UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, B.C. 20460
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY
RESPONSE
March 5, 2004
OSWER Directive 9285.6-11
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: OSRTI Sediment Team and NRRB Coordination at Large Sediment Sites
FROM: Michael B. Cook, Director /s/
Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation
TO: Superfund National Policy Managers, Regions 1-10
Purpose
This guidance supplements OSWER Directive 9285.6-08: Principles for Managing
Contaminated Sediment Risks at Hazardous Waste Sites issued on February 12, 2002. This
guidance provides additional information on the Office of Superfund Remediation and
Technology Innovation (OSRTI) consultation process for Tier 1 contaminated sediment sites that
are also being reviewed by the National Remedy Review Board (NRRB).
Background
When OSWER issued Directive 9285.6-08, it established a new consultation process for
Tier 1 sediment sites. Tier 1 sediment sites are those sites where the proposed sediment action(s)
for the entire site will address more than 10,000 cubic yards or five acres of contaminated
sediment. The Directive requested that Superfund RPMs and OSCs consult with their
appropriate OSRTI Regional Coordinator at least 30 days before issuing for public comment a
Proposed Plan for a remedial action or an Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis (EE/CA) for a
Non-Time-Critical removal action. The purpose of the consultation was to help ensure that site
managers appropriately considered the new principles before making site-specific risk
management decisions.
The consultation entails the submission of the draft proposed plan or draft EE/CA, a
written discussion of how the 11 principles presented in Directive 9285.6-08 were considered,
i.e., a Tier 1 Consideration Memo, and basic site information that will assist OSRTI in tracking
these Tier 1 sediment sites.
New Consultation Process for Tier 1 Sediment Sites Reviewed by the NRRB
OSRTI has discovered that some changes need to be made to this process when the Tier
1 site is also a site that will undergo NRRB review. For these sites, the Region should include a
draft Tier 1 Consideration Memo in the site information package sent to the Board. A copy of
-------
the Consideration Memo should also be sent to the appropriate OSRTI regional coordinator (see
list below) and to the OSRTI Sediment Team leader. The OSRTI Sediment Team will review
the Consideration Memo and the site package and provide comments to the chair of the NRRB
prior to their meeting on the site in question. If the draft Proposed Plan is available, it should
also be submitted to the OSRTI regional coordinator and the Sediment Team Leader at that time.
If it is not available, it should be submitted as soon as it is drafted. The Sediment Team will not
submit separate comments on the Consideration Memo to the Region.
As part of its response to the NRRB recommendations, the Region should include a
revised Tier 1 Consideration Memo that addresses the comments made by the NRRB. If the
NRRB chair and OSRTI Sediment Team leader believe that their comments were not
appropriately addressed, and after consultation with the OSRTI Regional Branch Chief, the RPM
may be asked to make additional revisions to the Consideration Memo.
To assist in the review of the Consideration Memos for both Tier 1 sites and the larger
Tier 2 sites that are reviewed by the Contaminated Sediments Technical Advisory Group
(CSTAG), the OSRTI Sediment Team and the CSTAG have developed a Guideline for the
Review of Consideration Memos (attached). RPMs are strongly encouraged to use this
Guideline as a tool in preparing the Consideration Memo.
Existing Process for CSTAG/NRRB Coordination at Tier 2 CSTAG Sites
It is anticipated that the proposed remedy for most of the large Tier 2 sites being
reviewed by the CSTAG will also meet the requirements for review by the NRRB. When an
RPM prepares the site package for the NRRB, the RPM should also prepare and submit to the
NRRB and the CSTAG co-chairs a draft Tier 2 Consideration Memo. The memo should
document how all 11 principles were considered in selecting the proposed remedy for the site
and should normally be less than 20 pages. The CSTAG co-chairs will distribute the memo to
the CSTAG members for their review. In order to avoid sending two sets of recommendations to
the RPM, any CSTAG comments will be relayed to the Chair of the NRRB. At least two
members of the CSTAG will attend the NRRB meeting (this can include NRRB members that
are also CSTAG members) to offer assistance on site issues relative to the 11 principles.
Implementation
This new process will be effective May 1 and applies to all future Tier 1 and Tier 2
sediment sites coming before the NRRB. If there any questions, please consult with JoAnn
Griffith (703 603-8774), chair of the NRRB, or Steve Ells (703 603-8822), OSRTI Sediment
Team leader and co-chair of the CSTAG.
List of current OSRTI Regional Coordinators
Region 1 - Mike Hurd/Jim Konz
Region 2 - Terry Johnson
Region 3 - Steve Chang
Region 4 - Silvina Fonseca
Region 5 - Ernie Watkins
Region 6 - Matt Charsky
Region 7 - Mike Bellot
Region 8 - Dan Thornton
Region 9 - Jennifer Griesert
Region 10 - Mike Kurd
-------
Attachment
cc: Betsy Southerland, OSRTI
Walt Kovalick, OSRTI
Jeff Lape, OSRTI
Rafael Gonzalez, OSRTI
David Lopez, OSRTI
James Woolford, FFRRO
Nancy Riveland, Superfund Lead Region Coordinator, USEPA Region 9
NARPM Co-Chairs
Joanna Gibson, OSRTI Documents Coordinator
-------
Updated 03/01/04
ATTACHMENT
Guidelines for the OSRTI Review of Consideration Memos on Tier 1 Sediment Sites
BACKGROUND
These guidelines have been developed by the OSRTI Sediment Team with input from the
Contaminated Sediment Technical Advisory Group (CSTAG) to provide OSRTI regional
coordinators a tool to use in evaluating how well RPMs have documented how they considered
OSWER Directive 9285.6-08, Principles for Managing Contaminated Sediment Risks at
Hazardous Waste Sites when evaluating alternatives and proposing a remedy at a site.
