC noted that many sites consisting of residential contamination are
already in use and will continue to be used.
Two RPMs noted that no sites with SAA agreements have currently reached the
reuse stage. However, anecdotal information based on community and PRP
reactions suggests that avoiding the NPL list could be useful for later
redevelopment.
o For example, the soil work is complete at Gurley Pesticide and a
prospective purchaser agreement has been signed to allow owners to use
property and protect themselves since they are not the PRP.
The RPM noted that a 3rd party coming in to buy or use a site
may prefer a site using the SA approach over an NPL site.
One RPM explained that redevelopment does not come into play for remedy
selection, but EPA tries to keep any known potential uses in mind regardless of
SA or NPL approach.
D-20
-------
Evaluation Purpose 3: Assess the efficiency of the SA approach in terms of potential
time and cost savings
lEc is using interviews to support and expand upon results from analyzing CERCLIS and
IFMS data on the time and costs associated with actions through the ROD to answer
Evaluation Question 5.
Evaluation Question #5: What are the cost and time differences of the SAA and
NPL approaches, for both EPA and PRPs?
One CIC indicated that the SA approach should save time and money by
avoiding the "red tape" and effort required for the listing process. The CIC also
indicated that sites with SAA agreements seem to move faster at certain times.
However, this was an overall impression - the CIC was unable to identify
specific actions that differed among types of sites, and noted that both types of
sites vary considerably in difficulty.
One CIC pointed out that PRPs often hire public relations staff to promote and try
to "spin" activities at sites with SAA agreements and PRP-lead NPL sites,
leading to increased cost for PRPs and greater coordination efforts for CICs to
get PRPs to follow EPA Community Involvement Guidelines. However, these
issues arise at both SA approach and NPL sites.
One RPM indicated that speed depends on the openness and flexibility of EPA,
the RPM, and the PRP. Good relationships with all participants can likely lead to
savings at most sites.
One RPM noted that AOCs require the same investigation and risk assessments
regardless of the approach, although there could be additional benefits if the SA
approach developed a streamlined model to address multiple sites with the same
PRP and similar contamination.
One Manager explained that EPA does not need to go to prioritization panel and
list sites with SAA agreements. Thus, logically sites with SAA agreements
would move more quickly by avoiding the listing process.
One Manager indicated that cooperative PRPs can sometimes, but not always,
reduce enforcement costs associated with researching and coordinating with
PRPs. However, the same person noted that SA PRPs sometimes argue over the
same things as NPL PRPs, with "orphan share" of sites being one general issue.
In addition, one Manager indicated that SAA negotiations tend to progress more
quickly, although there are some exceptions.
o For example, EPA has had more difficulty negotiating the fourth AOC
with Weyerhaueser than was the case with the first three negotiations at
the site (which has four OUs).
D-21
-------
Has the process for tracking expenditures at NPL sites and sites with SAA agreements
changed over time?
One RPM noted that CERCLIS now includes subcategories to break down tasks
and expenditures more clearly than was done in the past. For example, RI/FS
now includes RI/FS negotiations and RI/FS.
One RPM has not observed any changes to the tracking process for expenditures.
However, it is likely that changes were implemented prior to the RPM becoming
involved in Superfund work.
Two Managers explained that since the mid-1990s, EPA conducts and recovers
more enforcement costs upfront ("Enforcement First"). Now, thorough
enforcement and PRP searches are completed before doing a fund-lead cleanup.
o Superfund has grown substantially since the 1980's and cost recovery
increased in the late 1980's and again in the early 1990's.
The result is that there have been changes to the cost recovery
process, as well as tracking. Thus, sites that were listed before
1987 or 1988 likely have fewer enforcement actions and less cost
recovery.
It appears that some early data have also been lost, leading to
potential underestimates of early EPA costs for managing sites.
Specifically, has the policy for submission and recovery of expenses changed since the
1980s?
One RPM indicated that the policy has not changed; one RPM noted that EPA
has changed the process for estimating and tracking estimated costs because early
estimates for RODs and early stages were inaccurate.
One Manager explained that the changes to enforcement meant that EPA had to
spend more time upfront developing a better case and negotiating with PRPs.
Site assessment costs are a specific issue; RPMs and Managers confirmed that
prior to the 1990s, site assessment costs were not typically tracked for cost
recovery. Currently, many site assessment costs are not recovered because they
are conducted through cooperative agreements with states.
One Manager also noted that EPA moved to IFMS in 1989 and some financial
data may have been lost due during that process. Anecdotally, this Manager
noted that analysts in the mid-1990s had difficulty retrieving pre-1989 data on
several occasions when attempting to document costs for cost recovery.
D-22
-------
One Manager also noted that some RPMs do their own oversight, eliminating
oversight charges in CERCLIS and IFMS. Thus, these RPMs would have travel
expenditures, but no oversight costs.
