United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Site Remediation
Enforcement (OSRE)
January 1998
Superfund Reforms
Annual Report FY 1997
-------
Page Intentionally Blank
-------
Annual Report FY 1997
Foreword
I he Superfund program has achieved substantial progress in cleaning up
hazardous waste sites and protecting human health and the environment with
cleanup underway at 89 percent of the sites on the National Priorities List
(NPL) (excluding Federal Facilities). To make the program faster, fairer, and
more efficient, EPA launched three rounds of Superfund reforms beginning in
1993 that cover a wide range of Superfund concerns, including enforcement,
public involvement, State and Tribal empowerment, cleanup effectiveness,
economic redevelopment, environmental justice, and program consistency.
Implementation of Superfund reforms has strengthened the program and
allowed concepts to be tested prior to reauthorization. For example, EPA
estimates that reviewing and updating selected remedies at specific sites in the
last two years will yield future cost reductions of over $900 million. Similarly,
EPA has effectively reduced the pursuit of small volume (i. e., de minimis and
de micromis) contributors by private parties, increased public involvement in
the cleanup process by creating Regional Ombudsmen to address public con-
cerns, and promoted economic development and environmental justice with
Brownfields and job-training initiatives.
As a result, today's Superfund is dramatically different than it was just five years
ago. EPA has streamlined cleanups, reduced litigation and bureaucracy, and
made common sense improvements to Superfund. This report looks at the
accomplishments of the second and third rounds of EPA's Superfund reforms.
-------
u p
e T fund Reforms
-------
Annual Report FY 1997
Table of Contents
Foreword i
Introduction ...1
Reforms at a Glance 7
Round Three Reforms ,. 21
I. Cleanups
3-1 .a. Establish National Remedy Review Board (NRRB) 21
3-1 .b. Establish New Remedy Selection Management Flags ("Rules-of-Thumb") 22
3-2. Update Remedy Decisions at Select Sites .....23
3-3.a. Clarify the Role of Cost in the Remedy Selection Process 27
3-3.b. Directive on National Consistency in Remedy Selection 28
3-4. Clarify Information Regarding Remedy Selection Decisions 28
3-5.a. Community Participation in Designing Risk Assessments 29
3-5.b. PRP Performance of Risk Assessments 30
3-6.a. Establish National Criteria on Superfund Risk Assessments 31
3-6.b. Standardizing Risk Assessments 32
3-6.c. Utilize Expert Workgroup on Lead .........33
3-7. Establish Lead Regulator at Federal Facilities 35
3-8. Consider Response Actions Prior to NPL Listing 36
3-9. Delete Clean Parcels from the NPL , 37
3-10.3. Promote Risk-Based Priority Setting at Federal Facility Sites 39
3-10.b. Promote Risk-Based Priority for NPL Sites 39
II. Enforcement
3-11. Orphan Share Compensation 41
3-12. Site Specific Special Accounts 43
3-13. Unilateral Administrative Orders (UAO) Reform 44
3-14. Revised De Micromis Guidance 45
3-16. Improving the Administration of PRP Oversight... .47
111. Public Involvement
3-17. Pilot Remedy Selection by Selected States and Tribes 49
3-18. Pilot Community Based Remedy Selection 50
3-19. Establish Superfund Ombudsman in Every Region 51
3-20. Improve Communication with Superfund Stakeholders 53
in
-------
Superfund Reforms
Round Two Reforms 55
I. Enforcement
2-1. PRP Search Pilots 55
2-2. Expedited Settlement Pilots .....57
2-3. The Allocation Pilots , 58
II. Economic Redevelopment
2-4.a. Brownfields Pilot Projects 61
2-4.b. Brownfields Community Outreach 63
2-4.c. Refining CERCLIS 64
2-4.d. Clarifying NPL Sites 65
2-4.e. Removing Liability Barriers: Prospective Purchaser Agreements (PPAs) 66
III. Community Involvement and Outreach
2-5.a. Community Advisory Groups (CAGs) 69
2-5.b. Technical Assistance Grants (TAGs) 71
2-6. Community Involvement in the Enforcement Process Pilots 73
IV. Environmental Justice
2-7.a. Training and Health Service Assistance to Communities 75
2-7.b. Superfund Jobs Training Initiative (Super JTI) 76
V. Consistent Program Implementation
2-8. Guidance for Remedy Selection 79
2-9.a. Risk Sharing: Implementing Innovative Technology 81
2-9.b. Risk Sharing: Identifying Obstacles to Using Innovative Technology 82
VI. State and Tribal Empowerment
2-10. Voluntary Cleanup Program 83
2-11. Integrated Federal/State/Tribal Site Management Program 84
2-12. State/Tribal Superfund Block Funding 85
IV
-------
nnua
l Report FY 1997
Introduction
I he Superfund program is fundamentally different. Since 1993, when
EPA announced the first round of reforms, the program has changed in
response to stakeholders concerns. Through the commitment of EPA, State
and Tribal site managers, other Federal agencies, private sector
representatives, and involved communities, we have achieved real results
protecting public health and the environment, while experimenting with
and instituting changes to the cleanup process through Superfund Reforms,
EPA's cleanups address real threats to public health and the environment,
and where possible, return sites to productive uses (see Figure I). The
reforms are taking hold, and we have put in place a faster, fairer and more
efficient Superfund program.
Figure 1: The Fort Devens NPL site in Worcester, MA, during and after Superfund
Cleanup. The top photograph was taken in February 1995 during cleanup opera-
tions. The bottom photos depict the U.S. Bureau of Prisons new hospital (left) and
the Gillette Corporation warehouse and distribution center (right)
which are part of the site redevelopment.
-------
"^^"'^^^ Superfund Reforms ^^^^^^«^^
Some indicators of the reforms success through September 30, 1997 include
the following:
» Increased the pace of cleanup and completed cleanup construction at
498 sites on the National Priorities List (NPL);
* Authorized responsible parties to perform or fund approximately 70%
of Superfund long-term cleanups, saving taxpayers, more than
$12 billion;
Removed over 15,000 small contributors from the liability system
* Achieved estimated public and private future cost reductions (savings)
of over $900 million; and,
* Evaluated and archived almost 30,500 sites from CERCLIS, the
national inventory of hazardous waste sites.
Measuring the Progress of Site Remediation
January 1993
367
380
Remedial
Assessment
Not Begun
nchrdes 25
sites with
Removal
Actions
Tor January 1993, tha Remedial A$5«ss^$ru Not Begun Category figure meludes sites with Remaval Actions.
'For FY97, total 1NPL sttes include eight sites that were referred to Another Authority,
Sourea: CERCUS
Figure 2
-------
Annual Report FY 1997
Pace of Cleanup is Accelerated
More Than Twice the Construction Completions in Five Years
500
400
g 300
| 200
I 10°
I 0
498
410 HH
" I I I I
FY 80-92 FY93 FY94 FY95 FY96 FY97
Fiscal Year
Figure 3
The reforms to Superfund, EPAs hazardous waste cleanup program, are
intended to improve the efficiency, pace, cost, and fairness of the program.
