February 16, 2012 OSWER 9355.0-105A
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Final Implementation of the National Strategy to Manage Post Construction Completion
Activities at Superfund Sites
Purpose
The purpose of this document is to summarize the results of the Post-Construction Completion
(PCC) Strategy, which was implemented from 2005 to 2011. The purpose of the strategy, which
was a management framework of five goals with accompanying approaches and initiatives, was
to provide greater assurance that remedies put in place under the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) remain protective over the long-term.
Further, the strategy was intended to be a national strategy to manage the PCC aspects of
Superfund sites generally rather than a specific strategy for managing an individual site.
Incorporation of the PCC Strategy into site decision-making has resulted in improved post-
construction procedures for National Priorities List (NPL) sites and Superfund Alternative (SA)
sites. The PCC strategy and many of the referenced documents can be found at
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/cleanup/postconstruction/index.htm. Since the elements of the
PCC Strategy have become EPA's way of doing business for the Superfund program, EPA is
now closing out the PCC Strategy with this final report. This report is organized by goals and
objectives under each goal.
Goal 1: Ensure that remedies remain protective and cost effective.
The PCC phase of an NPL site cleanup typically involves Operation and Maintenance (O&M),
including monitoring, of remedies. Engineered remedies that may require O&M include
treatment, such as pump-and-treat (P&T), bioremediation, air sparging, and soil vapor extraction;
and containment, which may involve vertical barriers (subsurface walls) and caps. Ensuring the
cost effectiveness and protectiveness of these remedies often requires ongoing O&M, five-year
reviews, monitoring, periodic repairs, and sometimes, replacement of remedy components.
Other remedies, such as monitored natural attenuation (MNA), which principally involve
monitoring, can include O&M, repair, or replacement of monitoring wells. Non-engineered
remedies include institutional controls (ICs) to restrict land and groundwater use. All of these
types of remedies may require managing and evaluating large volumes of monitoring data, as
654867
-------
February 16, 2012 OSWER 9355.0-105A
well as tracking progress toward well-defined requirements. The PCC strategy addressed each of
these aspects of post-construction activities.
To ensure that remedies remain protective and cost effective, the Agency developed a number of
guidance documents, training courses, tools, and policies for improving remedy O&M,
monitoring, performance, and tracking, which are listed below.
Objective 1.1 Develop approaches for improving remedy O&M, monitoring,
performance, and tracking.
The Agency developed and implemented the Fund-lead Pump and Treat (P&T) optimization
initiative to encourage systematic review and modification to existing P&T systems to promote
continuous improvement and to enhance overall remedy and cost effectiveness. Optimization
reviews are now routinely conducted at high priority, Fund-lead sites, which include
coordination with State counterparts. Projects to support this initiative are described below.
Tools for improving remedy O&M:
• Capture zone guidance and training to improve the efficiency of pump and treat systems.
(EPA/600/R-08/003, January 2008)
• O&M check list to ensure that all aspects of operation and maintenance activities are
evaluated and addressed (OSWER Directive #9355.0-87, April 28, 2008)
• The Action Plan for Ground Water Remedy Optimization (OSWER Directive 9283.1-25,
August 25, 2004), to ensure ground water remedies remain cost and technologically
efficient. Supporting documents include:
o Remediation System Evaluations (RSE) and the development of site-specific
progress reports, which are routinely conducted at sites (see
(http://www.epa.gov/superfund/cleanup/postconstruction/acti on_plan.pdf)
o Ground Water Remedy Optimization Progress Reports (see
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/cleanup/postconstruction/optimize.htm)
Tools for managing and analyzing monitoring data:
• Incorporation of a Staged Electronic Data Deliverable (SEDD) format into all Superfund
contracts, which allows for electronic generation and review of SEDD data files
• Development of a Decision Support Tools (DST) matrix, which contains software tools
for environmental restoration activities, including monitoring (see
http://www.frtr.gov/decisionsupport/)
• Development of Scribe, an environmental field data management tool that captures
sampling, observational, and monitoring field data in a local database to aid project
managers with primary decision support and which is compatible for all SEDD files
Tools to improve the five-year review (FYR) process (for those sites where hazardous substances
remain above levels that allow unlimited use and unrestricted exposure):
• EPA Headquarters review of all five-year review documents to ensure remedy
protectiveness determinations are done appropriately.
-------
February 16, 2012 OSWER 9355.0-105A
Supporting documents include:
• Recommended Evaluation of Institutional Controls: Supplement to the Comprehensive
Five-Year Review Guidance (OSWER 9355.7-18, September 2011)
• Five-year review fact sheet (OSWER 9355.7-21, September 2009)
Technical assistance for remedy cost and performance, including:
• Case studies are conducted yearly and are published at http://www.frtr.gov.