Does the SA approach have the potential to be more efficient or effective for
negotiating and cleaning up sites? If so, how?
CICs, RPMs, and Managers indicated that avoiding the listing process and having
cooperative PRPs should save some time and money. However, the savings are
small compared to the overall cost at the sites because the rest of the process is
designed to be identical.
One CIC noted that it seems that the SA approach would save time and money by
avoiding the "red tape" associated with the listing process. In addition, the CIC
noted that sites with SAA agreements seem to move faster at times. These
impressions were general, however, and not supported with specific examples.
Two RPMs indicated that the SA approach has the potential to be more efficient.
o One RPM explained that PRPs are motivated to stay off NPL and work
with EPA to try to find solutions. In addition, EPA realizes savings by
not going through the listing and deletion process.
In addition, RPMs can threaten to list a site on the NPL if the
PRP will not cooperate. Once a site is on the NPL, that card is
no longer available.
o Another RPM felt that it is a "reasonable hypothesis" that the approach
has the potential to be more effective or efficient due to the savings from
not going through the listing and deletion process.
No respondents stated that additional requirements or effort are
needed for specific portions of the SA approach.
One RPM was not sure if the SA approach saved time.
One Manager noted that avoiding the listing and prioritization panel should move
sites with SAA agreements along faster, but data would be needed to confirm that
is indeed the case.
Evaluation Question 5a: What are differences in the early part of the process (from
discovery through RIFS)?
Two RPMs explained that the SA approach avoids the listing process, which
saves time (approximately one-year) and cost for oversight. While fund-lead
sites can begin spending money before the listing, PRP-lead NPL sites are
D-23
-------
delayed until listing. Thus, cleanups at sites with SAA agreements that would
otherwise be PRP-lead sites likely get underway sooner.
One RPM also noted that it may actually be cheaper when PRPs provides money
directly to communities using the TAP approach instead of adding overhead by
going through EPA.
One RPM mentioned that the financial assurance requirements for SA approach
may be more costly and involve additional cost recovery.
Two Managers also noted that the SA approach requires a listing package, but
avoids the actual listing process. One Manager noted that the listing process for
NPL sites tends to be more than $50,000. However, it is unclear if this cost
includes steps that are also completed at sites with SAA agreements (e.g., HRS
scoring) or if this figure reflects those costs only incurred at NPL sites (e.g.,
Federal Register listing).
Evaluation Question 5b: What are differences in the middle part of the process
(from RIFS through ROD)?
One RPM noted that the ROD publication is same for SA and NPL approaches.
No other respondents noted any specific differences for the middle part of the
process, although respondents generally noted that SA PRPs tend to be more
cooperative and move faster.
Evaluation Question 5c: What are differences in the later part of the process (from
ROD through RD/RA, or through construction complete where applicable)?
One RPM explained that the process is the same, but the willingness of PRPs
makes a difference.
o The RPM also acknowledged that knowing that EPA can list sites with
SAA agreements on the NPL could help things speed along and could
help with negotiations with SA PRPs.
Evaluation Purpose 4: Identify strategies to improve the implementation, efficiency
and effectiveness of the SA approach
This evaluation purpose includes Evaluation Questions 6 and 7. lEc is using interviews
to support and expand upon results from reviewing findings from previous evaluations
and existing materials to identify changes to the SA approach, as well as
recommendations for future implementation.
D-24
-------
Evaluation Question 6: What has EPA done to improve the consistency of
implementing the SAA since an internal evaluation and an IG report on the
approach was published in 2007?
One CIC explained that community involvement has remained the same.
One RPM indicated that they have been encouraged to enter more community
involvement data over past few years.
One RPM noted that pop-up boxes have been added to CERCLIS for SA actions
to confirm the status of the site.
One RPM also expressed frustration that sites with SAA agreements that are
cleaned up in a manner that is consistent with NCP and EPA guidelines are not
"counted the same" as NPL sites in considering achievements.
Managers explained that the following changes have been implemented:
o SAA guidance now contains very specific language.
However, the provisions are very clear that site agreements that
were developed prior to the guidance were not grandfathered.
o The review process is now more thorough and structured to ensure that
sites meet criteria.
o Added an official OECA SA code. No different lead code because it is
still PRP lead. It mirrors NPL PRP lead site for CERCLIS, except for the
flag. GPRA still does not count for SA, but they are tracked.
o Region works with Dawn Taylor to flag official sites using the SA
approach.
Evaluation Question 6b: a) Do areas of inconsistent implementation remain? If yes,
how should EPA address them?
One Manager noted that the implementation seems sufficient. However, the
Region would have liked to have counted sites that were being worked on and
had Agreements in place prior to the revised guidance.
o The result is that sites have switched on and off the SA approach list.
