EPA540-R-98-029
United States Solid Waste and OSWER9205.5-14A
Environmental Protection Emergency Response PB98-963 237
Agency (5305W) June 1998
RCRA, Superfund & EPCRA
Hotline Training Module
Introduction to:
The Superfund Response
Process
Updated February 1998
-------
DISCLAIMER
This document was developed by Booz-Allen & Hamilton Inc. under contract 68-WO-0039 to EPA. It is
intended to be used as a training tool for Hotline specialists and does not represent a statement of EPA
policy.
The information in this document is not by any means a complete representation of EPA's regulations or
policies. This document is used only in the capacity of the Hotline training and is not used as a reference
tool on Hotline calls. The Hotline revises and updates this document as regulatory program areas change.
The information in this document may not necessarily reflect the current position of the Agency. This
document is not intended and cannot be relied upon to create any rights, substantive or procedural,
enforceable by any party in litigation with the United States.
RCRA, Superfund & EPCRA Hotline Phone Numbers:
National toll-free (outside of DC area) (800) 424-9346
Local number (within DC area) (703) 412-9810
National toll-free for the hearing impaired (TDD) (800) 553-7672
The Hotline is open from 9 am to 6 pm Eastern Time,
Monday through Friday, except for federal holidays.
-------
THE SUPERFUND RESPONSE PROCESS
CONTENTS
1. Introduction 1
2. Regulatory Summary 3
2.1 Definitions 4
2.2 National Contingency Plan 7
2.3 Notification or Discovery 8
2.4 Response Process 10
2.5 Removal Process 18
2.6 Remedial Process 22
2.7 Community Involvement 29
2.8 State Role 29
2.9 Natural Resource Damage Assessments 32
2.10 Federal Facility Response 33
2.11 Contractor Support 33
3. Module Summary 37
-------
-------
The Superfund Response Process - 1
1. INTRODUCTION
Responding to growing concern over public health and environmental threats from
uncontrolled releases of hazardous materials, in December 1980 Congress passed the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA), commonly known as Superfund. CERCLA established a program to:
• Identify sites where hazardous substances have been, or might be, released
into the environment
• Ensure these sites are cleaned up by responsible parties or the government
• Create a claims procedure for parties who have cleaned up sites or spent
money to restore natural resources.
The term "Superfund" was first coined to describe the trust fund created to finance
cleanup actions, and is now often used to denote the entire program. When
enacted, CERCLA established a $1.6 billion fund with monies collected as taxes on
crude oil and certain commercial chemicals. When Congress passed the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) in 1986, the fund was increased to
$8.5 billion. These monies are raised through excise taxes on petroleum feedstock
chemicals, a tax on certain imported chemical derivatives, an environmental tax on
corporations, appropriation from general tax revenues, and any monies recovered
or collected from parties responsible for site contamination. In 1990, federal budget
legislation contained a $5.1 billion reauthorization of the Fund providing authority
for the program to continue through September 30, 1994.
Superfund is not the same program today as it was when it began in 1980. Its
evolution has been influenced by two major factors — time and cost. The challenge
for EPA has been to weigh these two influences while simultaneously engineering
the program to satisfy the industries paying for cleaning up the sites, the
communities in which the contaminated sites are located, and environmental
groups keeping a watchful eye on Superfund's progress. These influences, coupled
with the technical complexities of site cleanup, have compelled both Congress and
EPA to improve the program.
Congress reauthorized and amended Superfund in 1986, strengthening and
broadening the scope of the original statute, but the changes in the fundamental
operation of the program did not stop there. In 1989, EPA conducted an evaluation
of Superfund which is now known as the "90-Day Study." This study, entitled A
Management Review of the Superfund Program, established goals for Superfund
improvement including the need to focus on enforcement first and to foster the use
of innovative technologies. The 90-Day Study was the inception of a series of
evaluations by EPA to examine ways Superfund can be improved. For example, in
1992, EPA devised a method to accelerate the cleanup process called the Superfund
The information in this document is not by any means a complete representation of EPA's regulations or policies,
but is an introduction used for Hotline training purposes.
-------
2 - The Superfund Response Process
Accelerated Cleanup Model (SACM) and also established initiatives needed to
reform the program, which are known as Superfund Administrative
Improvements and Reforms. These initiatives have launched new components of
the program, and are elaborated on in other modules. This module introduces the
basics of how Superfund operates.
When you have completed this module, you should be able to describe the CERCLA
response process. Specifically, you should be able to:
• Demonstrate familiarity with the statutory and regulatory framework of the
Superfund program, and quickly reference pertinent sections in the statute
and the National Contingency Plan (NCP)
• Explain the basic steps of the Superfund response process, from initial site
discovery until site cleanup has been completed
• Describe the function of the CERCLIS database, the archived list, and the
National Priorities List (NPL)
• Locate and cite the Hazard Ranking System (HRS)
• Briefly explain the NPL, the HRS, and their relationship
• Provide information about special types of sites, such as federal facilities,
mining sites, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) sites,
pesticide sites, and radioactive sites
• Understand the factors that contribute to the selection of a remedy
• Understand the role of the states in the Superfund process.
Use this list of objectives to check your knowledge of this topic after you complete
the training session.
The information in this document is not by any means a complete representation of EPA's regulations or policies,
but is an introduction used for Hotline training purposes.
-------
The Superfund Response Process - 3
2. REGULATORY SUMMARY
There are tens of thousands of abandoned hazardous waste sites in our nation, and
accidental releases occur daily. At the core of the Superfund program is a system of
identification and prioritization that allows the most dangerous sites and releases to
be addressed within the confines of limited federal funding and human resources.
The process is both formal and flexible. In order to focus federal attention on the
worst sites first, all sites must enter the program by undergoing a nationally
consistent site assessment. This allows EPA to establish a list of high-priority or
worst-risk sites that will be addressed first.
In order to ensure Superfund money is spent responsibly and appropriately at
priority sites, risk and exposure assessments are built into several stages of the
Superfund process. Since each site is unique, these assessments allow the primary
threats to human health and the environment to be identified and remedied. The
careful evaluation process carries through to the selection of the preferred cleanup
technology. After several alternatives are carefully weighed against each other, the
Agency selects the best remedial alternative while involving the public and
potentially responsible parties. This alternative should be a cleanup method which
protects human health and the environment, while complying with all applicable
environmental laws, and provides a long-term, cost-effective solution.
The first step in the Superfund process is to identify abandoned or uncontrolled
hazardous waste sites. EPA does this through a variety of methods, including
reviewing records and information provided by state and local agencies and
concerned citizens. CERCLA and SARA also require facilities to report releases of
certain chemicals and provide information about hazardous substances used at the
facility.
Once a site is identified, EPA or a state agency performs a preliminary assessment to
determine if the site poses a potential hazard and whether a federal response is
necessary. If the preliminary assessment concludes that the site does not present a
serious hazard to human health or the environment, no further federal action will
be taken. At this point, a state or private party may initiate and conduct a cleanup
independent of the federal Superfund program.
If the site does pose a potential hazard, EPA may respond in one of two ways. If the
threat posed by the site appears to be an emergency situation, EPA will conduct an
immediate removal action. Such removal activities may include providing
alternate water supplies, installing security fencing, or moving drums of hazardous
substances to a secure area. If the threat is less immediate, EPA will perform more
extensive site investigations in preparation for the remedial process. Sites that are
determined to be most threatening to human health and the environment are
placed on the NPL through a formal rulemaking. Once on the NPL, long-term
cleanup actions aimed at achieving a permanent remedy are conducted. In some
The information in this document is not by any means a complete representation of EPA's regulations or policies,
but is an introduction used for Hotline training purposes.
-------
4 - The Superfund Response Process
cases, EPA will commence a remedial action, such as groundwater or soil cleanup,
after a removal action has been conducted to reduce immediate threats.
EPA's authority to act does not stop with the removal of barrels or the construction
of treatment facilities. EPA makes every effort to find the individuals or companies
responsible for the hazardous waste problem and holds them financially responsible
for the cost of the cleanup effort. This search for potentially responsible parties often
occurs concurrently with cleanup activities. Those parties can be compelled to pay
for the cleanup as work proceeds.
2.1 DEFINITIONS
Familiarity with the following terms is key to understanding this module.
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD
Section 113(k) of SARA provides for the establishment of an administrative record
file at or near each NPL site. This file contains the information used by the lead
agency to make decisions on the selection of a response action. It provides a legal
basis for challenging and defending response action decisions. Depending on the
type of response action required for a site (i.e., removal or remedial), the regulations
specify when the administrative record must be put in place. Guidance on contents
and location of the administrative record file can be found in 40 CFR §300.800.
APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS (ARARs)
Applicable requirements are cleanup standards, standards of control, and other
substantive requirements, criteria, or regulations promulgated under federal or state
environmental or facility siting law, which specifically address a hazardous
substance, action, or other circumstances of a site. Relevant and appropriate
requirements are federal or state requirements, criteria, or limitations that do not
specifically address the response, but address situations similar to those encountered
at a site.