• Technical Support Centers with experts in ground water and ecosystem protection have
been established (see http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/gwerd/gw/index.html).
PCC classroom and internet training to regions and states:
• See http://www.epa.gov/superfund/partners/osrti/supportl/training.htm), e.g.,
o Remedy Optimization
o Five year Reviews
o Restoration vs. Non-Restoration for Ground and Surface Water Remedies
o Institutional Controls
Objective 1.2 Encourage improved regional management of PCC sites.
• Exit Strategy for establishing intermediate and final remedy cleanup levels, ways to
measure progress toward cleanup levels, and how to verify that they have been achieved.
Supporting documents include:
o Groundwater Road Map: Recommended Process for Restoring Contaminated
Groundwater at Superfund Sites (OSWER 9283.1-34, July 2011)
(http ://www. epa. gov/superfund/health/conmedia/gwdocs/pdfs/gwroadmapfmal. pd
f)
• Tools to ensure that monitoring requirements at sediment sites are implemented (see
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/health/conmedia/sediment/documents.htm):
o Methods and Tools for the Evaluation of Monitored Natural Recovery of
Contaminated Sediments (EPA/600/S-10/006/September 2010, see
www. epa. gov/research)
o Using Fish Tissue Data to Monitor Remedy Effectiveness ((OSWER 9200.1-
77D, July 2008)
o Contaminated Sediment Remediation Guidance for Hazardous Waste Sites
(OSWER 9355.0-85, December 2005)
Objective 1.3 Ensure proper consideration of PCC requirements in enforceable
agreements with responsible parties and federal facilities.
• The model Remedial Design/Remedial Action and Institutional Controls enforcement
documents have been revised to include PCC requirements in agreements with
responsible parties and federal facilities.
-------
February 16, 2012 OSWER 9355.0-105A
Goal 2: Ensure that institutional controls required as part of the remedy are
implemented and effective.
EPA defines institutional controls (ICs) as non-engineered instruments, such as administrative
and/or legal controls, that help to minimize the potential for human exposure to contamination
and to protect the integrity of a remedy by limiting land or resource use. ICs are frequently used
in hazardous waste cleanups to ensure that remedies remain protective over the long-term. The
most critical aspects of ICs that affect protection of human health and the environment typically
are related to implementation, monitoring and enforcement. Durable and effective ICs are
critical to long-term protectiveness and may enable more sites to return to productive use sooner.
The fundamental challenge presented by ICs is that, although the Agency frequently relies on
ICs to help ensure long-term protectiveness, the responsibility for implementation, monitoring,
and enforcement is often under the jurisdiction of other levels of government and private parties.
Consequently, the Agency and its stakeholders need to work together to ensure acceptable long-
term effectiveness and durability of ICs. To this end, EPA developed the 1C Tracking System
(ICTS) to help ensure the long-term durability, reliability, and effectiveness of ICs throughout
their life cycle.
To ensure the effectiveness of ICs, the Agency has undertaken a number of initiatives, including
incorporating 1C activities into the 1C Tracking System (ICTS), effective communication with
stakeholders, updating decision documents to include 1C selection, and developing guidance. By
incorporating these activities into the post-construction phase of site remediation, selecting,
implementing, and evaluating ICs have become a routine part of conducting site remediation,
and are supplemented by ongoing training. 1C guidance can be found at
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/policy/ic/guide/index.htm. These initiatives have been developed
in coordination with the Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials
(ASTSWMO), and are listed below.
Objective 2.1 Develop and ensure continued effectiveness of a national 1C Tracking
System (ICTS).
• The 1C Tracking System (ICTS) is updated regularly to include ICs that have been
established atNPL sites (see
http://www.epa.gov/ictssw07/public/export/regionalReport/ALL REGIONS 1C REPOR
TS.HTM)
Objective 2.2 Ensure the effective implementation of ICs.
o Ensure the accuracy of reports on 1C implementationComparisons between site-
wide ready-for-anticipated use measures and site IC's are conducted regularly for
specific sites and shared with regional 1C Coordinators on a regular basis.
• Ensure that ICs are successfully implemented at applicable sites
o Conference calls with regional 1C Coordinators are conducted monthly to report
on site-specific 1C issues
-------
February 16, 2012 OSWER 9355.0-105A
Objective 2.3 Identify and implement process improvements to increase the reliability
oflCs.
• Institutional Controls Roundtable and Training, April 2006 (see
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/policy/ic/roundtable.htm). Training on IC's, ICTS, FYR,
and other PCC-related activities are conducted on a regular basis (see
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/policy/ic/roundtable.htm)
• The EPA Office of Site Remediation Enforcement (OSRE) conducts training in the areas
of 1C'sand ICTS.