Evaluation Question 7: What additional factors or variables should EPA take into
account when deciding if and when to use the SA approach in the future?
One CIC explained that the Obama administration wants EPA to become
involved and have a presence at sites as early as possible. Thus, EPA is trying to
come up with standard operating procedures or something to address pre-
remedial sites without providing false hope that a site will score high enough to
D-25
-------
be remediated. CICs would like EPA to come up with a way to introduce the
HRS scoring process and cleanup options to communities.
One RPM noted that listing on the NPL can have detrimental effects on
communities (e.g., property values have dropped) that can be avoided with the
SA approach. Thus, EPA should count SA cleanups and encourage Regions to
use the SA approach whenever there is a willing and viable PRP.
Do you have any concerns about the SA approach?
One CIC would like to see specific language to outline community involvement
requirements.
One CIC is pleased that TAP is synonymous to TAG.
o sites with SAA agreements generate same results with less paperwork
No RPMs had any concerns about the approach.
o One RPM noted that EPA has had good experiences with the SA
approach and PRPs seem to like the approach.
o Another RPM noted that there are no concerns because it is an equivalent
process and it is a good approach if it makes PRPs happy.
One Manager noted that the guidance and financial assurance pieces have
improved, so there are no concerns.
Should EPA consider any additional requirements for sites to become SA?
One CIC indicated that EPA should not consider any additional requirements.
One Manager would like to see stronger financial assurance in this economy for
NPL and SA. EPA's hands are tied once a PRP files for bankruptcy unless EPA
can prove danger.
o Kerr McGee site with an SAA agreement went bankrupt.
Are there advantages or disadvantages to the SA approach that are not reflected in cost
data or CERCLIS data?
One RPM noted that CERCLIS data may not reflect the avoided stigma or
willingness of PRPs in costs for oversight and negotiations.
One Manager explained that the sites require the same amount of enforcement
effort. However, it seems that sites move quicker when there is an interested
party.
D-26
-------
o More cooperation at sites with SAA agreements has led to fewer
negotiations than regular PRP lead sites.
Do you know of barriers to implementing the SA approach in other regions?
One CIC was not aware of any barriers, but received the impression that Region
4 is wavering on the best approach and is somewhat moving away from the SA
approach.
Respondents noted that there is a disincentive to use the approach if actions at
sites with SAA agreement are not counted at Headquarters.
Do you have any suggestions, recommendations, or comments to improve the SA
approach?
One CIC noted that the process is the same, aside from variations for
communities. When CICs go to approach an SA or NPL site, there are no initial
thoughts or concerns because the process will be same for them.
One CIC would like to see earlier community involvement for SA and PRP-lead
sites. Come up with procedures to involve communities earlier in the process.
One CIC would like for EPA to work closer with public health agencies to get
communities to understand public health
One RPM noted that the SA approach is OK, but there is room for changes to the
CERCLA approach.
Another RPM thought it was "ridiculous that sites with SAA agreements do not
count for GPRA"
One RPM noted that sometimes PRPs want to cleanup sites with the SA approach
that do not qualify for NPL. A program for sites that did not score 28.5 could
also be helpful.
One RPM could not think of anything noting that "it has been a breath of fresh
air."
One Manager requested that the program change the name back.
One Manager noted that ATDSR only does assessments on sites with SAA
agreements if requested. Region is working on fixing the process so that ATDSR
is automatically responsible for sites with SAA agreements as well.
One PRP representative suggested that the cooperative model of the SA approach
might be something that could be coordinated with the use of the Triad approach,
though he pointed out that the need to be consistent with NPL process
D-27
-------
requirements may limit the incorporation of Triad into site remediation at sites
with SAA agreements.
D-28
-------
APPENDIX E
-------
APPENDIX E: SUMMARY OF REMEDIES AND INSTITUTIONAL
CONTROLS BY SITE PAIRING
This appendix provides the summary information used to examine remedies at paired
sites. Exhibit E-l provides detailed information about remedies from RODs and site
summary data; Exhibit E-2 provides a screening analysis of potential differences between
the remedies at paired sites.
EXHIBIT E-1 SUMMARY ROD DATA DESCRIBING REMEDIES AT PAIRED SITES
PAIR
A
B
c
D
F
F
G
SITE
Admiral Home Appliances
Shuron Inc.
Gurley Pesticide Burial
Agrico Chemical Co.
Nocatee Hull Creosote
Cabot/Koppers
Sanford Gasification Plant
Cabot/Koppers
Sixty-One Industrial Park
Diamond Shamrock Corp.
Landfill
Ecusta Mill
Olin Corp. (Mclntosh
Plant)
ITT-Thompson Industries,
Inc.