FACILITY
A facility is any building, structure, installation, equipment, pipe or pipeline, well,
pit, pond, lagoon, impoundment, ditch, landfill, storage container, vehicle, stock, or
aircraft, or any site or area, where a hazardous substance has been deposited, stored,
disposed of, or placed; but does not include any consumer product in consumer use
or any vessel (CERCLA §101(9)).
The information in this document is not by any means a complete representation of EPA's regulations or policies,
but is an introduction used for Hotline training purposes.
-------
The Superfund Response Process - 5
FEASIBILITY STUDY
A feasibility study (FS) is a study and analysis process for developing, evaluating,
and selecting remedial actions. The term also refers to the report which describes
the results of the study.
HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE
Defined in CERCLA §101(14), a hazardous substance includes any substance
designated pursuant to §§307 (a) or 311(b)(2)(A) of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act, §102 of CERCLA, §3001 of RCRA, §112 of the Clean Air Act, or §7 of the
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). The definition specifically excludes any form
of petroleum unless it is mixed with a hazardous substance not inherent in the
petroleum. CERCLA hazardous substances are listed in a table codified in 40 CFR
§302.4.
LEAD AGENCY
The lead agency (e.g., EPA, state, or an Indian tribe) provides the on-scene
coordinator and remedial project manager (OSC/RPM) to plan and implement
response actions under the NCP.
NATIONAL PRIORITIES LIST
Established pursuant to CERCLA §105 (a) (8), the NPL is a list of abandoned or
uncontrolled hazardous substance sites that are priorities for long-term
remediation.
ON-SCENE COORDINATOR
The OSC is a federal official who has been designated by EPA or the U.S. Coast Guard
to coordinate and direct federal responses to oil spills or to coordinate and direct
removal actions or other response actions within the Superfund process.
OPERABLE UNIT
An operable unit is a discrete part of a response action, such as groundwater cleanup
or removal of contaminated soil. The cleanup of a site can be divided into a
number of operable units depending on the complexity of the problems associated
with the site.
The information in this document is not by any means a complete representation of EPA's regulations or policies,
but is an introduction used for Hotline training purposes.
-------
6 - The Superfund Response Process
PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT
A preliminary assessment (PA) is the review of existing site information to
determine if a release may require additional investigation or action. A PA may
include an on-site inspection if appropriate. This is the first step of the multi-step
site assessment process. The term also refers to the document which reports the
results of the assessment.
RECORD OF DECISION
A Record of Decision (ROD) documents the remedy decision for a site or operable
unit. The ROD certifies that the remedy selection process has followed the
requirements of CERCLA and the NCP, and discusses the technical components of
the remedy. The ROD also provides the public with a consolidated source of
information about the site.
REMEDIAL ACTIONS
Remedial actions are actions documented in the ROD that are taken at NPL sites to
eliminate or reduce the pollution to levels which prevent or minimize the release
of hazardous substances so that they do not migrate or cause substantial danger to
public health or welfare, or the environment. An example is to remove hazardous
constituents from groundwater using pump and treat technologies.
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
A remedial investigation (RI) is a data collection and site characterization process at
an NPL site. The RI is necessary to determine the nature and extent of
contamination at the site.
REMEDIAL PROJECT MANAGER
The Remedial Project Management (RPM) is an official predesignated by EPA, the
U.S. Coast Guard, or the Department of Defense to coordinate, monitor, or direct
remedial activities.
REMOVAL ACTION
A removal action is a short-term federal response to prevent, minimize, or mitigate
damage to the public or the environment at sites where hazardous substances have
been released. Examples of removal actions are excavating contaminated soil,
erecting a security fence, or stabilizing a berm, dike, or impoundment. Removal
actions may also be necessary in the event of the threat of release of hazardous
substances into the environment such as taking abandoned drums to a proper
disposal facility. Removal actions may take place at NPL or non-NPL sites.
The information in this document is not by any means a complete representation of EPA's regulations or policies,
but is an introduction used for Hotline training purposes.
-------
The Superfund Response Process - 7
RESPONSE ACTION
Response action is a general term that includes both removal and remedial action,
including any related enforcement actions.
SITE INSPECTION
The second stage in the Superfund site assessment process, occurring after the PA, is
known as the site inspection (SI). This part of the Superfund response process
involves an on-site investigation to ascertain the extent of a release or potential for
release and any risks involved. The SI usually involves sample collection and may
also include the installation of groundwater monitoring wells.
2.2 NATIONAL CONTINGENCY PLAN
The National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan,
commonly referred to as the NCP, is a set of regulations setting forth the procedures
that EPA must follow when implementing the Superfund program. These
requirements, codified in 40 CFR Part 300, outline the steps EPA takes when
responding to situations in which oil is discharged into or upon the navigable
waters of the United States, or hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants
are released into the environment. The oil response regulations were developed
pursuant to the Clean Water Act and are codified in Subpart D of the NCP. The
hazardous substance regulations, developed pursuant to §105 of CERCLA and
SARA, are codified in Subpart E. The following chart depicts the major subparts.
SECTION
Subpart A
Subpart B
Subpart C
Subpart D
Subpart E
Subpart F
Subpart G
Subpart H
Subpart I
Subpart J
Subpart K
Subpart L
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Appendix D
NATIONAL CONTINGENCY PLAN TITLE
Introduction
Responsibility and Organization for Response
Planning and Preparedness
Operational Response Phases for Oil Removal
Hazardous Substance Response
State Involvement in Hazardous Substance Response
Trustees for Natural Resources
Participation by Other Persons
Administrative Record for Selection of Response Action
Use of Dispersants and Other Chemicals
Federal Facilities (Reserved -- no regulations promulgated to date)
Lender Liability under CERCLA (vacated by U.S. District Court)
Hazard Ranking System
National Priorities List
Revised Standard Dispersant Effectiveness and Toxicity Tests
Appropriate Actions and Methods of Remedying Releases
The information in this document is not by any means a complete representation of EPA's regulations or policies,
but is an introduction used for Hotline training purposes.
-------
8 - The Superfund Response Process
EPA is authorized by CERCLA §104 - Response Authorities, to respond to releases of
hazardous substances, pollutants, and contaminants. The regulations in the NCP
specify two types of responses: removal and remedial actions. Each type of action
has its own set of regulations and procedures. At a Superfund site there may be both
types of actions, possibly occurring simultaneously.
FUNDING
A response may be financed by Superfund (fund-financed), by the responsible
parties, or by a third party with the intention of being reimbursed by the Superfund.
For an activity to be reimbursable, the response action taken must be "consistent
with the NCP" and follow other specifications outlined in 40 CFR §300.700. Fund
monies used at federally-owned sites are limited to financing certain activities
specified in CERCLA §§lll(c) and (e)(3).
2.3 NOTIFICATION OR DISCOVERY
In order for a site to be considered eligible for Superfund response, a release must be
discovered and reported to the government. Releases of hazardous substances may
be discovered by various means, including:
• Mandatory CERCLA §§103 (a) or (c) notification
• CERCLA §104(e) investigations
• RCRA-required release notification
• Inventory efforts or random observation by government agencies
• Formal citizen petitions pursuant to 40 CFR §300.420(b)(5)
• Review of state and federal records
• Informal community observation and notification.
Methods of site discovery, and the types of releases reported, are quite varied.
Release, as defined by §101(22) of CERCLA, can mean any spilling, leaking, pumping,
pouring, emitting, emptying, discharging, injecting, escaping, leaching, dumping, or
disposing into the environment. This broad definition includes the abandonment
of barrels, leaks of hazardous substances from storage tanks, and spills of hazardous
substances during transportation accidents. For the purpose of implementing NCP
response procedures, release also means the threat of a release.
NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES
EPA may be notified about the potential need to initiate a Superfund response
action through a variety of informal or formal means. Informal notification
avenues include reports from citizens, and state and local agencies. There are also
several formal notification methods, some of which stem from RCRA and CERCLA
statutory or regulatory requirements. A few of the more formal notification
procedures are detailed below.
The information in this document is not by any means a complete representation of EPA's regulations or policies,
but is an introduction used for Hotline training purposes.
-------
The Superfund Response Process - 9
Reportable Quantity Regulations
Each of the hazardous substances listed in §302.4 has been assigned a reportable
quantity (RQ) of either 1, 10, 100, 1,000, or 5,000 pounds. If a hazardous substance is
released into the environment in a quantity greater than or equal to its RQ within a
24-hour period, then the release must be reported to the National Response Center,
an emergency communication center run by the U.S. Coast Guard. (See 50 FR 13456;
April 4, 1985, for a discussion of "into the environment" and other useful preamble
language.) The person in charge of a vessel or facility is required by CERCLA
§§103 (a) and (b) to report "as soon as he has knowledge of" this release. The
National Response Center (NRC) can be reached at (800) 424-8802 or (202) 426-2675.