Figures 2 and3 show that EPA, through program reforms, achieved far more
cleanups in the last five years than in the first 12 years of the program. This
achievement is not isolated. Over 89 percent of the sites on the NPL have
cleanup underway or completed (see Figure 4), Many of these cleaned up
sites have been developed for commercial and other beneficial purposes
(see Figure 5).
The Superfund Reforms consist of various initiatives and pilots that are
being implemented within CERCLA's existing statutory framework. As EPA
continues to implement the Superfund reforms, we continue to appreciate
the flexibility this approach affords to improve the program.
The first round of Superfund Administrative Improvements, introduced in
June 1993, were described in a closeout report issued in February 1995
("Superfund Administrative Improvements Closeout Report," June 23,
1993 - September 30, 1994, OSWER, February 1995). These reforms
focused heavily on speeding up site investigation and construction
completion activities.
In February 1995, EPA introduced a second round of reforms, many of
which were structured around the principles embodied in the Clinton
Administration's Superfund reauthorization proposal in the 103rd Congress
(i.e., the Superfund Reform Act of 1994), The second round of reforms was
-------
Superfund Reforms
Cleanup Underway or Finished at Most Superfund Sites
89% of NPL Sites Have Cleanup Underway or Finished
NH (88%)
MA (86%)
Rl (100%)
CT (93%)
NJ (90%!
DE (89%)
Preliminary Fiscal Year FY97 Accomplishments
Does not inckido Federal FacNity or Proposed NPL Sites
November 1997
Figure 4
an effort to administratively test or implement many of the innovations
contained in the proposal through pilot projects as well as new or revised
Agency guidance. The 12 reforms contained in Round 2 encompass six
areas: enforcement, economic redevelopment, community involvement and
outreach, environmental justice, consistent program implementation, and
State empowerment,
In October 1995, EPA introduced the third and final round of Superfund
reforms. This round consisted of 20 reforms designed to make cost-effective
cleanup choices that protect public health and the environment, reduce
litigation and transaction costs, and insure that states and communities are
more informed and involved in cleanup decisions.
-------
Annual Report FY 1997
Figure $: Jock Nicklttus demonstrates his technique for chipping out of a black sand bunker, which uses
detoxified slag from a. former copper smelter. This was at the 1997 opening of Anaconda's Old Works
Golf Course, which Nicklaus designed on a portion of a National Priorities List site in Montana.
This report describes the continuing implementation and evaluation of the
second and third rounds of the Superfund Reforms through Fiscal Year
1997. The report is divided into three sections: 1) Reforms at a Glance,
2) Round 3 Reforms, and 3) Round 2 Reform Initiatives. The Reforms ar a
Glance section provides a quick overview of the major accomplishments as
well as the current status and projected completion dates for Rounds 3 and
2 Reforms. The remaining sections provide details on the Rounds 3 and 2
reforms including: the results, lessons learned, stakeholder comments and
suggestions, and EPA's evaluation of the reform, where appropriate.
-------
Supsrfund R e f a
r m s
-------
Annual Report FY 1997
Reforms at a Glance
Major Program Accornplishments-Fundamentally Different Superfund
Construction Completions (498by9/27/971
Archived Sites (30,454 as of 9/30/97)
De Minimis Parties Settled Out (over 15,000)
Brownfields Pilots (121 Pilots-awarded up to $200,000 per pilot)
Prospective Purchaser Agreements (68 agreements have been reached; 51 have been entered since
May 1995 Guidance)
This "Reforms at a Glance" section provides a quick reference tool that
summarizes the current status and future activities planned for each reform.
The reforms are separated into broad categories within Rounds 2 and 3,
including Cleanup, Enforcement, Public Involvement, Economic
Redevelopment, Community Outreach, Environmental Justice, Consistent
Implementation, and State and Tribal Empowerment. Implementation of
27 of the reforms is complete, while several others are nearing completion.
EPA has characterized 18 of the completed reforms as those designed to
fundamentally change the Superfund program, as opposed to simply
improving it. Completed reforms designed to fundamentally change the
Superfund are identified in the Status column as "Completed/Fundamental
Change."
The table's separate columns present easily accessible information for each
reform. The first column, "Reform," provides the title of the reform and, in
parenthesis, its number. The second column, "Status," describes each
reform's accomplishments through FY97. The bar under each reform
indicates its status whether the reform is still ongoing or completed.
"Completed" indicates that the major objectives of the reform have been
fulfilled, and future activity will consist mainly of continuing to implement
the reform (e.g., the reform called for a guidance document to be issued,
that guidance was issued, and future activity will consist of implementing
that guidance). The third column, "Next," lists future actions that will be
taken to implement the reform.
-------
Superfund Reforms
-------
Annual Report F Y 199
Reforms at a Glance ROUND 3
Reform
CLEANUPS
Status
Establish National Remedy
Review Board (NRRBJ (1A)
Establish New Remedy
Selection Management
Flags/Rules of Thumb (1B)
Update Remedy Decisions
at Select Sites (2)
Established Remedy Review
Board (11/95)
Issued memorandum and
fact sheet on Remedy
Review Board (9/96)
Issued annual progress
report (12/96)
Reviewed a total of 20 site
decisions saving an estimated
$31. 5 million (9/97)
Issued consolidated guide
to consultation procedures
forSuperfund response
decisions (5/97)
Issued guidance on rules of
thumb for Superfund
remedy selection (8/97)
Issued final
implementation
memorandum (9/96)
Estimated future cost
savings of over $360
million from updating
remedies at over 50 sites
in FY96
Revised estimated future
cost savings of over $360
million from updating
remedies at over 60 sites
in FY97
Updates are currently
underway at 35 additional
sites
Review cleanup decisions
at approximately 10 sites in
FY98
Implement
recommendations to refine
the scope and nature of the
Board's mission as well as
its implementation
procedures
Review non-time-critical
removal actions that meet
certain criteria
Implementation of this
reform is complete
EPA staff will continue to
use the consolidated guide
and guidance to improve
remedy selection process
Work with States and PRPs
to identify opportunities
for improving remedies
* Develop Regional Plans
specifying how each
Region will implement this
reform in FY98
Tabulate specific remedy
update data on a quarterly
Basis
-------
Superfund Reforms
Reform
Clarify the Role of Cost in
the Remedy Selection
Process J3A)
Directive on National
Consistency in Remedy
Selection (3B)
Clarify Information
Regarding Remedy
Selection Decisions (4)
Community Participation in
Designing Risk ' '
Assessments (5A)
PRP Performance of Risk
Assessments (5B)
Establish National Criteria
to R|an, Report and Review
Superfund Risk
Assessments (BA) ;
S t a t u s
Issued memorandum and
fact sheet on the role of
cost (9/96)
COMPLETED
Issued national
consistency memorandum
(9/96)
cOMf-icreo1
J
Developed interim remedy
selection summary sheet
(12/96)
Develop draft reference;: : .