Harris Corp. (Palm Bay
SAA/NPL
SITE
SAA
NPL
SAA
NPL
SAA
NPL
SAA
NPL
SAA
NPL
SAA
NPL
SAA
NPL
REMEDY RELATED TO SOIL
Soil excavation with off-
site disposal
Soil excavation
Soil excavation, addition
of lime, backfilling
Soil excavation,
consolidation into sludge
pond, RCRA cap,
construction of slurry wall
Installation of slurry wall
and capping system, soil
excavation
Soil washing,
solidification /stabilization
and bioremediation of soil
For OU #01 : soil excavation
with off-site disposal. For
OU #03: soil excavation
with off-site disposal,
installation of culvert,
monitoring
Soil washing,
solidification /stabilization
and bioremediation of soil
No action necessary
Cap upgrade and
extension, monitoring
Soil excavation with off-
site disposal
REMEDY RELATED TO GROUNDWATER
Monitored natural attenuation
Temporary extraction followed by
Active Groundwater Treatment,
possible monitored natural attenuation
Installation of permeable reactive
barrier (PRB), monitoring
Monitored natural attenuation,
permission to plug and abandon
impacted wells
In-situ bioremediation via biosparging,
monitored natural attenuation
Extraction and disposal, requires
installation of groundwater recovery
system
For OU #01 : monitoring. For OU #02:
monitored natural attenuation
Extraction and disposal, requires
installation of groundwater recovery
system
Enhanced Reductive Dechloration,
monitored natural attenuation
Groundwater and surface water
monitoring
Extraction from wells, monitoring
In-situ bioremediation via Enhanced
Reductive Dechlorination, followed by
monitored natural attenuation
Continued operation of extraction,
E-1
-------
PAIR
,
1
1
K
SITE
Plant)
Solitron Devices Inc.
Harris Corp. (Palm Bay
Plant)
Lyman Dyeing and
Finishing
Leonard Chemical Co.
Inc.
Weyerhauser Co.
Plymouth Wood Treating
Plant
Stauffer Chemical Co.
(Cold Creek Plant)
Brown's Dump
Jacksonville Ash Site
Hipps Road Landfill
SAA/NPL
SITE
SAA
NPL
SAA
NPL
SAA
NPL
SAA
SAA
NPL
REMEDY RELATED TO SOIL
Removal of
chromium/arsenic
No further action; soil
excavation and installation
of an engineered cap took
place as part of a removal
action
Soil excavation with off-
site disposal, in-situ source
area vacuum extraction for
subsurface soils
For OU #01 : cover system.
For OU #03: Earner Wall
Containment System, soil
excavation, surface cap
containment
For OU #02:
bioremedation, pond
capping and cap
maintenance; no further
action
Soil removal, use of two-
foot-thick soil cover
Soil removal, use of two-
foot-thick soil cover
Construction of landfill cap
REMEDY RELATED TO GROUNDWATER
treatment, and disposal system,
continued sampling and monitoring
Extraction and air-stripping treatment,
re-injection with oxygen infusion for
enhanced biodegradation
Continued operation of extraction,
treatment, and disposal system,
continued sampling and monitoring
No further action; monitoring is taking
place as part of a removal action
In-situ sparging or in-well stripping,
installation of treatment fence,
monitoring
For OU #03: monitoring
For OU #01 : continued operation of
intercept and treatment system,
installation of additional treatment
wells. For OU #02: monitoring; no
further action
Monitoring, no other action
Monitoring, no other action
Construction of recovery well network,
monitoring
To determine whether remedies that do not remove all contamination are implemented
with varying frequency between SA approach and NPL sites, lEc reviewed RODs and
site summary data for paired sites. The ROD provides the public documentation of the
remedy selected for site cleanup and provides a consistent source of information on site
remedies. In addition, because the sites using the SA approach have not yet completed
remedial actions, CERCLIS data on remedies for these sites may be incomplete, and the
ROD presents the best description of the remedy that will be implemented at each site.
Site RODs contain information on remedies for addressing contamination. To interpret
the data systematically across site pairings, we considered remedy information in two
categories: soil remedies and groundwater remedies. Although specific remedies
identified vary widely, we sorted information in the RODs into two screening-level
categories as follows:
E-2
-------
Remedies that suggest that contamination remains in place, such as caps slurry
walls natural attenuation, and
Remedies that indicate contamination removal.
EXHIBIT E-2 INITIAL COMPARISON OF REMEDIES IDENTIFIED IN RODS FOR EACH
PAIR OF SITES
PAIR
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1
J
SITE
Admiral Home
Appliances
Shuron Inc.
Gurley Pesticide
Burial
Agrico Chemical
Co.
Nocatee Hull
Creosote
Cabot/Koppers
Sanford
Gasification Plant
Cabot/Koppers
Sixty-One
Industrial Park
Diamond
Shamrock Corp.