Objective 2.4 Undertake other activities targeted at improving the use oflCs.
• Institutional Controls: A Guide to Planning, Implementing, Maintaining, and Enforcing
Institutional Controls at Contaminated Sites (Interim Final, OSWER 9355.0-89,
November 2010)
• Guidance on calculating the full life-cycle costs of IC's (see
http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/tools/tti_lucs.htm)
o Local Government Planning Tool to Calculate Institutional and Engineering
Control Costs for Brownfields Properties (EPA 560-F-10-230, July 2010)
o An Introduction to the Cost of Engineering and Institutional Controls at
Brownfields Properties (EPA 560-F-08-244, February 2009)
• Addressing Long-Term Stewardship: Case Studies (EPA 560-F-08-243, April 2008;
http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/tools/lts fs 04 2008.pdf)
Goal 3 Assure adequate financing and capability to conduct post construction
completion activities
Activities to ensure long term protectiveness at an NPL or SA site often include operating and
maintaining leachate collection systems or ground water contamination treatment systems, or
managing residual contamination. With the exception of active restoration of Fund-lead ground
and surface water for a 10-year period (called the Long-Term Response Action, LTRA), the
Agency is prohibited by CERCLA from conducting O&M activities at NPL sites. Consequently,
the Superfund program relies upon state governments, responsible parties, and federal facilities
for ensuring the O&M at sites. The Agency remains interested in making sure that long term
financing will continue to be available to maintain protectiveness at these sites.
To help ensure that adequate resources are available to conduct PCC activities, the Agency
revised financial assurance (FA) sections of model enforcement documents, developed guidance
on FA mechanisms, provided financial assurance training to regional offices, and recommended
PCC considerations for Superfund State Contracts. By incorporating these products into the
PCC program, these established mechanisms and tools have become a routine part of ensuring
O&M. More detailed information on these approaches is listed below.
-------
February 16, 2012 OSWER 9355.0-105A
Objective 3.1 Work to assure that Potentially Responsible Parties fulfill their O&M
responsibilities.
• Revisions to financial assurance sections of model RD/RA Consent Decree were
completed in August 2005 and have been updated regularly as needed.
• Financial assurance (FA) tools and guidance for use in CERCLA settlements have been
developed for letters of credit, payment bonds, performance bonds, trust agreements, and
corporate guarantees (see
(http://cfpub.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/cleanup/superfund/index.cfm7action
=3&sub id=1203)
o CERCLA Financial Assurance Sample Trust Agreement, September 1, 2006.
o CERCLA Financial Assurance Sample Guarantee Agreement, March 1, 2006.
CERCLA Financial Assurance Financial Test Sample Letters, February 14, 2006.
CERCLA Financial Assurance Sample Payment Bond, July 1, 2005. CERCLA
Financial Assurance Sample Performance Bond, July 1, 2005.
o CERCLA Financial Assurance Sample Letter of Credit, December 1, 2004.
• Superfund financial assurance training has been developed for regional staff and
management, which is provided on a regular basis.
Objective 3.2 Help states develop capacity to assure Superfund state cost share and
O&M and methods to creatively finance both.
• The ASTSWMO report, "Analysis of State Operation and Maintenance Costs at
Superfund Sites," evaluates state efforts to develop long-term O&M funding, identifies
obstacles to funding, and evaluates future O&M workload for states and associated
funding needs (see
http://astswmo.org/Pages/Policies_and_Publications/CERCLA_and_Brownfields.htm)
• "Post Construction Completion Considerations in Superfund State Contracts" (August
2008), OSWER 9242.2-19,
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/cleanup/postconstruction/index.htm) includes:
o The SSC should specifiy that a state's O&M responsibilities generally should
ensure that the remedy remains protective of human health and the environment
and may include the repair and replacement of all damaged, worn, and obsolete
equipment and structures.
o The SSC should define the process and expectations for transfer of the remedy
from EPA to the state for O&M upon completion of the LTRA phase.
o The SSC should include a description of planned ICs, the specific 1C instruments
to be used, the objectives of the ICs, responsible entities, estimated costs, any
performance standards, and milestones for implementing the ICs.
-------
February 16, 2012 OSWER 9355.0-105A
Goal 4 Support appropriate reuse of sites while assuring remedy reliability.
The Superfund Redevelopment Initiative (SRI) operates as a nationally coordinated effort to
ensure that at every site, EPA and its partners have an effective process and the necessary tools
and information needed to return the country's most hazardous waste sites to productive use.
The benefits of reuse are most visible during the PCC phase, since remedies are often
constructed to be compatible with expected future use. Through the current coordinated national
effort, the Agency and its partners can better determine what the future use of a site is likely to
be, so that protective remedies are selected consistent with practical and feasible planned reuse
activities.