Under the Tier 1 review process, Directive 9285.6-08 requested that RPMs (or OSCs)
submit written documentation (i.e., a Consideration Memo) to the headquarter's Superfund
program office (then known as OERR, now as OSRTI) prior to proposing a response that includes
a sediment action which, in combination with other sediment actions at a site, would result in
dredging more than 10,000 cy or capping or using monitored natural recovery as a remedy for
more than five acres, calculated on a site-wide basis. The Consideration Memo should be sent to
the appropriate OSRTI coordinator listed below at least 30 days before issuing the Proposed Plan
or EE/CA. It is anticipated that a typical Tier 1 Consideration Memo will be no longer than 10
pages, but will vary with the complexity of the site. The OSRTI Sediment Team has committed
to send comments to the RPM within three weeks. The comment memo will be signed by the
Sediment Team Leader and copies will be sent to the Regional Division Director, the OSRTI
Division Director and the OSRTI Regional Branch Chief. OSRTI expects that these comments
will be reflected in the final version of the Consideration Memo (which will become part of the
administrative record for the site when the ROD is issued) and considered in finalizing the
Proposed Plan and drafting the ROD.
Directive 9285.6-08 also established the CSTAG to advise project managers at a limited
number of large, complex or controversial Tier 2 sites. CSTAG is requesting similar written
documentation for the sites it is reviewing, but at multiple times during the site investigation and
remedy evaluation process. For Tier 2 sites, the Consideration Memo should be sent to the
CSTAG co-chairs. It is anticipated that a typical Tier 2 memorandum will be longer than 10
pages.
QUESTIONS OSRTI COORDINATORS SHOULD ASK WHILE REVIEWING
CONSIDERATION MEMOS
OSRTI recommends that Superfund project managers address each of the 11 principles
when documenting their consideration of Directive 9285.6-08 under either the Tier 1 or Tier 2
review process. The questions listed below are intended to help OSRTI coordinators judge how
well RPMs explained how they considered the principles. The questions are written to apply to a
site at the draft Proposed Plan stage or when the draft Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis
(EE/CA) is being prepared for public comment. Where a proposed plan or EE/CA applies to one
-------
Updated 03/01/04
or more (but not all) of several sediment operable units, the memorandum should address
sediment aspects of the site as a whole, to the extent practicable and relevant to the proposed
remedy.
1. Control Sources Early.
A. Were all significant continuing sources of sediment contamination at the site identified? For
each continuing source, were the plans to control these sources described, including the expected
time to complete these actions, who will undertake them, and how any continuing sources are
being monitored?
B. Where there is uncertainty about the timing or effectiveness of source control actions, or if all
sources can be controlled, did the memo indicate (1) how the potential for recontamination had
been considered in the selection or development of the proposed sediment remedy, and (2) to
what extent the proposed sediment remedy is expected to be beneficial if source control is not
effective or not complete by the time the proposed sediment remedy is planned to be
implemented?
2. Involve the Community Early and Often.
A. Was the role of the community in the RI/FS or EE/CA and the mechanisms that were used to
solicit effective involvement of a variety of community members described?
B. Did the memo briefly describe how local societal and cultural practices were identified and
considered in (1) the human health risk assessment (e.g., local recreational use of the water body,
local fishing practices) and (2) the selection or development of the proposed remedy (e.g., current
and future uses of the water body)?
C. Did the memo describe the major ways the proposed sediment remedy is expected to affect the
local community, including impacts that occur during remedy implementation?
D. Was the expected level of community support for the proposed sediment remedy discussed?
Did the memo identify any aspects that are expected to be of most concern to the community and
briefly describe how these concerns have been addressed or considered?
3. Coordinate with States, Local Governments, Tribes, and Natural Resource Trustees.
A. Did the memo briefly describe the major sediment-related issues in which State and local
governments have been involved at the site? If there were any aspects that are expected to be of
most concern to State and local governments, did the memo describe how those concerns have
been addressed or considered?
B. For sites that include water bodies where Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) are being or
have been developed, were the coordination efforts with the State and with EPA's water program
-------
Updated 03/01/04
described? Were any aspects of the TMDL development that were considered in selecting the
proposed remedy discussed?
C. If there are Tribal interests at the site, did the memo identify any aspects of the proposed
sediment remedy that are expected to be of most concern to the Tribe(s) and how those concerns
have been addressed or considered?