Landfill
Ecusta Mill
Olin Corp.
(Mclntosh Plant)
ITT-Thompson
Industries, Inc.
Harris Corp. (Palm
Bay Plant)
Solitron Devices
Inc.
Harris Corp. (Palm
Bay Plant)
Lyman Dyeing and
Finishing
Leonard Chemical
Co. Inc.
Weyerhauser Co.
Plymouth Wood
Treating Plant
Stauffer Chemical
Co. (Cold Creek
Plant)
SAA/NPL
SAA
NPL
SAA
NPL
SAA
NPL
SAA
NPL
SAA
NPL
SAA
NPL
SAA
NPL
SAA
NPL
SAA
NPL
SAA
NPL
TYPE OF REMEDY
RELATED TO SOIL
Contamination
removal
Unclear
Unclear
Contamination left
in place
Contamination left
in place
Contamination
removal
Contamination
removal
Contamination
removal
No information
provided
No information
provided
TYPE OF REMEDY
RELATED TO
GROUNDWATER
Contamination left in
place
Possible
contamination left in
place
Contamination
removal
Contamination left in
place
Contamination left in
place
Contamination
removal
Contamination left in
place
Contamination
removal
Contamination left in
place
Contamination left in
place
No information provided - no action necessary
Contamination left
in place
Contamination
removal
No information
provided
Contamination
removal
No information
provided
Contamination left
in place
Contamination
removal
Contamination left
in place
Contamination left
in place
Contamination left in
place
Contamination left in
place
Contamination
removal
Contamination
removal
Contamination
removal
Contamination left in
place
Contamination left in
place
Contamination left in
place
Contamination left in
place
SITE WITH REMEDY
WITH GREATER FOCUS
ON CONTAMINATION
REMOVAL
Unclear - NPL
SAA
NPL
NPL
Neither - both leave
contamination in place
Unclear
Unclear - NPL
Neither - both remove
contamination
NPL
Neither - both leave
contamination in place
E-3
-------
PAIR
K
SITE
Brown's Dump
Jacksonville Ash
Site
Hipps Road
Landfill
SAA/NPL
SAA
SAA
NPL
TYPE OF REMEDY
RELATED TO SOIL
Contamination
removal
Contamination
removal
Contamination left
in place
TYPE OF REMEDY
RELATED TO
GROUNDWATER
Contamination left in
place
Contamination left in
place
Contamination left in
place
SITE WITH REMEDY
WITH GREATER FOCUS
ON CONTAMINATION
REMOVAL
Neither - both leave
contamination in place
lEc's initial comparison of the sites revealed that in five of 11 pairs, both sites have
similar remedies or data are not complete (the Ecusta Mill site has completed only one
no-action ROD, and it is not clear what remedies will be selected for the remaining
OU).42 In two other cases - Admiral Home Appliances and Shuron (Pair A) and ITT-
Thompson and Harris Corp. (Pair G) - the NPL sites appear to involve contaminant
removal to a greater extent than remedies identified for the sites using the SA approach,
but both also specify continued monitoring, and it is unclear whether all contamination is
likely to be removed in the near term.
The data in Exhibit E-2 show that in three pairs (C, D, and I) the NPL site remedies
appear more clearly focused on contaminant removal and treatment. In site pair B, the
SA approach site's remedy removes soil and groundwater contamination, but the NPL
site's remedy involves capping and monitored natural attenuation, leaving contamination
in place.
Although the RODs for the examined SA approach and NPL sites provide only general
and sometimes preliminary information about the extent to which the remedies selected at
each site are designed to remove all contamination, the results indicate that at all but one
of six pairs of sites where differences exist in remedies, remedies at NPL sites appear to
be more focused on contaminant removal and treatment, while sites using the SA
approach emphasize remedies that leave contamination in place.
As noted in Chapter 3 of the report, however, a review of these data suggests that they are
not complete enough to fully identify specific differences in site remedies. A complete
analysis would require consideration of the extent and concentration of contamination,
the most effective remediation technologies available at the time of publication of each
ROD, and detailed data about any residual contamination levels anticipated at the
completion of remedial actions.
42 Ecusta Mill had a significant time-critical removal action that did physically remove contamination, but that action is not
described in the ROD and is not included here.
E-4
-------
APPENDIX F
-------
APPENDIX F:
AVERAGE NUMBER OF DAYS REPORTED TO
COMPLETE ACTIONS AT PAIRED SITES
43
PAIR
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
TYPE
SA
NPL
SA
NPL
SA
NPL
SA
NPL
SA
NPL
SA
NPL
SA
SITE NAME
Admiral
Home
Appliances
Shuron, Inc.