Sections 300.125 and 300.405(b) of the NCP discuss the requirements to report
releases to the NRC. After releases are reported, the NRC notifies the appropriate
OSC who notifies the governor of the affected state. The OSC then determines if a
preliminary assessment for a removal or a remedial action is appropriate. A more
detailed discussion of the notification process and reportable quantities is presented
in the module entitled CERCLA and EPCRA Release Reporting Requirements.
Notification of Past Contamination
CERCLA §103(c) stipulates that EPA be notified of the existence of hazardous waste
treatment, storage, or disposal sites other than transfer facilities or those regulated by
RCRA. An EPA form (8900-1) was printed in the April 15, 1981. Federal Register for
owners and operators to use when providing this notification (46 FR 22144). The
notification includes the location of the facility, the type and amount of hazardous
waste, and any known, suspected, or likely releases.
All current and former owners or operators of non-RCRA facilities that accepted
hazardous waste for treatment, storage, or disposal, and transporters who delivered
waste to such facilities, were required to file a notification by June 9, 1981. Anyone
who discovers hazardous waste at a site after that date must still notify EPA of the
site's existence because the penalty provisions are not limited to sites identified by
the statutory deadline. The continuing obligation to notify EPA of contaminated
sites is known as the §103(c) "lasting provision."
CERCLIS
All sites where releases or potential releases have been reported are listed in the
Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Information
System (CERCLIS). This is a comprehensive national computer database and
management system that inventories and tracks releases addressed or needing to be
addressed by the Superfund program. CERCLIS contains the official inventory of
CERCLA sites and supports EPA's site planning and tracking functions. As of
October 21, 1997, over 10,000 sites are in the CERCLIS database. The site information
maintained in CERCLIS includes location, type of facility or units on-site, type and
The information in this document is not by any means a complete representation of EPA's regulations or policies,
but is an introduction used for Hotline training purposes.
-------
10 - The Superfund Response Process
amount of hazardous waste, any known or suspected releases, and the response
activities that have occurred, or are occurring at the site. Many of the sites in the
CERCLIS database have been investigated and deferred to other authorities for
possible response after EPA has determined that no further federal action is
necessary. On March 29, 1995 (60 FR 16053), EPA amended the definition of
CERCLIS to reflect the new procedures for maintaining the CERCLIS database. The
new procedures require that sites with a No Further Response Action Planned
(NFRAP) designation be removed from CERCLIS and placed in a separate archived
database. As of October 21, 1997, over 30,000 sites have been moved to the Archived
List. Archived sites may be sites where, following an initial investigation, no
contamination was found, a cleanup action occurred at the site, or the
contamination did not warrant federal Superfund action.
Some CERCLIS and Archived List data are available to the public through the Office
of Emergency and Remedial Response (OERR) automated phone system at (800) 775-
5037 or (202) 260-8321. Callers can request the CERCLIS and Archived List in either
electronic or paper copy form. The system is designed to respond to requests for
nationwide Superfund information only and cannot accommodate customized
requests. Customized reports are available to the public through the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) process. For site-, state-, or Region-specific information,
FOIA requests must be sent to the EPA Regional offices. For CERCLIS information
on the national level, FOIA requests are sent to EPA Headquarters. These reports
are available in a variety of formats and the cost depends on the information
requested. Generally, pre-decisional and enforcement data are not publicly
available. A searchable version of CERCLIS is available on EPA's Superfund home
page (http://www.epa.gov/superfund).
2.4 RESPONSE PROCESS
As mentioned previously, there are different regulations for removal and remedial
activities. It can be confusing as to how each set of regulations applies in the grand
scheme of the Superfund response process. All sites that are entered into CERCLIS
are carefully evaluated to determine whether the contamination poses a great
enough threat to warrant inclusion on the NPL. Generally, remedial actions are
long-term cleanup actions intended to permanently remedy the problems at the
NPL sites. Removal actions may take place at NPL or non-NPL sites and at any time
during the remedial process, if site conditions pose an imminent and substantial
threat to human health or the environment.
SITE ASSESSMENT
Once a site is identified, EPA or the state conducts a preliminary assessment (PA).
Often, EPA or the state hires a contractor to conduct the PA. If further information
is needed to determine if the site merits federal action, an SI is performed. A Hazard
Ranking System (HRS) score may be calculated to determine whether the site
The information in this document is not by any means a complete representation of EPA's regulations or policies,
but is an introduction used for Hotline training purposes.
-------
The Superfund Response Process -11
should be included on the NPL. These steps of the process combined are referred to
as the site assessment.
The percentage of CERCLIS-listed sites eventually added to the NPL is between two
and seven percent of those assessed. About half of CERCLIS sites are eliminated
from further consideration at the PA step of the process (55 FR 8693; March 8, 1990).
The sites that need further attention but do not warrant placement on the NPL are
addressed by the state or by the removal program, or by another EPA program (e.g.,
RCRA corrective action).
Preliminary Assessment
All releases listed in the CERCLIS database must undergo a PA (§300.420(b)). The
goal of the PA is to assess the threat to human health and the environment,
determine if a removal action is necessary, and establish site inspection priorities.
The initial assessment does not typically involve on-site activities, but is more likely
to involve activities such as:
• Review of federal, state, and local government permit and judicial files
• Interviews with federal, state, and government personnel
• Examination of land use records from local planning commissions
• Analysis of geological, topographical, and hydrological data
• A visual inspection from the site's perimeter.
There is no sampling at this early point in the process because the intent is to obtain
quick, low-cost information about the site and its surroundings to determine the
need for further investigation.
After researching this information, the Agency may determine that the release does
not pose a threat to human health and the environment sufficient to cause the site
to be listed on the NPL. If EPA makes a NFRAP determination, the Regional office
will indicate in CERCLIS that EPA has completed its assessment at a site, and has
determined that no further steps on the federal level will be taken unless new
information indicates future listing may be appropriate. NFRAP sites are removed
from CERCLIS and archived as historical records. If EPA intends to continue the
response process, the indication of this decision will not be shown on CERCLIS until
the next step has begun.
Site Inspection
If the PA indicates that further investigation may be necessary, an SI is performed
(§300.420(c)). An SI is a hands-on inspection which includes sample collection, and
is carried out to:
• Eliminate from consideration releases that pose no threat to human health or
the environment
The information in this document is not by any means a complete representation of EPA's regulations or policies,
but is an introduction used for Hotline training purposes.
-------
12 - The Superfund Response Process
• Identify any immediate threat to public health or the environment
• Collect data for NPL eligibility determinations
• Collect data to better characterize the release for more effective response.
During the SI, EPA, its contractors, state personnel, or state contractors examine
soil and sediment, ground and surface water, air quality, drums and lagoons, site
layout, geology, hydrogeology, meteorology, and topography. Potentially responsible
parties are also identified.
The site inspection is often performed in two stages. The initial site investigation is
known as the focused site inspection. A follow-up inspection, known as the
expanded site inspection, may be conducted if additional data are needed to score the
site using the HRS. During the focused site inspection samples will be collected and
analyzed to determine more precisely which contaminants are present at the site;
migration potential; and threats to drinking water, soils, and air. These results help
the OSC to determine if the site should undergo removal action or should be subject
to more sampling to be considered for the NPL.
In the event further sampling must be done, the site moves into the second stage of
the site inspection process. In the expanded SI, hypotheses developed during the
focused SI are tested, background levels are established, and preparation for the HRS
begins. Specific activities can include:
• Monitoring well installation
• Air sampling
• Geophysical studies
• Drum or tank sampling
• Borehole installation
• Complex background sampling studies.
Most likely before the expanded SI is complete, initial calculation of the HRS score
will begin. The following section will cover the details of the HRS scoring process.
Hazard Ranking System
Data gathered during the PA and the SI are used to develop an HRS score. The HRS
is a scoring methodology for evaluating relative risks to human health and the
environment posed by uncontrolled hazardous waste sites, and is the mechanism by
which EPA has listed over 95 percent of the sites currently on the NPL. The HRS
procedures are found in Appendix A of 40 CFR Part 300.
The HRS assesses four pathways of potential human exposure to contamination
(i.e., groundwater, surface water, soil, and air) and calculates a score based on the
results of each pathway evaluation. The groundwater pathway evaluates the
likelihood that hazardous substances at a site will migrate through the ground to
contaminate aquifers and any drinking water wells drawing from those aquifers.
The information in this document is not by any means a complete representation of EPA's regulations or policies,
but is an introduction used for Hotline training purposes.
-------
The Superfund Response Process -13
The surface water pathway evaluates the likelihood that runoff containing
hazardous substances from a site can move through surface water and affect people
or the environment. The soil exposure pathway evaluates the potential threats
posed by direct, physical contact with hazardous wastes or contaminated soil. The
air migration pathway evaluates both observed and potential releases of hazardous
substances to the air. For each pathway, the HRS assigns numerical values to factors
that relate to or indicate risk based on conditions at the site. The factors are grouped
into three categories:
• The likelihood that a site has released or has the potential to release
contaminants into the environment
• The characteristics of the waste (toxicity and waste quantity)
• The people or sensitive environments affected by the release.