document on good practice
Issued guidance clarifying
PRP role in risk
assessments (1/96)
\ c6MPi£TEO4HJMt>AMINTAl CHANGE. "
Drafted standard risk
assessment data reporting
tables (7/97)
Issued Technical Approach
to Risk Assessment for
planning reporting, and
reviewing risk
assessments (9/97)
Implementation of this
reform is complete
Implementation of this
reform Is complete
Prepare more
comprehensive guidance
for end of FY98
IssuS draft reference
document on good practice
in January 1998
Issue final document in
September 1998"
Survey Regions in FY98 to
determine if there are sites
where PRPs perform the
RI/FS but not the baseline
risk assessment
Issue Risk Assessment
Guidance for Superfund in
the second quarter of FY98
W
-------
Annual Report FY 1997
Reform
Standardize Risk
Assessments (6B)
Utilize Expert Workgroup
on Lead (6C)
Establish Lead Regulator
for Federal Facilities (7)
Consider Response Actions
Prior to NPL Listing (8)
Delete Clean Parcels from
the NPL (9)
S t a t u
Formed EPA Workgroups
(3/97)
Issued draft workplan
(3/97)
Initiated guidance
development (5/97}
Initiated planning for next
stakeholders meeting in
early 1998 (7/97)
Convened a national
conference on lead {10/96}
Drafted five issue papers
'(6/97)
J
Developed draft policy
Amended October 1992
NPL policy (4/97)
Issued notice on policy
change to allow partial
deletions (11/95)
Issued partial deletion
guidance (4/96)
Issued three notices of
intent and six final notices
to delete clean parcels
from the NPL (9/97)
Convene stakeholders
meeting in March 1998
Issue final guidance in
December 1998
Completed guidance
document(s) (12/97)
Finalize five issue1 papers
and issue a directive on
lead removal actions in
early FY98
EPA will complete imple-
mentation of reform with
signed policy on the single
regulator concept in FY98
Continue to collect
information and monitor
implementation of reform
Issue additional notices of
intent to delete clean
parcels
Pilot deletion of
remediated parcels at
closing military bases
11
-------
u p e
r f u n d /? e f o
r m s
Reform
Promote Risk-Based Priority
Setting at Federal Facility
Sites {10 A)
Promote Risk-Based Priority
for NPL Sites (10B»
Status
Developed draft guidance
Established National Risk-
Based Priority Panel to rank
sites based on risk (8/95)
Evaluated over 50 projects
during FY97 (8/97)
Issue final guidance in
second quarter of FY98
Continue review of cleanup
projects started in FY97
Reconvene panel {early
spring 1998}
ENFORCEMENT
Orphan Share
Compensation (11)
Site Specific Special
Accounts (12)
Offered over $100 million
in orphan share
compensation over the last
2 fiscal years
* Existence of orphan share
may be considered in
settlement of cost recovery
cases, as stated in the
Addendum to the "Interim
CERCLA Settlement
Policy", issued
September 30,1997
1;.:, COMBLETeoJ-WDAMEfjrAt.CHftN.g6. ^1
Reached agreement that
interest can accrue directly
to special accounts (6/96)
Through FY97, $52 million
in interest accrued from
$405 million principal in
93 special accounts
Continue to offer orphan
share compensation at
every eligible site under
the June 1996 Interim
Guidance on orphan share
compensation
As an outgrowth of this
reform, EPA is exploring
options for disbursing
these funds to PRPs to
perform future response
work
12
-------
Annual Report FY 1997
Reform
Unilateral Administrative
Orders (UAOJ Reform (13)
Revised De Micromis
Guidance (14)
Adopting Private Party
Allocations (15)
S t a t u s
Issued memorandum to
Regions directing changes
in procedures for UAO
issuance (8/96)
HQ personnel
independently review the
documentation prepared
by Regional staff and
determine consistency with
existing Agency policy,
including 8/96
memorandum
in multi-Agency MOD
(currently circulating for
signature) Federal
Resource Managers
receiving newly delegated
UAO authority commit to
comply with existing
Agency policies, including
this reform.
Issued de micromis
guidance and models in
which levels previously
identified for small party
protection were doubled,
and streamlined and
simplified the settlement
process (6/96)
Used allocations as basis
for settlement at several
sites (9/96)
Develop a directive
encouraging the inclusion
of De Micromis waivers in
CERCLA settlements
This reform was merged
with the orphan share
reform
13
-------
Superfund Reforms
Reform
Improving the
Administration of PRP
Oversight (16)
S t a t u
Issued directive on reducing
oversight (7/96)
Targeted reduced PRP
oversight at approximately
100 sites <9/96)
Initiated national
workgroup to implement
directive 0/97)
Met with external
stakeholders to get
feedback on
implementation of reform (5/97)
Organize meetings between
Regions and PRPs to discuss
oversight issues
Conduct site-specific
evaluations to assess reform
impacts
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
Pilot Remedy Selection by
Selected States and Tribes
(17)
Pilot Community-Based
Remedy Selection (18)
Establish Superfund
Ombudsman In Every
Region (19)
Improve Communication
with Superfund
Stakeholders (20)
Issued formal solicitation
for pilot sites (6/97)
Discussions on Regional
approaches ongoing
Appointed an ombudsman
in each Region
Convened annual
meetings (6/96 and 2/97)
Conducted ongoing public
outreach and mediation
training (2/97)
COMPIETEB/FUN&AMEWAL'CHANGS 1
Created Headquarters
Superfund homepage
(4/96)
Develop process and
procedures for new State
remedy pilots (11/97)
Collect information on
pilots, past and present,
with intent to publish
"lessons learned"
document
Continue to discuss
regional approaches to
community based remedy
selection throughout FY98
Conduct ongoing public
outreach
Convene annual meeting
Continue to post and revise
Superfund information on
EPA Superfund homepage
14
-------
Annual Report F Y 1997
Reforms at a Glance ROUND 2
Reform
ENFORCEMENT
Status
PRP Search Pilots (1)
Expedited Settlement
Pilots (2)
The Allocation Pilots (3J
Initiated Pilots at 15
Superfund sites
« Initiated pilots at 18
Superfund sites
rz:z:::°"~ ZI.' ^- -^]
Offered allocation process
at 12 sites; process being
piloted at 9 Superfund sites
Three allocation reports
issued
* One settlement lodged
* Two other sites settled
pre-allocation report
Pilots Done
Incorporate iessons
learned into the program
Issue comprehensive PRP
Search Guidance in FY98
Complete pilots
Incorporate lessons
learned into the program
Complete pilots
ECONOMIC
REDEVELOPMENT
Brownfields Pilot Projects
and Brownfields
community outreach (4A-B)
Awarded 121 pilots - up to
$200,000 per pilot (10/97)
Identify up to 100
assessment pilots in FY98
Initiate expansion of site
assessments
Select 10 Brownfields
Showcase Communities
Work with NIEHS to
coordinate minority
workers with pilot
activities
Continue outreach to
stakeholders and offer
technical assistance
15
-------
Superfund Reforms
Reform
Refining CERCLIS (4C)
Clarifying NPL Sites (4D)
Removing Liability Barriers:
PPAs (4E)
Status
Archived sites (30,454 as of
9/30/97)
Convened workgroup (5/95)
Workgroup recommended a
policy change to allow
partial deletions
Published Federal Register
notice (11/95)
Issued 4 guidance
documents providing
assurance to prospective
purchasers, lenders, and
property owners on
CERCLA liability (10/96)
Continue to archive sites
from CERCLIS
EPA announced a Round 3