Gurley
Pesticide
Burial
Agrico
Chemical
Nocatee-Hull
Creosote
Cabot-
Koppers
Sanford
Gasification
Plant
Cabot-
Koppers
Sixty One
Industrial
Diamond
Shamrock
Ecusta Mill
Olin
Corporation
(Macintosh
Plant)
Solitron
Devices
CONSENT
DECREE
86
N/A
133
175
N/A
1,104
N/A
1,104
N/A
167
N/A
N/A
167
RI/FS
NEGOTIATIONS
132
109
70
175
193
300
317
300
911
119
N/A
116
138
PRP
RI/FS
2,194
1.388
2,923
1,013
3,601
2,263
1.644
2,263
1,703
960
615
1,683
2,117
RD/RA
NEGOTIATIONS
269
2,400
281
207
84
182
212
182
210
140
N/A
169
134
PRPRD
N/A
719
11
555
N/A
939
1,378
939
N/A
77
N/A
795
762
PRPRA
N/A
403
463
1,140
N/A
1,099
N/A
1,099
N/A
68
N/A
1,969
N/A
NPL Harris Corp. 172 303 1.509 331 820 885
(Palm Bay)
SA ITT Thompson N/A 241 3,604 N/A N/A N/A
Industries
43 For sites with multiple Oils or several unique actions (e.g., 2 RA periods) the average number of days per action reflects
the sum of the actions divided by the number of the actions. For example, 0111 at Harris Corp completed RI/FS in 819 days
and OU2 reported two RI/FS periods totaling 2,199 days (1,080 and 1,119 days). Thus, the sum of 0111 (819 days) and 0112
(2,199 days) is 3,018. That quantity is then divided by two to reflect the two Oils with completed RI/FS' for a site average
of 1,509 days.
F-1
-------
PAIR TYPE
NPL
1 SA
NPL
Summary
of Pairs
J SA
NPL
K SA
NPL
SA
NPL
CON
SITE NAME DEC
Harris Corp.
(Palm Bay)
Lyman Dyeing
& Finishing
Leonard
Chemical
SA
NPL
Weyerhaeuser
Company
Plymouth
Wood
Treating
Plant (Mega
Site)
Stauffer- Cold
Creek
Brown's Dump
(Potential
Mega Site)
Hipps Road
Landfill
Jacksonville
Ash
(Potential
Mega Site)
Hipps Road
Landfill
SENT RI/FS PRP RTX
REE NEGOTIATIONS RI/FS NEGOT
172 303 1,509
N/A 280 3.484
599 1,262 3,759
2 5 3
0 3 6
107 N/A 2,592
54 457 1,595
209 97 2,549
238 546 709
209 97 2,549
238 546 709
fRA
ATIONS PRP RD PRP RA
331 820 885
N/A N/A N/A
347 2,185 N/A
3 2~] 1
3 1 0
221 493 525
202 565 1 ,222
451 648 N/A
1,082 361 613
451 648 N/A
1,082 361 613
F-2
-------
APPENDIX G: QUALITY ASSURANCE PLAN
Quality Assurance Plan
Effectiveness Evaluation of the Region 4 Superfund Alternative Approach
EPA Contract No. EP-W-07-028, Work Assignment No. 1-23
Prepared by
Industrial Economics, Incorporated
Draft: June 1, 2010, Version 1.2
G-1
-------
QUALITY ASSURANCE PLAN
This Quality Assurance Plan documents the planning, implementation, and assessment procedures that
Industrial Economics, Incorporated (IEc) will undertake for the evaluation of EPA's Superfund
Alternative Approach within EPA Region 4. This plan is written based on the requirements under EPA
Contract No. EP-W-07-028, Work Assignment No. 1-23 and "EPA Requirements for Quality
Assurance Project Plans," March 2001.
Title: Effectiveness Evaluation of the Region 4 Superfund Alternative Approach
Contractor: Industrial Economics, Incorporated (IEc)
Plan Summary: Industrial Economics, Incorporated (IEc) is currently conducting an evaluation of EPA's
Superfund Alternative Approach. EPA developed the Superfund Alternative Approach (SA approach or
SAA) as an option for negotiating cleanups with Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs) without listing
sites on the National Priorities List (NPL). SAA sites use the same investigative and cleanup processes
and standards that are used for sites listed on the NPL. The impetus for developing the SAA was
potential cost savings from avoiding the NPL listing process. Currently, sites with SA approach
agreements are a small subset of all Superfund cleanup agreements, with Regions 4 and 5 being the
largest users of the SA approach. Region 4 has 19 sites with SA agreements and Region 5 has 32 sites.