The score generated from each pathway evaluation is applied to a complex formula
called a root-mean-square. The root-mean-square equation is used so that higher-
scoring pathways will have more weight when being compared to low-score or zero-
score pathways. This ensures that a site with extensive groundwater contamination
worthy of federal action, but no contamination in the other three pathways, will still
score high enough to be considered for inclusion on the NPL. The final score
generated from the root-mean-square calculation will range from 0 to 100. Sites that
have a score of 28.50 and above are eligible for the NPL. If the HRS score equals or
exceeds 28.50, EPA will propose the site for inclusion on the NPL and, after
appropriate public comment, will make a final decision on listing the site. All final
NPL decisions are published in the Federal Register. For more information on the
revised HRS and the four pathways, see the December 14, 1990, Federal Register (55
FR 51532), EPA's guidance entitled Hazard Ranking System Guidance Manual
(OSWER Directive 9345.1-07), Revision to OSWER NPL Policy "The Revised Hazard
Ranking System: Evaluating Sites After Waste Removals". Publication No. 9345.1-
03FS. October 1991 (OSWER Directive 9345.1-25), and EPA's fact sheet entitled The
Revised Hazard Ranking System: Background Information (OSWER Directive
9320.7-03FS). There are two additional mechanisms available for determining
eligibility for inclusion on the NPL. These mechanisms, state top priority
designation and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR)
involvement, are described below.
State Top Priority
Pursuant to CERCLA §105(a)(8)(B), each state may add a single site to the NPL by
designating a site as its top priority, regardless of the HRS score. This mechanism is
set out in the NCP at §300.425(c) (2), and may be used only once. Of the 57 states and
territories, 40 have designated top priority sites.
The information in this document is not by any means a complete representation of EPA's regulations or policies,
but is an introduction used for Hotline training purposes.
-------
14 - The Superfund Response Process
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
As mentioned in the module entitled Statutory Overview of CERCLA, CERCLA
§104(i) established ATSDR, which is part of the Department of Health and Human
Services. ATSDR administers a third mechanism for listing certain sites on the
NPL. According to §300.425 (c) (3), to be eligible for the NPL under this mechanism,
all three of the following conditions must be met:
• ATSDR has issued a health advisory that recommends that humans avoid
contact with a release
• EPA determines that the release poses a significant threat to public health
• EPA determines that it will be more cost effective to use its remedial
authority than its removal authority to respond to the release.
Thirteen sites are currently on the NPL based on the issuance of an ATSDR health
advisory.
In addition to its role in the site listing process, ATSDR plays an important role in
conducting and reviewing toxicological studies and health assessments at
Superfund sites. Section 104(i) requires that EPA and ATSDR prepare a prioritized
list of hazardous substances commonly found at NPL sites and toxicological profiles
of those substances (52 FR 12866; April 17, 1987). This list is periodically updated,
and is available from ATSDR at (404) 639-6000.
ATSDR must conduct a health assessment for each site on, and proposed for
inclusion on, the NPL (§104(i)(6)(a)). CERCLA directs ATSDR to complete health
assessments "promptly" and to the "maximum extent practicable" before
completion of the remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS). The ATSDR
health assessment consists of reviewing environmental sampling data and other
site-related information written by EPA (e.g., remedial investigation reports, risk
assessments). These data are evaluated to:
• Assess whether there is any current or potential health threat
• Develop health advisories as necessary
• Identify studies needed to evaluate human health effects.
If possible, health assessments are to be completed by ATSDR prior to the release of
the RI/FS for public comment. When this is not possible, EPA and ATSDR should
discuss preliminary findings of the health assessment prior to ROD signature.
LISTING POLICIES
CERCLA restricts EPA's authority to respond to certain sites under this statute by
expressly excluding some substances — petroleum, for example — from the definition
The information in this document is not by any means a complete representation of EPA's regulations or policies,
but is an introduction used for Hotline training purposes.
-------
The Superfund Response Process -15
of hazardous substances. In addition, EPA may as a matter of policy choose not to
use CERCLA authority to act on a site because the federal government can
undertake or enforce cleanup under other laws, thus preserving CERCLA funds for
sites not covered by other laws. EPA has chosen not to use CERCLA for hazardous
waste sites regulated by RCRA corrective action. If EPA later determines that the
sites are not being properly addressed by other authorities, it may consider placing
them on the NPL.
The table below describes the categories of sites having special concerns or
procedures under CERCLA.
Type of Site
Description
RCRA Sites
The NPL generally does not include active facilities which are
operating under RCRA Subtitle C corrective action authorities.
EPA believes any problems at these facilities can be addressed
through RCRA enforcement tools. Nevertheless, EPA has made
provisions to list certain categories of RCRA facilities on the NPL
when they can not be addressed under RCRA. See the October 4,
1989, Federal Registers for further information (54 FR 41000).
The October notice also discusses facilities are either unwilling or
unable to pay for cleanup and costs under RCRA corrective
action, and are eligible for NPL listing.
Federal
Facilities
SARA §120(a) requires federal facilities (such as DOD bases or
DOE sites) to comply with CERCLA, but §lll(e)(3) generally
prohibits using fund monies to clean them up, so federal
agencies must use their own funds.
The NCP published in the July 20, 1982, Federal Register
prohibited placing sites that are owned by the federal
government on the NPL. This prohibition was removed on
November 20, 1982, and as result, the first federal facility sites
were listed in a separate section of the NPL in the June 10, 1986,
Federal Register (51 FR 21054). Until recently, federal facility sites
may be placed on the NPL even if they are subject to RCRA
corrective action authorities. See the March 13, 1989, Federal
Register for this policy (54 FR 10512). However, that policy was
recently changed: federal facilities can be deferred to RCRA if they
meet certain conditions, such as the ability of RCRA to address all
contamination (62 FR 62523; November 24, 1997).
The information in this document is not by any means a complete representation of EPA's regulations or policies,
but is an introduction used for Hotline training purposes.
-------
16 - The Superfund Response Process
Type of Site
Description
Mining
Wastes
Between December 1982 and June 1986, the mining industry
contended that CERCLA did not apply to mining waste releases.
The industry claimed that the HRS scoring of mining waste was
inappropriate because of the large volume and low toxicity of the
waste streams. Citing a court decision, EPA supported its
position that mining sites are eligible for the NPL in the
September 18, 1985, Federal Register (50 FR 37950), and reaffirmed
it in the June 10, 1986, Federal Register (51 FR 21054).
Pesticide Sites
Certain sites where pesticides have been released present several
regulatory issues under CERCLA. CERCLA §107 states that
someone who applied pesticides to the land in compliance with
FIFRA cannot be held liable for cleanup of a site. Currently, EPA
policy is to list on the NPL only pesticide sites where the
contamination resulted from spills, leaks, or improper disposal
of pesticides. If warranted, EPA may develop a general strategy
for addressing contamination from agricultural chemicals in
groundwater under FIFRA (56 FR 5598; February 11, 1991).
Radioactive
Materials
CERCLA §101(22) excludes several types of radioactive releases,
making these releases ineligible for CERCLA response actions or
the NPL. EPA will not list releases of source, by-product, or
special nuclear materials from any facility with a current Nuclear
Regulatory Commission license because the Commission has its
own cleanup authority, provided the cleanup is comparable to
that required under CERCLA. The Agency will, however,
consider listing facilities which are no longer licensed by the
Commission. Radionuclides, on the other hand, are subject to
CERCLA authorities as hazardous substances because they are
designated hazardous air pollutants under §112 of the Clean Air
Act (CERCLA §101 (14) (E)).
NPL RULEMAKING PROCESS
Developing the NPL requires close cooperation among EPA Headquarters, the
Regions, and the state agencies involved. Since the NPL is promulgated as an
appendix to the NCP, it must undergo the regulatory rulemaking process.
The process begins when the Regions submit HRS packages for a Headquarters
quality assurance review. Those sites that still have an HRS score of 28.50 or above
after a thorough review are slated for NPL listing. This initial list is subject to
internal review and approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
After OMB approval, EPA publishes the list of sites in the Federal Register. The
published proposed rule is generally subject to a 60-day public comment period.
EPA establishes a docket including the HRS packages and site summary at EPA
Headquarters and the respective Regional office. State and ATSDR health advisory
The information in this document is not by any means a complete representation of EPA's regulations or policies,
but is an introduction used for Hotline training purposes.
-------
The Superfund Response Process -17
sites are also subject to the public comment period.
Once public comments on the proposed sites have been considered, EPA compiles a
final rule along with a support document that includes the comments received and
EPA's responses. The final rule is then reviewed by OMB, signed by the Assistant
Administrator of OSWER, and published in the Federal Register. The new sites are
now officially part of the NPL.
In Fiscal years 1995 and 1996, Congress prohibited EPA funding for listing or
proposed listing unless the governor provided written concurrence for the site to be
added to the NPL (Public Laws 104-19 and 104-134). This requirement, referred to as
"Governor's Concurrence," ended on September 30, 1996. The appropriations bill
for fiscal year 1997 contains no such provision. EPA, nevertheless, intends to
continue to coordinate with the states in the NPL listing decision process and has
issued a memorandum outlining those intentions (Laws to Regional
Administrators; November 14, 1996, and Fields to Regions; July 25, 1997).