D. If there are Natural Resource Trustee interests at the site, did the memo identify the major
areas of coordination related to the performance of the RI/FS or the ecological risk assessment?
Were any Trustee restoration activities that may be concurrent with or follow the Superfund
action and the extent to which those restoration activities are dependent on the Superfund action
discussed?
4. Develop and Refine a Conceptual Site Model that Considers Sediment Stability.
A. Was a copy of the conceptual site model for sediment (e.g, one or more diagrams or charts)
included in the memo? Did it identify all major contaminant sources, contaminants of concern,
affected media, existing and potential exposure pathways, and human and ecological receptors
that are at risk?
B. Did the memo identify the natural and man-made disruptive events or forces that were
considered when evaluating sediment alternatives, including the recurrence interval or
probabilities of those events or forces? Did it relate these forces to rates of erosion and
sedimentation?
5. Use an Iterative Approach in a Risk-Based Framework.
A. Did the memo briefly describe the major ways in which an iterative approach was used at the
site? (An iterative approach is one that incorporates testing of hypotheses and conclusions and
fosters re-evaluation of new information as it is gathered..)
B. Did the memo describe any early or interim actions (other than the proposed remedy) planned
or implemented at the site that address threats from contaminated sediment?
C. If the proposed sediment remedy will be implemented in phases or if it is part of a larger
phased approach to the site as a whole, were the phases clearly described?
6. Carefully Evaluate the Assumptions and Uncertainties Associated with Site
Characterization Data and Site Models.
-------
Updated 03/01/04
A. Did the memo briefly describe the most important uncertainties associated with characterizing
site conditions? Where mathematical models were used, were the uncertainties around the
important input parameters (e.g., those used to the estimate human health and ecological risk and
the predicted effectiveness of potential sediment remedies) discussed? Did the memo briefly
explain how those uncertainties were accounted for (e.g., use of sensitivity analyses or reasonable
conservative assumptions)?
B. If a new mathematical model was used, or if a model at a large or complex site was calibrated
using site data, did the memo describe the peer review process used for the model and briefly
summarize the results of the peer review?
7. Select Site-specific, Project-specific, and Sediment-specific Risk Management
Approaches that will Achieve Risk-based Goals.
A. Did the memo list all alternatives that were evaluated for remediation of contaminated
sediment at the site? If this list did not include some form of each of the three major sediment
cleanup methods (i.e., capping, monitored natural recovery, dredging, and/or combinations of
these), did the memo explain why the method was not evaluated?
B. Did the memo describe the proposed sediment remedy for the site and how it relates to any
other sediment operable units at the site?
C. Did the memo clearly explain the rationale for the proposed remedy, and does it make sense
based upon the information in the Proposed Plan?
8. Ensure that Sediment Cleanup Levels are Clearly Tied to Risk Management Goals.
A. Did the memo briefly summarize the risks associated with contaminated sediment that were
identified in the human health and ecological risk assessments?
B. Did the memo describe the remedial action objectives (RAOs) or removal objectives that were
developed to address these risks?
C. Did the memo describe the sediment cleanup and/or action levels, and briefly describe how
they were derived, how they relate to the RAOs or removal objectives, and when they are
expected to be met?
9. Maximize the Effectiveness of Institutional Controls and Recognize their Limitations.
-------
Updated 03/01/04
A. Did the memo identify any institutional controls that are part of the proposed sediment
remedy, and if so, describe how they will be implemented and any plans to maximize their
effectiveness (e.g., public education regarding fish consumption advisories)?
B. Did the memo briefly describe any plans for monitoring or information collection at the site
which will be used to evaluate the effectiveness of institutional controls?
10. Design Remedies to Minimize Short-term Risks While Achieving Long-Term
Protection.
A. For in-situ capping alternatives, did the memo describe the measures that will be taken to
minimize contaminant releases during cap placement, and the expected impact of cap materials on
the recolonization of the cap by biota?
B. For dredging alternatives, did the memo briefly describe the measures that will be taken to
minimize contaminant releases and sediment resuspension during dredging? Did it describe how
and when the dredged habitat is expected to recover? If on-site disposal is planned, did it briefly
describe the disposal unit and monitoring that will be required to assess protectiveness?
C. Did the memo briefly describe the major expected effects of the proposed remedy on societal
and cultural practices and how these were considered in remedy selection?
11. Monitor During and After Sediment Remediation to Assess and Document Remedy
Effectiveness.
A. Did the memo briefly describe the type of monitoring that will be required to assess
contaminant releases during remedy implementation (i.e., during dredging, during cap placement,
or during the recovery period in the case of monitored natural recovery)?
B. For each medium (e.g., sediment, surface water, biota) that has a cleanup level or remedial
action objective listed in the answer to #8A above, did the memo briefly describe the type of
monitoring (including physical, biological, and chemical monitoring) that will be required to
determine whether the levels and objectives are met? If sufficient baseline data were not
available, were plans for collecting additional data prior to implementing the remedy described?
C. Did the memo briefly describe other plans for long term monitoring (e.g., monitoring of long-
term success of source control measures, effects of disruptive events, migration of buried
contaminants, cap integrity)?
------- |