The purpose of this evaluation is to:
Examine the factors influencing the use of the SA approach
Assess the effectiveness of the SA approach in achieving the goals of the Superfund program
Assess the efficiency of the SA approach in terms of potential time and cost savings
Identify strategies to improve the implementation, efficiency and effectiveness of the SA approach
This evaluation will use a range of quantitative and qualitative data sources. An initial step in the
evaluation is a review of existing published reports and site data from the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) and Records of Decision (RODs)
to identify comparable SA and NPL sites in Region 4. The evaluation will also include a quantitative
comparative analysis focusing on site data from CERCLIS and the Office of the Chief Financial Officer's
Integrated Financial Management System (IFMS), and a qualitative assessment of information collected
in targeted interviews.
Sources of Data: In designing the evaluation methodology, IEc received input from EPA Region 4 staff
and stakeholders from OECA and OSWER. Key sources of data include:
Existing Superfund data, including Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Information System (CERCLIS) data provided by Randy Hippen at EPA Headquarters and
CERCLIS data downloaded from the public CERCLIS website
(http://www.epa. gov/superfund/sites/phonefax/products .htm). IEc plans to review the following
CERCLIS fields to support the comparison of SA approach and NPL sites for site selection and for
Evaluation Questions 3, 4, and 5. To identify sites for comparison, IEc reviewed the following site
characteristic fields: EPA ID, Site Name, Address, City, State, Zip Code, County, Region: 4, Federal
G-2
-------
Facility: N, Non-NPL Status: SA, Non-NPL Date, NPL Status, SITE_SMSA_NMBR (standard
metropolitan statistical area), Population Within One Mile, Number of OUs, Number of PRPs,
Contaminated Media, Types of Contaminants, Contaminants of Concern, and Potentially Responsible
Party (PRP)/Leading Organization. To conduct paired analyses, lEc will analyze data from the
following fields: Discovery Date, Construction Complete Date, Action, Action ID, Actual Start Date,
Actual End Date/Completion, Responsibility, Planned Outcome, Urgency, Initial Remedial Measure,
Institutional Controls, Long Term Response Action, Site-Wide Ready for Anticipated Use, Cleanup
Technologies Used, Cleanup Status (at OU), Human Exposure Environmental Indicator Measure, and
Contaminated Ground Water Migration Environmental Indicator Measure.
Analysis of Workload Allocation Model Data provided by Alan Youkeles at EPA Headquarters. The
Workload Allocation Model incorporates financial data from the Integrated Financial Management
System (IFMS) that have been categorized by CERCLIS Action code to reflect broad categories
describing the type of effort undertaken by EPA (e.g., enforcement, remedial). lEc plans to generally
use the broad categories already defined for the model, to ensure consistency with other EPA
analyses, though specific actions in each category that are not within the scope of the analysis (e.g.,
five year reviews) will not be considered. lEc will review expenditure data for relevant activities up
to the publication of RODs for all sites, including relevant expenditures occurring one fiscal year
beyond the ROD dates to ensure that lagging costs are captured. To the extent that sites with SAA
agreements have completed remedial design and remedial action, lEc may also examine financial data
for these actions.
Existing evaluations of the Superfund Alternative Approach process. EPA's Office of Enforcement
and Compliance Assurance (OECA) and Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER)
conducted a joint internal evaluation of the SA approach and EPA's Office of the Inspector General
conducted an audit of the approach. Both of these evaluations were completed in 2007.
Additional Data Resources: RODs, Community Involvement Plans, Site Fact Sheets, and Consent
Decrees
Rationale for the Selection of Sources of Data: These sources and methods were chosen because they
were feasible for the project scope and schedule and are also available and/or accessible. The data will
provide a comprehensive answer to the evaluation questions (see methodology). lEc plans to primarily
use CERCLIS data and supplement the information and findings with qualitative interviews. By using a
variety of data sources and collection methods, lEc will be able to assess the implementation of the SA
approach in Region 4.
Analytical Rigor: lEc designed the methodology in the context of the project's overarching evaluation
questions and the Superfund program pipeline logic model. lEc will use and apply the collected
information relative to the goals of the evaluation. lEc will use and apply qualitative and quantitative data
in a manner that is appropriate for its scope and for the purposes of the evaluation report. This will
include identifying the source of the data, any assumptions related to its use, and possible limitations. We
will also consider if any of the preliminary analyses indicate that additional data need to be collected.
Throughout the process, lEc will work with EPA staff from Region 4 and Headquarters to ensure that data
obtained from CERCLIS and the IFMS are the most comprehensive and reliable sources available. To
ensure high quality data, lEc will perform standard quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) checks
G-3
-------
on secondary data (CERCLIS and IFMS data) to ensure consistent data analysis, including review and
comparison of data received with external documents (e.g., ROD text), and review of all calculations
involving the data. Other examples of QA/QC procedures that will be used include consulting with Alan
Youkeles of the Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation (OSTRI) Budget, Planning
and Evaluation Branch to ensure that lEc interpretation of data categories is correct, sharing the
methodology with stakeholders, including staff from OECA and OSWER, and discussing the
methodology and specific data sources and analyses with staff from Region 4 and others at EPA as
needed to verify the soundness of methodology and data sources. Alan Youkeles, stakeholders, and staff
from Region 4 will review the final evaluation report to ensure the data have been interpreted correctly.