The site assessment information addressed so far has been extensive, but there is
still much more to cover. Figure 2 provides a schematic overview of the Superfund
site assessment process. During any stage of the response process, a removal action
may be necessary. Therefore, before going into detail about the remedial process for
sites which qualify for the NPL, it is necessary to provide a detailed description of
removal actions and activities.
Figure 2
SITE ASSESSMENT
Preliminary
Assessment
No Further
Federal Action —
Information
Provided to States
NPL Listing
The information in this document is not by any means a complete representation of EPA's regulations or policies,
but is an introduction used for Hotline training purposes.
-------
18 - The Superfund Response Process
2.5 REMOVAL PROCESS
Removal actions, authorized by CERCLA §§104 (a) (2) and 104(c)(l), are short-term
federal responses to prevent, minimize, or mitigate damage to the public or the
environment at sites where hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants have
been released or where there is a substantial threat of a release. Removal actions
may include, but are not limited to: repairs to a dike or impoundment wall, erecting
a security fence, or transporting leaking drums to a RCRA treatment, storage, and
disposal facility.
A removal may be conducted during any step of the response process at an NPL site,
and may even constitute complete cleanup of a site. In addition, removal actions
are often used to respond to emergencies and accidental releases during transport, or
at operating facilities, as well as uncontrolled releases at non-NPL sites. Removals
are also conducted under §311 of the Clean Water Act when oil spills occur in or
near navigable waters (40 CFR Part 300, Subpart D).
In most cases, an OSC designated by the lead agency directs removal actions, and the
work is done by emergency response contractors. When a removal takes place at an
NPL site, it may be directed by an RPM and performed by remedial contractors.
LIMITS
To make a clear distinction between short-term removal actions and long-term
remedial actions, Congress placed limits on the time and money available to
conduct a removal response in CERCLA §104(c)(l). In 1986, SARA raised the
spending limit from $1 million to $2 million per removal, and the time allotted per
removal from 6 to 12 months. The spending and time limits may be extended
(§300.415 (b) (5)) when:
• Continuation is required to prevent, limit, or mitigate an emergency which is
an immediate risk to public health or the environment and it will not be
acted upon by another party
or
• Continuing the removal is consistent with a remedial action that will be
taken at the site (applicable only to proposed and final NPL sites).
DECISION TO CONDUCT A REMOVAL
Provided there is a substantial threat at a particular site and a removal action is
necessary, the preliminary assessment and the site investigation may be combined
into a procedure referred to as the removal site evaluation. The regulations
governing removal site evaluations are found at 40 CFR §300.410.
The information in this document is not by any means a complete representation of EPA's regulations or policies,
but is an introduction used for Hotline training purposes.
-------
The Superfund Response Process -19
Information gathered from the removal site evaluation may trigger greater concern
for problems at a site that need to be addressed quickly. The following are examples
of information presented at the conclusion of a removal site evaluation:
• Identification of the nature and source of the release
• Evaluation of the threat to public health
• Evaluation of the magnitude of the threat
• Evaluation of factors necessary to make a determination of whether a
removal is necessary
• Determination of whether a nonfederal party is undertaking a proper
response.
These and other factors listed in 40 CFR §300.415 (b) (2) will be carefully weighed to
determine the appropriateness of a removal action.
REMOVAL ACTION
If the lead agency determines that a removal action is appropriate, action begins as
soon as possible. Not all actions considered to be removal actions will be equally
urgent. For example, situations involving risk of fire or explosion, or
contamination of a drinking water reservoir, may require more prompt and
expeditious attention than certain drum removals or cleanups of surface
impoundments. The three categories of removals are:
• Classic Emergencies: Those actions where the release requires on-site
activities be initiated within hours of the lead agency's determination that a
removal action is appropriate
• Time-Critical: Those removals where, based on the site evaluation, the lead
agency determines that a removal action is appropriate and that there is less
than six months available before on-site activities must be initiated. Specific
community relations requirements for time-critical actions are set out at
§300.415 (m) (2) and specific administrative record requirements are given at
§300.820(b)
• Non-Time-Critical: Those removals where, based on the site evaluation, the
lead agency determines that a removal action is appropriate and that there is a
planning period of more than six months available before on-site activities
must begin.
In accordance with §300.415 (b) (4), the lead agency must conduct an engineering
evaluation/cost analysis (EE/CA) for a non-time-critical removal action. The
EE/CA is an analysis of removal alternatives for a site. Specific administrative
record requirements for non-time-critical actions are specified in §300.820(a). For
more information on the procedures and activities involved in conducting an
The information in this document is not by any means a complete representation of EPA's regulations or policies,
but is an introduction used for Hotline training purposes.
-------
20 - The Superfund Response Process
EE/CA, see EPA's document entitled Guidance on Conducting Non-Time-Critical
Removal Actions Under CERCLA (OSWER Directive 9360.0-32).
Section 300.415 (d) of the NCP provides examples of some appropriate removal
actions, such as:
• Drainage controls where needed to reduce migration of hazardous substances,
pollutants, or contaminants off site
• Fences, warning signs, or other security or site control precautions where
humans or animals have access to the release
• Capping of contaminated soils or sludges where needed to reduce migration
of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants.
A flowchart of the removal process is shown in Figure 3.
Action Memorandum
An Action Memorandum is the primary decision document for a removal action
(the equivalent of a remedial Record of Decision which is discussed later in this
module). The purpose of the Action Memorandum is to document the need for a
removal response, identify the proposed action, and explain the rationale for the
removal. On-scene coordinators must prepare Action Memoranda for all fund-
financed actions conducted under removal authority in accordance with OSWER
Directive 9360.3-01, which provides Action Memorandum guidance. The Action
Memorandum is also a critical component of the administrative record required by
CERCLA §113(k) for the selection of any response action.
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
When a removal action takes place, there is a need to consider other federal and
state laws that may apply to the site beyond Superfund regulations. These standards
and requirements must be met to the extent practicable, considering the urgency of
the removal action. The complexity of applying these requirements warrants future
discussion and is expanded on in the remedial process section, and is also discussed
in greater detail in the module entitled Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
Requirements.
Next Steps
After the removal action is complete one of two events can occur. The site may be
cleaned to the extent that no further response on the federal level is needed. In this
case, the decision would be documented and indicated in CERCLIS. In contrast, the
Agency may still need to continue with a long-term remedial action.
The information in this document is not by any means a complete representation of EPA's regulations or policies,
but is an introduction used for Hotline training purposes.
-------
The Superfund Response Process - 21
Figure 3
THE SUPERFUND REMOVAL PROCESS
Notification
or
Discovery
Conduct Removal
Site Evaluation (RSE)
Assess RSE results
against regulatory
criteria
I
Obtain approval for
removal action
(Action Memo signed)
Does not
meet criteria
End response or refer
to remedial or state
program (if appropriate)
T
Initiate site action
Oversee cleanup
contractors
Action completed
The information in this document is not by any means a complete representation of EPA's regulations or policies,
but is an introduction used for Hotline training purposes.
-------
22 - The Superfund Response Process
2.6 REMEDIAL PROCESS
Remedial actions differ from removal actions in several ways. There are no set time
or monetary limits placed on a remedial action as these activities are targeted for
long-term, permanent response. Remedial actions involve more detailed planning
and decision-making processes than removal actions and may only be conducted at
sites on the NPL. A RPM, designated by the lead agency, directs remedial actions,
with cleanup activities usually performed by remedial contractors. This section
addresses the remedial process that commences after a site is placed on the NPL.
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION/FEASIBILITY STUDY
After a site is added to the NPL, the task of selecting the best, most appropriate
cleanup method begins. The RI/FS is a process of site and remedy evaluation,
which facilitates the selection of remedies that will most effectively eliminate,
reduce, or control risks to human health and the environment. The RI and FS are
conducted concurrently. Conducting the RI/FS generally involves project scoping,
data collection, risk assessment, treatability studies, analysis of alternatives, and
identification of ARARs.
Project Scoping
During project scoping, the lead and support agencies are required to identify the
optimal set and sequence of actions necessary to address site problems. The lead
agency is required to:
• Evaluate existing site data, and identify likely response scenarios, possible
technologies, and operable units
• Undertake limited data collection efforts, and identify the type, quality, and
quantity of the data that will be collected during the RI/FS
• Prepare site health and safety plans
• Coordinate necessary assessments, evaluations, investigations, and planning
with natural resource trustees, if natural resources are or may be injured by
the release
• Develop sampling and analysis plans
• Initiate the identification of potential federal and state ARARs.
The information in this document is not by any means a complete representation of EPA's regulations or policies,
but is an introduction used for Hotline training purposes.