Superfund Reform; Delete
Clean Parcels from NPL
Sites {Reform 3-9)
This completes
implementation of the
workgroup's
recommendation
Implementation of this
reform is complete
Continue using PPAs to
encourage redevelopment
of Superfund sites
COMMUNITY
INVOLVEMENT
AND OUTREACH
Community Advisory
Groups (5A)
Issued guidance summary
on use of CAGs 18/965
Issued case Studies of five
sites, "Community
Assistance Groups: Partners
in Decisions at Hazardous
Waste Sites" {11/96}
Established CAGs at 33 sites
<5/97)
Issued the CAG Toolkit one
of the most effective
mechanisms for implement-
ing the CAG program at
Superfund sites (8/97)
CQMPlETtO-
3
Continue to test CAG
Toolkits at various sites
Evaluate CAGs and
develop new methods to
promote and assist CAGs
16
-------
Annual Report F Y 1997
Reform
Technical Assistance Grants
(5B)
Community Involvement In
the Enforcement Process
Pilots (6)
S t a t u s
Drafted proposed TAG
regulation
Completed piloted i
activities at some of the
13: sites selected
Publish proposed TAG
regulation
Promote citizen
involvement by improving
TAGs and facilitating the
process
Publish provisions to the
TAG regulation in FY98
Continue to implement
enhanced community
involvement activities at
the remainder of the
selected sites. Also
implement most effective
activities outside the
scope of the pilot
Complete pilot
Incorporate lessons
learned into the program
ENVIRONMENTAL
JUSTICE
Training and Health Service
Assistance to Communities
(7 A)
Supeifuncl Jobs Training
Initiative (7B)
Targeted 4 sites for
assistance (9/97)
;Funded NIEHS minority
worker training programs
forFY97
EPA Superfund Jobs
Training Initiative started
five pilots at Superfund
sites
COWRETEC
Secure funding to finance
FY98 pilot projects
Continue to fund NIEHS
Continue to establish
SuperJTI pilots
17
-------
Superfund Reform
Reform
CONSISTENT
PROGRAM
IMPLEMENTATION
S t a t u
Guidance for Remedy
Selection {8)
Risk Sharing: Implementing
Innovative Technology (9A)
Risk Sharing: Identifying
Obstacles to Using
Innovative Technology {96}
Issued new land use directive
<5/95)
Issued final soil screening
guidance (5/96)
Issued a presumptive remedy
users guide for volatile organic
compounds in soils (7/96)
Issued additional
presumptive remedy
guidance for: wood treater
sites (12/95), MSW landfills at
military bases (4/96), and
ground water sites (10/96)
Issued supplemental bulletin
for multi-phase extraction
technology for the VOCs in
soils presumptive
remedy (4/97)
Prepare final guidance on
implementing the risk
sharing initiative (10/97)
Issued innovative
technologies in waste
management directive (4/96)
issue a supplemental
bulletin for multi-phase
extraction to assist site
managers using VOCs
presumptive remedy
Develop additional
bulletins to document time
and future cost reductions
Issue guidance for risk-
sharing initiative (2/98K
Engage State agencies In
this initiative through ITR'C
Implementation of this
reform is complete
18
-------
Annual Report F Y 1937
Reform
I tat us
STATE AND TRIBAL
EMPOWERMENT
Voluntary Cleanup Program
(10)
Integrated Federal/State/
Tribal Site Management
Program (11)
State/Tribal Superfund
Block Funding (12J
Decided preferred
approach is for EPA
Regions and States to
negotiate MOAs on a case-
by-case basis that can be
customized to better fit the
State's VCP and legislation
As of January 1998, EPA
has signed MOAs with
eleven states
issued final guidance on
deferral program (5/95)
Signed agreements with
12 States (8/97)
T T; OOM°IETED "~~
Nine State and three Tribal
pilots are underway
J
Agency anticipates
awarding up to $15 million
in cooperative agreements
to States in FY98
Evaluate review of State
deferrals and determine
appropriate followup
actions
Issue final report
documenting obstacles in
awarding and utilization of
Superfund resources (12/97)
Evaluate ongoing pilots in
FY98
19
-------
u p
e r f u n d R e f o
r m s
-------
Annual Report FY 1937
CLEANUPS
3-1.a. Establish National Remedy Review Board
The National Remedy Review Board's (the Board) goal is to promote cost effectiveness and
national consistency in remedy selection at Superfund sites. To accomplish this, the Board
analyzes proposed site-specific cleanup strategies to insure they are consistent with current law,
regulations, and guidance.
The Board has undergone
scrutiny by both private parties
and Congress, and reaction to
the Board's accomplishments to
date is generally positive. In
FY97, the Board reviewed eight
cleanup decisions. While the
effects of these reviews on
estimated cleanup costs are not
yet fully determined, EPA
estimates that the first FY97
reviews have saved
approximately $6 million in
estimated future cost reductions,
for a total Board savings of
over $31 million since 1996.
Regions have observed a wide
range of additional benefits
from the review process,
including improved national
consistency, clarity of decisions,
and cross-Regional
communication on key remedy
selection issues. Further, while
the Board is contributing to cost
effectiveness and consistency,
the reviews have generally
confirmed that Superfund
cleanup decisions are technically
sound and comply with
applicable regulations and
guidance.
Also in FY97, the Board
conducted an in-depth analysis
of its operating procedures, and
revised several key protocols
based on analysis of feedback
from concerned stakeholders.
Of particular note, the Board
raised the limit on technical
submissions from stakeholders
from five to ten pages, and
instituted procedures to review
high cost non-time-critical
removal actions.
BENEFITS
Improved national
consistency in
Superfund remedy
selection.
Improved remedy cost
effectiveness.
Confirmation of
technically sound
decision-making at high
cost sites.
Assurances that
decisions are in
accordance with
regulations and
guidance.
Results
The Board has reviewed
total of 20 cleanup
decisions, eight of these
were reviewed in FY9 7. So
far, it is estimated that FY97
reviews have saved
approximately $6 million
in estimated future cost
reductions, for a total Board
savings of over
$31 million.
Contacts
Bruce Means, OERR,
(703) 603-8815
Rich Morris, OERR,
(703)603-9053
SUCCESS
New Bedford Harbor Site
Massachusetts
Since last year's Annual Report several Regions have completed analyses of
the Board's comments. These have shown the significant benefit from the
Board's review. For example, the Board reviewed a cleanup decision for the
New Bedford Harbor site in Massachusetts. One of the Board's
recommendations was for the Region to assess whether their air monitoring
program was overly extensive, given the nature of the contaminants and
actions planned at the site. The Region subsequently reassessed the need for
continued monitoring of this nature. In so doing, the Region made
adjustments in the monitoring program, reducing the costs by approximately
$8,4 million,
21
-------
Superfund Reforms
Next Steps
Review cleanup decisions at
approximately 10 sites in
FY98
Implement refinements to
the Board's mission as well
as its implementation
procedures
Review non-time-critical
removal actions that meet
certain criteria
Stakeholder Comments
"The new National Remedy Review Board ("the
Board") is widely regarded as the flagship among
the 20 reforms announced on October 2, 1995."