Additional steps we are taking to ensure a high degree of analytical rigor are discussed by method below:
Interviews: lEc plans to use interviews in three ways: 1) to provide central information on specific
evaluation questions that have not been well-documented using available data (e.g., Questions 1 and 2); 2)
to supplement information available in existing data sources (e.g., follow-up on EPA activities to address
prior evaluation recommendations); and 3) to investigate specific data questions that may arise as a result
of the quantitative analyses of existing data.
lEc will take notes during interviews, and produce a summary of findings from the interviews. As
interviews are qualitative, and their purpose is to further explain survey results as opposed to compare
findings across interviews, we will analyze and interpret information from interviews using a qualitative
approach. Depending on the number of interviews, lEc will develop an approach to code or summarize
responses, and will verify with interviewees that responses have been accurately captured. It is possible
that interview questions will be targeted at specific site conditions or data anomalies, and will provide
explanatory information rather than results that can be broadly coded or interpreted. The specific
verification and coding procedure will build on the type and focus of interviews.
CERCLIS Data: lEc plans to analyze CERCLIS data to support assessment of time and cost for
differences between SA and NPL sites. lEc worked with EPA staff from Region 4 and Headquarters to
identify and obtain the most comprehensive and reliable CERCLIS data for analyses.
To minimize the potential for double-counting, our review of cost data will be limited to expenditures. In
addition, lEc plans to review all data for anomalous results.
Due to the limited number of sites with SAA agreements and RODs, lEc plans to limit the analysis to
correlation and explanatory data; a larger number of sites would be required to support a robust statistical
analysis.
Data Validation: lEc continues to work with EPA staff from Region 4 and Headquarters that are familiar
with the data to ensure that data obtained from CERCLIS are the most comprehensive and reliable
sources available. lEc plans to ask EPA staff from Region 4 and/or Headquarters to verify that all data
obtained from CERCLIS and/or other sources are being interpreted and utilized in a manner consistent
with the goals of the evaluation. This applies both to site-level data used in selecting sites to make
appropriate comparisons, as well as more targeted information concerning site, action, and expenditure
characteristics used to compare paired sites.
G-4
-------
lEc's internal data validation and quality control procedures include QA/QC of all data; for this project we
will ensure review of all data by at least one project team member (in addition to the lead analyst), and by one
person not part of the project team. This may be a staff member with CERCLIS and/or Access experience,
and also may be lEc's internal quality assurance manager. The external reviewer will consider the overall
consistency of the data and information presented. If the quality assurance reviewer identifies data that are
inconsistent with expectations or other information, the questionable data will be referred back to project staff
to confirm that information is accurate.
Finally, as lEc will be using data for site comparisons on a case-by-case basis, any suspected anomalies or
apparent inconsistencies in the data will be illuminated and investigated further with EPA staff from Region 4
and/or Headquarters. The case-by-case nature of the analysis ensures that no suspected anomalies or apparent
inconsistencies in the data will go uninvestigated over the course of the analysis. This consultation with EPA
staff may obviate the need for an lEc reviewer external to the project; lEc will consult with the WAM and
Region 4 staff in making this determination.
Consistency: lEc will ensure consistent data collection in a number of ways. Interview guides will be
developed for each set of interviewees (e.g., EPA Community Involvement Coordinators, Remedial Project
Managers) so that each group of individuals will be asked the same set of questions. Finally, when
developing the final evaluation report, we will consider the findings from each analysis within the context of
results from the other methods employed for this evaluation.
Data Limitations: lEc cannot solicit the same information from more than nine non-federal entities because
of Information Collection Request (ICR) restrictions. Accordingly, lEc plans to conduct a limited number of
in-person or telephone interviews to support this evaluation.
Expected Products: The final products derived from this evaluation will include the initial findings from
reviewing and analyzing CERLCIS and IFMS data, summary of interviews, final report, oral presentation,
and a fact sheet on the Superfund Alternative Approach evaluation.
Audience: EPA Region 4 will be the primary audience for this evaluation. Other interested parties include the
EPA's Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation (OPEI), Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance (OECA), and Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER). EPA may use the
findings to improve the Superfund Alternative Approach and to inform Superfund staff if the SA approach is
having the expected outcome of reducing site costs and speeding remediation.
Organization: EPA Region 4
EPA Project Leader: Yvonne Watson (BSD), Don Rigger (Region 4)
EPA Quality Assurance Manager: Clay Ogg
------- |