-------
The Superfund Response Process - 23
Remedial Investigation
The purpose of the RI is to collect data necessary to adequately assess the risks to
human health and the environment and to support the development, evaluation,
and selection of appropriate response alternatives (§300.430(d)). The RI may be
performed in several stages in order to refine sampling efforts. It involves field
investigations, treatability studies, a baseline risk assessment, and identification of
ARARs.
The field investigation enables the lead agency to characterize the nature of a threat
posed by the hazardous substances and support the analysis and design of potential
response actions. The following factors are assessed:
• Physical characteristics of the site such as surface features, soils, geology,
hydrogeology, meteorology, and ecology
• Characteristics of air, surface water, and groundwater
• Quantities, physical state, concentration, toxicity, propensity to bioaccumulate,
persistence, and mobility of the waste
• Source (s) of the release
• Actual or potential exposure pathways through environmental media
• Actual and potential exposure routes, such as inhalation and ingestion
• Any additional pertinent factors, such as sensitive populations.
When necessary, bench-scale and pilot-scale studies are conducted to obtain enough
data to select and implement a remedial action alternative. Bench-scale studies
conducted during the remedial investigation phase are usually limited to treatability
and materials testing activities to help identify, screen, and evaluate alternatives.
Pilot-scale studies, which are larger, more expensive, and more time-consuming
than bench-scale studies, are used to fine tune the selected treatment process and are
usually conducted during the remedial design stage.
The site-specific baseline risk assessment is needed to determine whether the
contaminants of concern would pose a current or potential threat to human health
and the environment if a remedial action were not undertaken. During the risk
assessment, chemical-specific toxicity information, combined with quantitative and
qualitative information relating to exposure, are compared to site conditions. These
comparisons determine whether concentrations of contaminants at or near the site
affect or may affect human health and the environment. The results of this baseline
risk assessment will help establish acceptable exposure levels for use in developing
remedial alternatives in the FS.
The information in this document is not by any means a complete representation of EPA's regulations or policies,
but is an introduction used for Hotline training purposes.
-------
24 - The Superfund Response Process
Similar to removal actions, ARARs must be identified in the remedial process as
well. A major component of the RI/FS is the identification of ARARs. CERCLA
§121(d) specifies that on-site Superfund remedial actions shall attain other federal
standards, requirements, criteria, limitations, or more stringent state requirements
that are determined to be legally applicable, or relevant and appropriate to the
specified circumstances at the site. In choosing the type and extent of cleanup at a
site, EPA must consider the other regulations that may apply to that type of
contamination or activity. EPA has published several guidance documents to assist
in the identification of ARARs (see Compendium of CERCLA ARARs). The
appropriate state is responsible for identifying all potential state ARARs at the time
of the RI/FS. Examples of ARARs include:
• Ambient or chemical-specific requirements from the Clean Water Act or
Clean Air Act
• Performance, design, and other action-specific requirements such as RCRA
closure regulations
• RCRA land disposal restrictions
• Location requirements such as federal and state siting laws for hazardous
waste facilities and the National Register of Historic Places.
Applicable requirements are federal and state environmental requirements, criteria,
or limitations that address wastes, pollutants, contaminants, remedial actions,
location, or other circumstances at a CERCLA site. These requirements must be
stringently applied. There is a bit more leeway allowed in determining the scope of
relevant and appropriate requirements. Provisions and standards included in
advisory and guidance documents issued by federal or state governments, but not
formally promulgated as laws or regulations, are known as requirements to be
considered (TBC). They are not ARARs, but they may be considered in determining
the necessary level of cleanup.
On-site remedial activities must comply with substantive, but not administrative
requirements. Because permitting is considered to be an administrative
requirement (55 FR 8756; March 8, 1990), federal, state, and local permits are not
required for on-site activities at fund-financed and CERCLA §106 remedial actions
(40 CFR §300.400(e) and CERCLA §121(e)). For example, compliance with RCRA
design and operating standards would be necessary for a Superfund action
involving the management of hazardous waste, but a RCRA treatment, storage, and
disposal permit would not be required. For a more detailed discussion of ARAR
identification and descriptions of other laws which may be ARARs at Superfund
sites, refer to the module entitled Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
Requirements.
The information in this document is not by any means a complete representation of EPA's regulations or policies,
but is an introduction used for Hotline training purposes.
-------
The Superfund Response Process - 25
Feasibility Study
The FS is conducted to develop and evaluate remedial alternatives. FS activities
should be fully integrated with the RI. FSs can include an alternatives screening
step to select a reasonable number of alternatives for detailed analysis. In
developing and screening alternatives, the lead agency must establish remedial
action objectives specifying contaminants of concern, potential exposure pathways,
and remediation goals.
Remediation Goals
Remediation goals establish the extent to which the site should be cleaned up in
order to protect human health and the environment (§300.430(e)(2)(i)). The
factors to be considered include the following:
• For known or suspected carcinogens, the remediation should achieve an
upper-bound lifetime cancer risk level of between 10 4 and 10 6 for high-end
receptors. (This risk level indicates that between 1 in 10,000 to 1 in 1,000,000
people exposed to the site over a lifetime or a portion of a lifetime will be
likely to contract cancer.)
• For other types of toxicants, a safe exposure level should be established. This
level should represent a dose below which no adverse health effects have
been observed in laboratory studies.
• Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act standards should be attained
where relevant and appropriate.
• Ecological threats should be addressed, particularly sensitive habitats and
critical habitats of species protected under the Endangered Species Act.
Potential Remedial Technologies
The lead agency identifies and evaluates potential suitable technologies,
including innovative technologies. SARA requires EPA to consider alternatives
that reduce toxicity, mobility, or volume of contaminated material through
treatment, including alternative treatment technologies or resource recovery
technologies. The lead agency then assembles a set of alternative remedial
actions. The NCP (§§300.430(e)(3)-(5)) suggests remedial alternatives that should
be assembled in various situations. One of the alternatives developed should
always be a no-action or no further action alternative, to provide a baseline for
comparison.
If appropriate, there should be an initial screening of the remedial alternatives in
accordance with the following criteria:
• Effectiveness: the degree to which an alternative reduces toxicity, mobility, or
volume through treatment; minimizes risks and provides long-term
The information in this document is not by any means a complete representation of EPA's regulations or policies,
but is an introduction used for Hotline training purposes.
-------
26 - The Superfund Response Process
protection; complies with ARARs; minimizes short-term impacts; and
achieves protection quickly
• Implementability: the technical feasibility and availability of the technologies
each alternative would employ
• Cost: alternatives providing effectiveness and implementability similar to
that of another alternative, but at a greater cost, may be eliminated.
Detailed Analysis of Alternatives
The purpose of the detailed analysis is to objectively assess the alternatives with
respect to nine criteria listed in §300.430(e)(9)(iii), and to evaluate the relative
advantages and disadvantages of each alternative relative to the criteria.
Alternatives must be analyzed for long-term effectiveness using the factors listed in
CERCLA §121(b)(l). CERCLA also states that off-site transport and disposal or
containment without treatment are the least favored alternatives.
SELECTION OF REMEDY
The selection of the remedial action is a two-step process, requiring the
development of a proposed plan and a ROD. The state agency and the community
are given the opportunity to participate in the remedy selection activities. The
remedy selection process may be initiated at one operable unit at a site, while other
operable units are still undergoing investigation.
Proposed Plan
The lead agency, in conjunction with the support agency, prepares a plan that briefly
describes the remedial alternatives that were analyzed, proposes a preferred
remedial alternative, and summarizes the information used to make this decision
(§300.430(f)(2)). The proposed plan is presented to the public, and revised in
accordance with state and public comment if necessary.
Record of Decision
After evaluating all comments received on the proposed plan, the lead agency
makes the final remedy selection decision. The lead agency documents the final
decision in the ROD, which must be signed by the Regional Administrator. The
ROD contains significant facts, analysis of facts, and site-specific policy
determinations considered in the remedy selection process, and explains how the
nine evaluation criteria were used to select the remedy. The specific information
required to be included in the ROD is listed in §300.430(f)(5).
The ROD is a major element of the administrative record and must be made
available for public inspection. RODs for fund-financed actions should include
The information in this document is not by any means a complete representation of EPA's regulations or policies,
but is an introduction used for Hotline training purposes.
-------
The Superfund Response Process - 27
formal written concurrence from the state. All legal challenges, appeals, and
defenses rely on the ROD and the administrative record. RODs are publicly
available from the National Technical Information Service (NTIS). ROD abstracts,
searchable by state and city, are provided on EPA's Superfund home page
(http://www.epa.gov/superfund). A searchable RODs database containing the full
text of each ROD is available through the Right-to-Know Computer Network or
RTK-NET (http:// rtk.net).
REMEDIAL DESIGN/REMEDIAL ACTION
The remedial design (RD) is the engineering plan used to guide implementation of
the selected remedy. Remedial action (RA) is the physical implementation of the
ROD and remedial design. All RD/RA activities must conform to the remedy set
forth in the ROD and other decision documents. If the remedial action or
settlement entered into differs significantly from the ROD, an explanation of
significant differences (ESD) must be published, or the ROD must be amended
(§300.435 (c) (2)).