- "EPA's Superfund Reforms: A Report on the First
Year of Implementation" Superfund Settlements
Project, December 1996 (pg.2)
3-1. b. Establish New Remedy Selection
Management Flags ("Rules-of-Thumb")
The goal of the rules-of-thumb initiative was to develop remedy selection rules that will promote
cost-effectiveness and flag potentially "controversial" cleanup decisions for senior management
review.
EPA developed
two products to
implement this
reform. The first
is a brief
guidance
document that
presents key
principles and
expectations that
should be
consulted during
the Superfund
remedy selection
process. These
r ules -of- thumb
correspond to
three major
policy areas in
the Superfund remedy
management; develop!
response actions. This
BENEFITS
Rules of Thumb for Remedy Selection
guidance was created to clearly
present key principles and
expectations that should be consulted
during the Superfund remedy
selection process.
A fact sheet was created to describe
management review procedures
employed by EPA to insure that
national remedy selection policies
and procedures are being
implemented.
The appropriate, consistent
application of national policy and
guidance helps to insure the
reasonableness, predictability, and
cost-effectiveness of decisions.
selection process: risk assessment and risk
ng remedial alternatives; and ground water
document is a comprehensive and easy-to-
Results
Since EPA posted Rules of
Thumb for Remedy Selection
guidance on its homepage
in October 1997, more
than 1,500 users have
accessed the document.
understand guide to Superfund
remedy selection policies and
guidance. The document gives
full citations for all referenced
material and explains how the
reader can obtain the more
detailed source documents
(NTIS Report Number PB97-
963301INZ). Gathering these
remedy selection rules-of-
(continued sea Remedy!
22
-------
Annual Report F Y 1997
Remedy continued...
thumb in one document will
aid in supporting our efforts to
promote these important
objectives.
The second product is a fact
sheet that describes
management review procedures
employed by EPA to insure that
national remedy selection
policies and procedures (as
outlined in the rules-of-thumb)
are being implemented in a
reasonable and appropriately
consistent manner.
Both documents are completed
and in use. They are available
from the National Technical
Information Service (NTIS) at
(703) 60S-6QGQ or federal
employees may obtain them
from the Superfund Docket at
(703) 603-9232. The Rules-of-
Thumb document is available
without charge on the
Superfund homepage. Both
documents are used as resource
tools by EPA staff when remedy
selection documents are
reviewed for appropriate
national consistency.
Next Steps
EPA staff will continue to use
these documents to improve
the remedy selection process
and to review remedy
selection documents for
national consistency.
Implementing of this reform
is complete.
Contact
Mike Goldstein, OERR,
(703) 603-9045
3-2. Update Remedy Decisions at Select Sites
EPA encourages the Regions to revisit remedy decisions at certain sites where significant new
scientific information, technological advancements, or other considerations will achieve the
current level of protectiveness of human health and the environment while enhancing overall
remedy effectiveness and cost effectiveness.
The Agency has always been
able to "update" or change the
details of a cleanup strategy to
reflect new information that
may not have been available at
the time of the original
decision, but this reform
institutionalized remedy updates
to encourage these cost-saving
measures. Typically, these
changes were made to reflect
new information about the
characteristics or volumes of
contamination present and/or
new expectations regarding the
performance of selected
technologies under site-specific
(continued see Decisions)
Results
During BY97, remedy updates of all types that achieved future
cost reductions resulted in a total estimated future cost
reduction of over $360 million at over 60 sites, (Note:
This figure does not include the DOE Hanford site which
updated a portion of the overall remedy based on value
engineering for an estimated cost savings of $297 million.)
Of the $360 million in cost reductions, over $270 million
resulted from updates of the kind identified in the Reform
guidance. Cumulative numbers for FY96 and FY97 (excluding
the Hanford site) show estimated cost savings of over
$725 million at approximately 120 sites nationwide.
Of the $725 million in cost reductions, approximately $597
million resulted from updates of the kind identified in the
Reform guidance. The Agency is gathering information
regarding changes in technology that improve remedy
performance at costs higher than those previously reported for
the original remedy in order to present the full picture of net
cost changes.
23
-------
Superfund Reforms
Decisions continued,..
conditions. Further, these
updates considered the
implications of these factors on
original decision criteria such as
implementability, short-term
effectiveness, and cost or
community acceptance.
Updates also were made to
reflect changes in State
requirements (i.e., ARARs), or
other information that could
not have been considered in the
original decision. Once a
Regional manager decides to
undertake such changes, there
are specific requirements for
public or other stakeholder
involvement depending on the
nature and significance of the
anticipated change.
The Update Remedy Reform
was included in the third round
of Superfund reforms and was
undertaken specifically to
encourage appropriate changes
Next Steps
Headquarters will
continue to work with the
Regions on
implementation of this
reform. Headquarters has
requested each Region to
explain their strategy for
implementing the reform
during FY98. Also,
specific remedy update
data will be tabulated on
a quarterly basis.
in response to advances in
remediation science and
technology. Reform guidance
(OSWER Directive: 9200.2-22)
targeted the following three
types of changes, but
recognized that other types of
changes may be appropriate as
well: 1) changes in the
remediation technology
employed, where a different
technology would result in a
more cost-effective cleanup;
2) modification of the
remediation objectives due to
physical limitations posed by
site conditions or the nature of
the contamination; and,
3) modification of die monitoring
program to reduce sampling,
analysis, and reporting
requirements, where
appropriate. This reform
recognized that recent advances
in the area of ground water
science and remediation made
these types of decisions good
Contact
Matt Charsky, OERR,
(703)603-8777
candidates for updates.
It is important to emphasize that
this initiative does not signal
any changes in Agency policies
regarding site cleanup,
including policies regarding
remedy selection, treatment of
principal threats, preference for
permanence, establishment of
cleanup levels, waivers of
cleanup levels, or the degree to
which remedies must protect
human health and the
environment.
BENEFITS
This reform has been
very successful in
bringing past decisions
in line with current
science and technology.
By doing so, these
updates improve the
cost-effectiveness of site
remediation while
ensuring reliable short-
and long-term
protection of human
health and the
environment. The
quantifiable results of
this reform have been
announced in EPA's
testimony before
Congress, private
industry evaluations of
Superfund reforms, and
a report of the U.S.
General Accounting
Office. Of additional
note is EPA's
overwhelmingly positive
record of responding to
remedy update requests
made by outside parties.
24
-------
Annual Report FY 1997
SUCCESS!
Western Point Processing Site,
Kent, Washington
At the Western Processing site in Washington, the ground water portion of the
original remedy (valued at approximately $200 million) was modified to reflect
new information gained from remedy implementation. As a result of
information collected during operation of the pump and treat remedy, the
Region determined that the remedy could be significantly enhanced by
extending the existing containment barrier and by automating the pumping
system. These changes also will greatly reduce the volume of ground water
pumped and also will reduce the monitoring and sampling costs. These
changes also are fully consistent with EPA's recent guidance for remediating
ground water. Accordingly, an Explanation of Significant Differences !ESD} was
signed to implement the changes. Estimated costs of the modified remedy will
be approximately $118 million, resulting in overall reductions in remedy costs
of $82 million.