To support appropriate reuse of sites while assuring remedy reliability, EPA developed the
"Return to Use" initiative, the "Ready for Reuse" guidance, and established reuse performance
measures. The SR Initiative is now a routine activity, and can be followed at the Superfund
Redevelopment website at http://www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/recycle/index.html.
Objective 4.1 Reexamine sites to eliminate barriers to reuse wherever possible.
• EPA established the "Return to Use" initiative in 2004, under which the Agency partners
with communities and other stakeholders to address potential obstacles to reuse, such as
modifying fences, removing barbed wire, and eliminating misleading signs (see
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/recycle/activities/rtu.html).
Objective 4.2 Implement the Ready for Reuse guidance to answer questions about a
site's suitability for reuse.
• EPA established the Ready for Reuse (RfR) determination in February 2004, which is a
redevelopment tool to provide information that a site is "ready for reuse" and will remain
protective for that use, so long as any use limitations established by EPA continue to be
met. Supporting documents include:
o Ready for Reuse Determination Guidance (2/18/04) provides Headquarters and
Regional staff with the information needed to make and document these
determinations (see
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/recycle/tools/rfr.html)
• EPA established two measures to assess and report on a range of accomplishments and
outcomes realized through cleaning up and redeveloping formerly contaminated sites (see
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/recycle/effects/index.htmltfrau).
o Sitewide Ready for Anticipated Use (SWRAU) reflects the high priority that EPA
places on land reuse and revitalization as an integral part of the Agency's cleanup
mission for the Superfund program, as well as its attention to post-construction
activities atNPL sites.
o Cross-Program Revitalization Measures (CPRM) established a similar, consistent
set of measures applied across all of the EPA Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response cleanup programs to track the efforts the Agency was
making in preparing sites to be returned to use.
-------
February 16, 2012 OSWER 9355.0-105A
• This measure resulted in guidance for documenting and reporting
performance in achieving land revitalization (OSWER Directive 9200.1-
74, October 2006).
Goal 5 Improve site records management to better ensure remedy reliability.
Many records associated with Superfund sites need to be preserved for the future. In those cases
where wastes are left on site above levels allowing for unrestricted use and unlimited exposure,
the records generally are critical for ensuring that the presence of these wastes is known. Any
electronic systems should complement, and in certain cases replace, paper-based processes. To
this end, the Agency has implemented the Superfund Enterprise Management System (SEMS),
which is used by Headquarters and all 10 regional offices.
The Agency continues to work on a range of options to foster mutually agreeable data exchange
formats and procedures between the Agency's and states' information systems. When electronic
records are transferred from one organization to another, standardized authentication and chain
of custody procedures may need to be established specific to digital media.
To help ensure that site records management is improved to better ensure remedy reliability, the
Agency developed and deployed an enterprise content management system (ECMS) and
migrated its records to a central repository. These established tools have become a routine part
of keeping track of site information.
Objective 5.1 Develop a standard methodology nationwide for record keeping,
including electronic record keeping, that conforms both to Superfund
program needs and the Agency's enterprise content management
architecture.
The Enterprise Content Management System (ECMS) was deployed on July 3, 2009, to capture
email with attachments and apply records schedules to all captured content. The system is
designed to allow for searching of Superfund e-mail records through both ECMS and SEMS by
capturing appropriate metadata in SEMS and the record in ECMS E-mail Records. The system
also allows for additional Superfund-specific metadata, such as site name, to be added to e-mail
records.
Objective 5.2 Establish effective content "migration" strategies to assure accessibility
to records in light of rapid and persistent changes in information
technologies.
• The SEMS Central Repository Migration Sequencing Plan has been completed.
Supporting documents include:
o Superfund Cost Management Measures (OSWER Directive 9275.1-18, June 27,
2007;
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/reforms/docs/Progress Summary.06.200
7.pdf)
-------
February 16, 2012 OSWER 9355.0-105A
o Recommended Cost Management Activities Summary Report. June 2007.
(http://www.epa.gOv/superfund/programs/reforms/docs/CMM.attachmentl.june.2
007.pdf)
• A regional migration to the SEMS Central Repository was completed in FY 2008.
Summary
The Agency has successfully implemented the PCC Strategy, and the various elements of the
strategy have become a routine part of the Superfund site remediation process. The
implementation of the PCC Strategy has incorporated elements of remedy performance,
institutional controls, financing, redevelopment and reuse, and recordkeeping into the site
remediation process, and routine training is available for these elements. Since the elements of
the PCC Strategy have become EPA's way of doing business for the Superfund program, EPA
does not intend to update or reissue the PCC Strategy
------- |