Off-Site Rule
The off-site rule promulgated in the Federal Register on September 22, 1993 (58 FR
49200), amended the NCP by adding 40 CFR §300.440. This rule applies to the off-site
transfer of any CERCLA waste from a response action. The basic premise of the rule
is to ensure waste leaving a Superfund site is properly handled to avoid causing
another Superfund site in the future. For example, a RCRA hazardous waste
generated at a Superfund site destined for disposal off-site must be properly treated
(if required) and sent to a facility that has a RCRA permit and no significant
regulatory violations. The facility receiving the waste must meet the acceptability
criteria set forth in 40 CFR §300.440(b). The Regional office in which the facility is
located will determine if the facility meets the following criteria:
• The facility has no significant violations
• The facility has no releases of hazardous substances
• If the facility has had a significant release of a hazardous substance, the release
must be controlled by an enforceable agreement for corrective action under an
applicable state or federal authority.
A facility deemed unacceptable to receive an off-site transfer of CERCLA wastes
must be notified by the applicable EPA Region. Within ten days of the issuance of
this notice, the owner/operator of the facility may submit a written request to have
an informal conference with the EPA Regional office. In this meeting, the
owner/operator and Regional officials may discuss the reasons why the facility does
not meet the acceptability criteria. A determination will be made on the
acceptability of the facility after the owner/operator has had the opportunity to
The information in this document is not by any means a complete representation of EPA's regulations or policies,
but is an introduction used for Hotline training purposes.
-------
28 - The Superfund Response Process
provide the Region with more information at the informal conference. If the
facility does not submit a letter requesting an informal conference, then the facility
will be considered unacceptable until the EPA Regional office notifies the
owner/operator of any change in its determination.
Prior to the promulgation of the off-site rule, EPA had published several policy
determinations on the transfer of any CERCLA waste from a response action. The
September 22, 1993, rule however, supersedes any previous guidance on the off-site
policy.
OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
At any site where the remedial action does not result in fully unrestricted use of the
site, operation and maintenance (O&M) measures will continue at the site to ensure
effective implementation of the remedial action. O&M measures are initiated after
the remedy is constructed and is determined to be operational and functional (40
CFR §300.435(f) (2)). For Fund-lead sites the state is responsible for funding O&M
activities and must enter into an agreement with EPA to that effect before remedial
action begins. EPA will share operation and maintenance costs for the first year.
Federal funding of actions involving measures to restore groundwater may
continue for up to 10 years after the remedy becomes operational and functional (40
CFR§300.430(f)(3)).
DELETION OF SITES
When no further response action is appropriate, sites can be deleted from the NPL
in accordance with the procedures outlined in §300.425 (e). Prior to the deletion, the
state must be consulted, a notice of intent to delete must be published in the Federal
Register, and public comments must be considered.
Historically, EPA had very stringent criteria that had to be met before deleting a site
from the NPL. Consequently, many sites that had been essentially cleaned up and
posed no threat to human health or the environment had to remain on the NPL
because they had not met all necessary administrative requirements. The small
number of sites officially deleted led to a perception that EPA was not cleaning up
sites. To more accurately reflect the work done at sites, EPA has changed the
deletion procedures in two ways: by developing a construction completion category
on the NPL, and by removing five-year reviews from the NPL deletion criteria.
Beginning with the February 11, 1991, NPL final rule, EPA activated a category on
the NPL identifying sites where remedial construction activities have been
completed, but formal deletion is not yet appropriate (56 FR 5598). These sites are
designated as part of the "construction completion" category. This category is now
included on final NPL lists as well as in the public information materials published
at the time of the rulemakings. As of September 27, 1997, EPA had categorized 447
sites on the Construction Completion List (CCL) (62 FR 50442).
The information in this document is not by any means a complete representation of EPA's regulations or policies,
but is an introduction used for Hotline training purposes.
-------
The Superfund Response Process - 29
For several years, EPA's policy was to retain sites on the NPL until it completed a
review five years after initiation of the remedial action. The review, required by
CERCLA §121(c), was intended to confirm that the remediation is protective of
human health and the environment. EPA subsequently determined that the
Superfund program would operate more efficiently if the NPL deletion process and
the five-year process were separated. This change allows sites to be deleted from the
NPL as soon as the requirements specified in the ROD have been met.
Since the Superfund remedial process is extremely detailed, it usually takes several
years to complete. A review of the previously discussed process is provided in Figure
4. The intention of the linear depiction in Figure 4 is to promote a basic
understanding of the process, but in reality, the process is not this rigid. Refer to the
module entitled Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model, for more information on the
current implementation of the remedial process.
2.7 COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT
Because the Superfund process is so site-specific and requires decision making at
many junctures, it is important that citizens who may be affected by releases of
hazardous substances are informed of site activities and able to participate in the
decision-making process. Community involvement activities are built into and
occur throughout the Superfund process. The module entitled Superfund
Community Involvement covers this topic in depth.
SARA §117 expanded the CERCLA community involvement provisions and
authorized grants for technical assistance to community groups that may be affected
by an NPL site. The grants are intended to allow local groups to obtain technical
assistance in interpreting the nature of the hazards posed by the site, as well as each
step of the response process including the RI/FS, ROD, remedial design, remedial
action, operation and maintenance, and removal actions.
2.8 STATE ROLE
SARA §121(f) mandated that EPA provide for substantial and meaningful
involvement by the states (and Indian tribes meeting the requirements of 40 CFR
§300.515 (b)) in the initiation, development, and selection of remedial actions. If EPA
is the lead agency at a site, the state agency should participate in the decision-making
process, and has responsibility for fulfilling certain financial and legal obligations.
In addition, the state can serve as the lead agency at a site after entering into a
The information in this document is not by any means a complete representation of EPA's regulations or policies,
but is an introduction used for Hotline training purposes.
-------
30 - The Superfund Response Process
Figure 4
SUPERFUND REMEDIAL PROCESS
NPL LISTING
i
1
1
I
1.
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION (RI)
An assessment of the nature and extent of
contamination and the associated health and
environmental risks.
1
FEASIBILITY STUDY (FS)
Development and analysis of cleanup
alternatives for site, weighed using nine
evaluation criteria.
1
RECORD OF DECISION (ROD)
Report of background information on site;
describes the chosen remedy and how it was
selected.
L
REMEDIAL DESIGN (RD)
Preparation of technical plans and
specifications for implementing the chosen
remedial alternative.
L
REMEDIAL ACTION (RA)
Construction or other work necessary to
implement the remedial alternative.
L
OPERATION & MAINTENANCE (O&M)
Activities conducted at site after a response
action occurs to ensure the cleanup methods
are working properly.
L
±
DELETION FROM NPL
When site is offically clean, it is proposed for
deletion from NPL; it is only finally removed
after careful review.
L
CONSTRUCTION
COMPLETION
Sites where remedial
construction activities
have been completed,
formal deletion not
yet appropriate.
L
The information in this document is not by any means a complete representation of EPA's regulations or policies,
but is an introduction used for Hotline training purposes.
-------
The Superfund Response Process - 31
Superfund Cooperative Agreement with EPA. Specific requirements regarding state
involvement in hazardous substance response are found in Subpart F of the NCP,
and 40 CFR Part 35 (55 FR 22994; June 5, 1990).
SUPERFUND MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
To increase state involvement in the Superfund program, EPA encourages states to
enter into Superfund Memoranda of Agreement (SMOA). A SMOA is a
nonbinding agreement intended to enhance the EPA Regional/state relationship
during a Superfund response by:
• Encouraging cooperation between the states and the Regions
• Establishing ongoing mechanisms for communication
• Clarifying roles and responsibilities
• Providing a checklist of regulatory and statutory requirements.
If a state has not entered into a SMOA, then the EPA/state relationship is governed
by the requirements of 40 CFR §300.515(h). This section includes provisions for:
• Annual consultations to enable EPA and the state to establish priorities,
identify roles and responsibilities, and discuss future response plans
• Identification of ARARs and other pertinent advisories, criteria, or guidance
to be considered (TBCs)
• Support agency review of lead agency documents.
STATE ASSURANCES
Prior to the initiation of any fund-financed remedial action, the state must provide
EPA with assurance that it will assume certain responsibilities required by CERCLA
§104(c)(9). These responsibilities include cost sharing, operation and maintenance
activities, capacity for proper disposal of hazardous waste, and provisions for
acquisition of property. EPA and the state must document these assurances in a
two-party Superfund State Contract.
Pursuant to §300.510(b) of the NCP, states are not required to share in the cost of a state-
or EPA-lead, fund-financed removal action. For fund-financed remedial actions, the
state generally shares 10 percent of the cost actions. If the facility was publicly operated
at the time of disposal of hazardous substances, however, states are required to share at
least 50 percent of the cost of fund-financed removal or remedial actions.
SARA greatly expanded the role of states in remedial actions. CERCLA §104(c)(9)
dictates that as of October 1989, EPA may not conduct fund-financed remedial
actions in a state unless the state assures EPA of the availability of adequate and
acceptable hazardous waste treatment and disposal facilities. Each state must submit
The information in this document is not by any means a complete representation of EPA's regulations or policies,
but is an introduction used for Hotline training purposes.