A, 0, Polymer Site
Sparta Township, Hem Jersey
At the A. O. Polymer site in New Jersey, the original ground water remedy
included pumping and treating with powdered activated carbon followed by
fiitration and carbon polishing to achieve State maximum contaminant levels,
at a cost of approximately $19 million. Through a request to revise the
treatment system by a potentially responsible party (PRP), EPA and New Jersey
reviewed the data and granted the request to update the ground water
treatment system to air stripping at a cost of approximately $10 miilion.
Additional future cost reductions will be realized through refining the capture
zone of the pumping system and by reducing pumping volumes. An ESO was
signed to implement these changes, which EPA estimates will result in a
reduction in remedy costs of over $9 million.
Norwood PCB Site,
Norwood, Massachusetts
At the Norwood PCB site in Massachusetts, the original soil remedy called for
on-site solvent extraction (an innovative technology) at costs estimated at
slightly over $13 million in 1989, but which had increased to over $54 million by
1995. Difficulties in locating solvent extraction facilities due to space
constraints and safety issues were encountered in the pre-design phase. From
1989 to 1995, EPA reexamined the risk-based site cleanup goals based on
revisions to human health and ecological risk calculations and clarified the
reasonably anticipated future land use for the site. Based on the new site
information obtained from this reexamination (together with data showing that
ail treatment technologies evaluated in the original remedy could not be
implemented due to limited space), an alternate approach of consolidation was
developed. The Record of Decision (ROD) amendment was signed updating
the soil remedy to consolidation under an impermeable asphalt cap which
could facilitate future site development at a cost of just over $7 million. EPA
estimates this amendment will result in overall reductions in cost of
approximately $47 million.
Metamora Site,
Metamora, Michigan
At the Metamora site in Michigan, the original soil remedy called for excavation
and incineration of co-mingled soils at a cost of approximately $70 million.
Additional soil characterization during remedy implementation showed that
materials previously categorized as "principal threats," for which treatment is
strongly preferred, were in actuality "low level threats," for which containment
is generally acceptable. EPA reviewed and approved a request made by a PRP
to reconsider the threat posed by soil. A ROD amendment was signed which
updated the remedy to consolidation of sorts into an on-site landfill at a cost of
approximately $42 million. The future cost reduction of over $28 million
resulted from improved understanding of the nature of the soil contamination
and is consistent with policy expectations regarding treatment of principal
threats or containment of low-level threats.
25
-------
Superfuntf Reforms
Stakeholder Comments
In the Chemical Manufacturers Association's Report, "A Chemical
Industry Perspective on EPA's Superfund Administrative Reforms,"
April 1997, the following quotes were made:
"Of the five reforms covered in this report, the updating of previ-
ous RODs reform generated the most positive comments, both from
PRPs and from EPA (pg. 15);"
"In sum, this reform has produced the greatest tangible benefits of
any of EPA's Superfund administrative reforms (pg. 18);"
"PRPs confirm that some remedies are being updated and that
additional petitions to update remedies are pending (pg. 15};" and,
"Of all of the EPA reforms announced in October, 1995, this is the
one that has produced the most tangible results (pg.17)."
Reform Evaluation
Althelkgh EPA has conducted-some reviews of the-reform, EPA has not conducted a formal
evaluation of remedy updates. EPA does gather Regional-'remedy update information on a
quarterly basis, incorporates this information into a database for tracking, and shares this
information among all ten-Regions, Congress, and outside parties.
26
-------
Annual Report FY 1997
3-3,a. Clarify the Role of Cost in the Remedy
Selection Process
The objective of this reform is to clarify the current role of cost as established in existing law,
regulation, and policy.
To implement this reform, EPA developed a fact sheet explaining
EPA policy in this area. This fact sheet does not elevate or establish
a new role for cost in the Superfund program, but rather
summarizes the current role of cost in the Superfund program as
established by CERCLA, the National Contingency Plan (NCP), and
current guidance,
EPA issued the fact sheet on September 10, 1996. It is entitled,
"The Role of Cost in the Superfund Remedy Selection Process"
(OSWER Directive 920Q.3-23FS) and is available through the
National Technical Information Service (NTIS) at (703) 605-6000
and the Superfund Document Center. The document currently is
used as a resource tool by EPA staff
when remedy selection documents are reviewed for appropriate
national consistency.
Results
The current role of cost in
the Superfund program has
been summarized in a fact
sheet.
Since this fact sheet was
posted on the Superfund
homepage in December,
1996, over 1,000 users
have accessed the
document.
BENEFITS
Through the distribution of this fact sheet, EPA hopes to
insure that all stakeholders involved in the Superfund
process fully understand the important role of cost in remedy
selection under existing law and policy and recent initiatives
aimed at enhancing the cost-effectiveness of remedial
actions.
Next Steps
EPA staff will continue to use this fact
sheet to improve the remedy selection
process and to review remedy selection
documents for national consistency;
however, implementation of this reform is
complete.
Contact
Mike Goldstein, OERR,
(703) 603-9045
27
-------
Superfund Reform
3-3,b, Directive on National Consistency in
Remedy Selection
This directive emphasizes the critical importance of maintaining appropriate national consistency
in the Superfund remedy selection process, and requests that program managers make full use
of existing tools and consultation opportunities to promote such consistency.
The implementation of this
reform has been completed.
EPA issued the Directive entitled,
"National Consistency in
Superfund Remedy Selection"
on September 25, 1996. This
directive emphasizes the critical
importance of maintaining
appropriate national consistency
in the Superfund remedy
selection process and requests
that program managers make
full use of existing tools and
consultation opportunities to
promote such consistency. In
particular, this memorandum
identifies a range of efforts that
support national consistency in
remedy selection and
encourages informed discussion
of cross-cutting issues.
EPA Headquarters staff continue
to review all proposed plans and
RODs to promote appropriate
national consistency in
Superfund remedy selection
decision-making. In addition,
cross-regional management and
technical review workgroups
have been established to
promote communication and
national consistency. The review'
procedures and consultation
requirements are outlined in a
fact sheet entitled "Consolidated
Guide to Consultation
Procedures for Superfund
Response Decisions" (OSWER
Directive 9200.1 -18FS).
Contact
Bruce Means, OERR,
(703) 603-8815
Results
Cross-regional management
and technical review
workgroups have been
established to promote
communication and national
consistency.
BENEFITS
This directive sends a
clear and distinct
message that nationally
consistent remedy
selection decision-making
is very important to EPA.
Next Steps
* Implementation of this
reform is complete.
3-4,
Clarify Information Regarding Remedy
Selection Decisions
The goal of this initiative was to design a tool for clearly presenting, in a standardized format,
the context, basis, and rationale for site-specific Superfund remedy selection decisions.
EPA developed a draft remedy
selection summary sheet in
December 1996. Due to
comments received on this draft
document, the summary sheet
will remain an interim draft
document and will not be
finalized. Instead, EPA has
decided to incorporate this
product into a broader
document that provides
guidance on preparing
Superfund decision documents
(including the Proposed Plan,
{continued see Clarify)
28
-------
Annual Report F Y 1997
Clarity continued...
ROD, Explanation of Significant
Differences, and the ROD
Amendment). Anticipated
completion of this more
comprehensive guidance
document is the end of FY98.