-------
32 - The Superfund Response Process
a Capacity Assurance Plan (CAP) which ensures that the state has facilities that:
• Have adequate treatment and disposal capacity until 2009
• Are in the state or are subject to an interstate or Regional agreement
• Are acceptable to EPA
• Are in compliance with RCRA.
For further information on CAPs refer to EPA's documents entitled Guidance for
Capacity Assurance Planning. (OSWER Directive 9010.02) and National Capacity
Assessment Report: Capacity Planning Pursuant to CERCLA §104fc)f9). EPA530-R-95-
016.
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS
CERCLA authorizes EPA to enter into Superfund cooperative agreements with
capable states, political subdivisions, or federally recognized Indian tribes to
implement CERCLA activities (§104(d)(l)). EPA uses cooperative agreements to
transfer funds to those entities to undertake fund-financed response actions. EPA
may also provide Core Program Cooperative Agreements to states and Indian tribes
to be used for non-site-specific Superfund activities. Specific regulations regarding
cooperative agreements may be found in §300.515 and §300.525 of the NCP, as well as
40 CFR Part 35.
2.9 NATURAL RESOURCE DAMAGE ASSESSMENTS
Pursuant to CERCLA §107, natural resource trustees can be compensated for
damages or injury to natural resources resulting from the discharge of oil or a
release of a hazardous substance. CERCLA §101(16) defines natural resources as
land, fish, wildlife, biota, water, groundwater, drinking water supplies, and other
such resources. Trustees are most often the state, but may include government
organizations such as the Department of the Interior, the Department of
Agriculture, and Indian tribes (40 CFR §300.600(b)).
Unlike with other elements of the Superfund program, the Department of the
Interior (DOI), not EPA, has the responsibility for implementing Natural Resource
Damage Assessments (NRDA). NRDAs generally take place during the RI/FS stage
of the Superfund process. The NRDA rule, developed pursuant to CERCLA §301 (c)
and codified in 43 CFR Part 11, provides procedures for assessing injury to,
destruction of, or loss of natural resources. DOI promulgated two types of
assessment rules: standard procedures for simplified assessments requiring minimal
field observation (type A assessments), and site-specific procedures for detailed
assessments in individual cases (type B assessments). In response to a court ruling,
DOI has finalized revisions to this rule (58 FR 14262; March 25, 1994).
The information in this document is not by any means a complete representation of EPA's regulations or policies,
but is an introduction used for Hotline training purposes.
-------
The Superfund Response Process - 33
2.10 FEDERAL FACILITY RESPONSE
At this time, Subpart K of the NCP is reserved for federal facility regulations. Once
they are proposed and finalized, this subpart will consolidate those regulations
federal facilities must follow when conducting CERCLA response actions. Subpart K
also will codify certain other provisions of §120 of CERCLA relating to federal
facilities.
According to §120(a)(l), a federal department or agency is subject to CERCLA just
like any other PRP; however, §lll(e)(3) generally prohibits using fund monies to
remediate government sites, so federal agencies must use their own funds. Under
Executive Order 12580, federal departments or agencies have some additional
authority. Specifically, the Department of Defense and Department of Energy have
§106 enforcement authority for releases at or originating from their facilities.
Section 120 delegates the authority to all agencies to conduct response actions at
their non-NPL facilities and to perform RI/FS activities at federal NPL sites. Section
120(a)(2) prohibits a federal facility from adopting guidelines, rules, regulations, or
criteria which are inconsistent with those established under Superfund.
Cleanup activities beyond the RI/FS must be concluded under an Interagency
Agreement with EPA. More information on the implementation of CERCLA at
federal facilities may be found in the document entitled Federal Facilities Hazardous
Waste Compliance Manual (OSWER Directive 9992.4).
CERCLA §120(c), as well as certain provisions of RCRA, require EPA to establish a
Federal Facilities Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket that contains information
regarding federal facilities that manage hazardous waste or from which hazardous
substances may be or have been released. CERCLA requires that this docket be
updated every six months, as new facilities are reported to EPA by federal agencies.
These updates are periodically published in the Federal Register. The most recent
update was published on June 27, 1997 (62 FR 34780).
2.11 CONTRACTOR SUPPORT
Most fund-financed Superfund response activities are performed by private
contractors that are supervised by EPA or state officials. In some cases, the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers enters into engineering design and construction contracts
with EPA for remedial responses. The actual work is performed by private
contractors under the Corps' supervision.
The NCP also includes procedures for determining whether contractors have
conflicts of interest that could significantly impact the performance of the contract or
the liability of potential prime contractors and subcontractors (§300.435(d)).
The information in this document is not by any means a complete representation of EPA's regulations or policies,
but is an introduction used for Hotline training purposes.
-------
34 - The Superfund Response Process
OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION (OSHA)
REGULATIONS
Contractor personnel at CERCLA sites are required to follow the OSHA health and
safety regulations at 29 CFR §1910.120 (40 CFR §300.150). The requirements include
40 hours of initial training and 8 hours of refresher training annually, as well as
medical surveillance.
INDEMNIFICATION
CERCLA §119 exempts response action contractors (RACs) with respect to releases or
threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants from
liability except for those releases arising due to the contractor's negligence. EPA
finalized guidelines to set standards for the indemnification of contractors on
January 25, 1993 (58 FR 5972).
SUPERFUND CONTRACTING STRATEGY
In response to recommendations made in the document entitled A Management
Review of the Superfund Program. EPA has developed a long-term contracting
strategy for the Superfund program. After analyzing the long-term contracting
needs of the program, EPA developed a contractor structure. Following are the
major components of that structure:
Site Evaluation Activities: Field Investigative Team/Technical Assistance Team
The Field Investigative Teams (FITs) were historically dedicated to remedial site
evaluation activities, while the Technical Assistance Teams (TATs) provided
emergency response support for the removal program. These teams are now
combined to form one integrated team in each Region, responsible for removal
and remedial site evaluation technical assistance.
Remedial Activities: Response Action Contracts (RACs)
Response Action Contractors, managed on a Regional basis, provide support for
all remedial activities as well as enforcement oversight activities and long-term
removal actions.
Response Actions: Emergency Response Cleanup Services (ERCS)
These contractors perform rapid removal actions and will begin to perform
emergency remedial actions as well. ERCS contractors provide cleanup
personnel, equipment, and materials to the OSC. Their duties include
containing, recovering, and disposing of hazardous substances; analyzing
samples; and site restoration. (Presently the Army Corps of Engineers generally
handles rapid remedial actions.)
The information in this document is not by any means a complete representation of EPA's regulations or policies,
but is an introduction used for Hotline training purposes.
-------
The Superfund Response Process - 35
Analytical Support: Contract Laboratory Program (CLP)
The CLP consists of a network of private laboratories that provide routine and
special analytical services to support Superfund sampling activities. Contract
Laboratory Analytical Services Support (CLASS), located in Alexandria, Virginia,
provides management, operations, and administrative support to the CLP.
Additional analytical assistance and overview is often provided by Regional
environmental services assistance teams (ESAT) contractors.
The information in this document is not by any means a complete representation of EPA's regulations or policies,
but is an introduction used for Hotline training purposes.
-------
36 - The Superfund Response Process
The information in this document is not by any means a complete representation of EPA's regulations or policies,
but is an introduction used for Hotline training purposes.
-------
The Superfund Response Process - 37
3. MODULE SUMMARY
This module outlines the framework of the Superfund response process. A site may
be addressed using remedial or removal authorities, or both. The first phase of the
response process, the site assessment, is composed of the following steps: PA/SI,
HRS scoring, and NPL consideration. If at the completion of the site assessment a
site is placed on the NPL, a remedial response is conducted. The remedial process
involves detailed planning and decision-making steps including conducting an
RI/FS, developing a proposed plan and a ROD, and performing the actual remedial
action. At any time in the response process a removal action may be warranted,
depending on site conditions. The removal process focuses on short-term
emergency responses and is divided into three categories of response based on
urgency: classic emergencies, time-critical actions, and non-time-critical actions.
Removal actions do not involve as much detailed planning as remedial actions, can
be conducted at NPL and non-NPL sites, and are limited in scope to one year and $2
million. The procedures for implementing the Superfund response process are laid
out in the NCP.
The Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model (SACM), and the Superfund
Administrative Improvements and Reforms initiatives, which were established by
EPA to accelerate and improve the cleanup process, have had a significant effect on
the basic Superfund Response Process. SACM reorganizes the basic response process
in an effort to expedite it. Superfund Administrative Improvements and Reforms
include promoting the use of innovative technologies, and improving the
enforcement and settlement process. These initiatives are addressed in more detail
in the modules entitled Superfund Administrative Improvements/Reforms and
Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model.
The information in this document is not by any means a complete representation of EPA's regulations or policies,
but is an introduction used for Hotline training purposes.
------- |