In addition, the December 1996
version of the summary sheet
continues to be used by the
National Remedy Review Board
as a standard format for
presenting key remedy selection
information for discussion,
Contact
Mike Goldstein, OERR,
(703) 603-904S
Next Steps
Completion of guidance on preparing Superfund decision
documents is anticipated by the end of FY98.
The December 1996 version of the summary sheet continues to
be used by the National Remedy Review Board as a standard
format for presenting key remedy selection information
discussion.
BENEFITS
A standard format for documenting remedy
selection decisions will allow EPA to evaluate
Superfund remedy selection decision-making and
communicate this information to the public in a
consistent manner.
3-5.a, Community Participation In Designing
Risk Assessments
This initiative will create a concise, helpful, user-friendly reference that will provide risk assessors
and community members with suggestions for working together in designing and carrying out
good risk assessments. The objective of this initiative is to promote public participation in the
risk assessment process.
A key element of the design of a risk assessment should be a
meaningful consideration of the issues and concerns that the
community has about the risks posed by the site. People who live
and work near a Superfund site not only deserve to be informed and
involved, but are likely to have knowledge and insights that would be
helpful in planning and conducting a site-specific risk assessment.
The result of this reform will be a concise, helpful, user-friendly
reference that will provide risk assessors and community members
with suggestions for working together in designing and carrying out
good risk assessments. The first draft reference document was
completed in September 1997.
BENEFITS
Increases public participation in risk
assessments, which should result in better
risk management decisions.
Results
In February 1997 EPA
formed a work group to
develop the reference
document. A draft of the
reference document is
now being circulated
within EPA for
comments. In January
1998 a revised draft will
be provided for review
to over 200
representatives of
community groups, state
and local governments,
and industry.
29
-------
Superfund Reforms
SUCCESS!
Risk Assessment Training
Region 1, in cooperation with Missouri's Department of Health and Department
of Natural Resources, presented risk assessment training to the local
community at Big River NPL site and other historic lead mining sites in
Missouri's St. Francois County. The training will enable the community to
participate in the risk decision-making and iay the ground work for later
participation in the response action decision-making stage.
Next Steps
* The final risk assessment
reference document is
scheduled for September 1998.
Contact
Bruce Engelbert, OERR,
(703) 603-8711
3-5.b, PRP Performance of Risk Assessments
This initiative reaffirms EPA's commitment to authorize potentially responsible parties (PRPs) to
perform risk assessments under the proper circumstances.
BENEFITS
Makes the cleanup
process more efficient
Decreases the time
needed for conducting an
Rl/FS
Improves communication
between EPA and PRPs
Gives PRPs a greater role
in characterizing site risks
Reduces EPA's oversight
requirements
On January 26, 1996, OSWER
Directive 9340.1-02 announced
EPA's revised policy of allowing
PRPs to conduct risk
assessments at most sites where
they are also performing an RI/
FS. The Directive listed six
criteria that the Regions are to
consider when deciding
whether or not to authorize
PRPs to perform a risk
assessment. The new policy also
removed the previous
Stakeholder Comments
"This [PRPs performing risk assessments] is a
welcome development: EPA has over the years
changed its mind about whether PRPs may perform
risk assessments."
- CIV1A Report "A Chemical Industry Perspective on
EPA's Superfund Administrative Reforms (p.23).
requirement for the Regions to
consult with Headquarters
before authorizing a PRP to
conduct the risk assessment. I
Next Steps
Survey Regions in FY98 to
determine if there are sites
where PRPs perform the
RI/FS but not the baseline risk
assessment.
Contact
Stephen Ells, OERR,
(703) 603-8822
R e f o f m
E v a I u a 11 p n
Reform to be evaluated to
determine PRP involvement
in risk assessment.
30
-------
Annual Report FY 1997
3-6,a, Establish National Criteria on
Superfund Risk Assessments
The Agency has prepared draft documents to help insure that risk assessments are consistent
and reasonable.
The Agency has prepared draft
documents outlining technical
approaches to planning and
reviewing risk assessments, and
standardizing risk assessment
data reporting tables, EPA also
has established a workgroup of
Headquarters and Regional
representatives to review and
revise these drafts and produce
final guidance. The workgroup
has completed revisions to these
documents.
This reform will establish
national criteria for the Regions
to plan, report, and review
Superfund risk assessments. EPA
Next Steps
The workgroup is presenting its work as "Risk Assessment
Guidance for Superfund: Human Health Evaluation Manual
(Part D, Standardized Planning, Reporting, and Review of
Superfund Risk Assessments)." It expects to have the
publication available on the Internet and through the National
Technical Information Service (NTIS) in the second quarter of
FY98.
is issuing guidance to insure
that risk assessments: 1) are
well-scoped and well designed;
2) use a standardized
presentation format; and 3) are
easier to review by Superfund
risk assessors. These
improvements will help to
promote clarity and consistency
in the development of risk
assessments and facilitate
decision-making for response
actions at Superfund sites. The
workgroup has completed a
preliminary review of the
outlined technical approach and
the standardized risk assessment
data reporting tables,
Results
EPA issued draft
standard risk assessment
data reporting tables in
July 1996. Comments
have been received and
are being addressed
by EPA.
EPA established a
workgroup of
Headquarters and
Regional representatives
to review and revise the
drafts of the outlined
technical approach and
the standardized risk
assessment data
reporting tables and to
produce final guidance.
To date, the workgroup
has completed revisions
to these documents.
SUCCESS!
Data Reporting Tables
EPA's draft standard risk assessment data reporting tables have been developed
as electronic spreadsheet templates that provide clear, consistent and
transparent risk data presentations. The tables provide the summary-level risk
data that must be entered into CERCLIS 3 now the table data can be
electronically transferred to CERLC1S 3, omitting the need for data reentry.
Contact
Jim Konz, OERR,
(703)603-8841
31
-------
Superfund Reforms
BENEFITS
* Established national criteria for the Regions to plan, report, and review Superfund risk
assessments;
Insures that risk assessments: are well-scoped and well designed; use a standardized
presentation format; and are easier to review by Superfund risk assessors; and
Promotes clarity and consistency in the development of risk assessments and facilitating
decision-making for response actions at Superfund sites.
3-6,b, Standardizing Risk Assessments
This initiative will improve current national Superfund risk assessment guidance by selectively
updating the 1989 Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund (RAGS).
Throughout 1996, EPA met
with various stakeholders
groups lo solicit Ideas for
improvements to RAGS. This
outreach effort culminated in
two large stakeholders forums
convened by the International
City/County Managers
Association (ICMA) on October
29-3 1, 1996, in San Francisco,
CA and on November 6-8,
199 6, in Washington, D.C. At
the forums, stakeholders
identified key areas where
improvement is needed and
offered suggestions to improve
RAGS. The forums also gave
stakeholders an opportunity for
dialogue with EPA and other
interested groups on a variety of
Superfund issues. ICMA
prepared meeting proceedings,
which were mailed out to the
forum participants.
EPA identified four key issues to
address:
» Community Involve-
ment in the Risk Assess-
ment Process
Land Use Considerations
Establishing Background
for Risk Assessment
Purposes, and
Uncertainty / Probabi-
listic Analysis.
EPA selected these topics based
on input received by the
Agency's own risk assessors and
managers as well as from
stakeholders in the Superfund
process.
Results
EPA has created
workgroups, with
representatives from both
Headquarters and the
Regions, to address the four
issues. These workgroups
are exploring ideas and
options to be included in
future guidance documents.
Contact
Sherri Clark, OERR,
(703) 603-9043
32
-------
Annual Report F Y 1997
Next Steps
ICMA is planning to
convene a follow up
meeting (scheduled for
March 2-4, 1998, in
Atlanta, Georgia) to
discuss drafts of the
guidance documents.
(Drafts of the workgroup
products will be
available prior to the
next stakeholders
forum.) This will be an
opportunity for EPA to
discuss with the
stakeholders the science
and the policies involved
in the four issue areas as
the Agency develops the
guidance documents.
Final guidance will be
issued in December 1998
Stakeholder Comments
Generally, the stakeholders thought the forums
were a useful first step in initiating dialogue about
the Reform. They especially liked the breakout
sessions where they could talk in small groups
about Superfund risk assessment issues.
"I was impressed that people from very diverse
perspectives / affiliations could come together in
small groups and leave behind their preconcieved
notions and positions to constructively discuss
problems amd reach solutions."
(Attendee at DC forum from a non-profit organization.)
BENEFITS
Improves current Risk Assessment
Guidance for Superfund to insure quality,
consistency and reliability.
Insures greater community involvement in
designing risk assessments by providing for
stakeholder input.
3-6,c. Utilize Expert Workgroup on Lead
This initiative utilizes an expert workgroup to standardize risk assessment approaches for lead-
contaminated Superfund sites. The workgroup is comprised of technical staff from EPA Regions,
OERR Headquarters, the Office of Research and Development (ORD), and other EPA programs.
EPA has established an expert workgroup to promote
consistent application of the best science for risk
assessment approaches for lead-contaminated Superfund
sites. Lead contamination poses significant problems
because it is common at Superfund sites, can affect
neurological development in children, and is prevalent
in economically disadvantaged and minority-populated
areas.
(continued see Lead!
Results
In FY97, the TRW developed short
sheets, fact sheets, and issue papers on
key parameters for lead risk
assessment; posted a homepage;
reviewed lead risk assessments at six
sites throughout the country; and
developed lead tools.
-------
Superfund Reforms
Lead continued...
The Technical Review
Workgroup (TRW, an Agency
workgroup of experts in lead
toxicity and exposure
assessment) provides
information and advice to
Regional risk assessors and site
managers on a wide range of
issues pertaining to lead
contamination, but generally
focuses on sites with complex
or national precedent setting
lead issues.
This initiative links and expands
existing efforts that support lead
risk assessment and policy. The
workgroup is responsible for
information collection and
distribution, analysis of key
issues, providing feedback to the
Regions, and networking on
lead issues. The goals of this
initiative are to provide
scientifically sound information
pertaining to the similarities
and differences in Regional
approaches to lead risk
assessment (and the uses of
these assessments); and to create
a forum for site managers and
senior managers to discuss
alternative risk assessment
approaches.
BENEFITS
The TRW participated in more
than 20 conference calls and
two face-to-face meetings in
FY97; developed short sheets,
fact sheets, and issue papers on
key parameters for lead risk
assessment; created and posted a
TRW homepage on the Internet;
and reviewed lead risk
assessments at six sites
throughout the country. The
TRW conducted an independent
validation and verification
(IV&V) of the Integrated
Exposure Uptake Biokinetic
(IEUBK) Lead model. In
addition, the Adult Lead
Subcommittee of the TRW has
developed a lead exposure risk
assessment tool (spreadsheet
model) for assessing risks in
adult females for the protection
of the fetus, EPA has issued two
guidance documents that
provide recommendations for
conducting lead risk
assessments: "Recommendations
of the Technical Review
Workgroup for Lead for an
Interim Approach to Assessing
Risks Associated with Adult
Exposures to Lead in Soil"
(December 1996), and "Revised
Interim Soil Lead (Pb) Guidance
SUCCESS!
Site-Specific Assessments
The Technical Review Workgroup (TRW) reviewed data on bioavailability, lead
speciation in the environment, and lead ingestion inputs at several sites. TRW
analysis of risk assessments influenced cleanup decisions at the following
sites: the Palmerton Zinc site in Carbon County, Pennsylvania; the California
Gulch site, in LeadviHe, Colorado; the Remington Arms site in Bridgeport,
Connecticut; the Sandy Smelter site in Sandy, Utah; the Greenbay Paint
Sludge site in Michigan; and the Jack's Creek site in Maitland, Pennsylvania,
Helps to insure that lead
risk assessments are
conducted consistently at
sites across the U.S.
Provides a national forum
for sharing the best
available scientific
information and exploring
the state of the science for
evaluating the risks due to
lead contamination.
Addresses site-specific
concerns pertaining to the
application of the 1EUBK
model and helps to
evaluate risks to citizens
(especially children) living
in proximity to lead
contaminated sites.
Develops, reviews, and
provides analytical tools
for lead risk assessments.
TRW Homepage
http://www.epa. gov/superfund/oerr/ini_pro/lead/tblwelc.htm
for CERCLA Sites and RCRA
Corrective Action Facilities"
(August 1994). Copies of these
documents may be viewed and
downloaded at:
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/
oerr/ini_pro/lead/
Next Steps
EPA plans to issue a Directive on
Lead Removal Actions early in
FY98.
Contacts
PatVanLeeuwen, Region 5,
(312)886-4904
Paul White, ORD,
(202) 260-2589
Larry Z?.ragoza, OERPv,
(703) 603-886/
34
-------
Annual Report FY 1997
SUCCESS
Facility Reviews
The TRW conducted a review of the Internal Revenue Service Day Care Facility in Washington, DC.
State Assistance
The TRW assisted the State of Ohio in creating the "Voluntary Action Program Support Document for the Development
of General Numerical Standards and Risk Assessment Procedures;" advised the State of Georgia Voluntary Action
Program on the correct methodology for applying the Adult Lead Model; and provided general recommendations for
soil-to-dust ratios to the State of Washington.
Information Hotline
The TRW staffs a hotline and also responds to requests via email. In FY97, the TRW responded to 12 questions
concerning the IEUBK model or other related issues and supplied TRW documents to 19 requestors. Additionally, the
TRW homepage was visited over 700 times within a month of being posted.
3-7, Establish Lead Regulator at Federal
Facilities
EPA developed guidance to establish a lead regulator at sites undergoing cleanup activities under
competing Federal and State authorities to eliminate overlap and duplication of oversight efforts.
A Federal facility cleanup may
be governed by multiple
authorities, e.g., Superfund, the
Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA), and/or
State laws. Although Federal and
State agencies involved in a
cleanup share the same goals of
protecting human health and
the environment, their
processes, and even cleanup
standards, may be different. In
addition, the overlapping
authorities may be duplicative
and use resources inefficiently.
Establishing clearly defined roles
for regulators at Federal facilities
will help simplify the cleanup
process as well as provide for
more efficient staffing.
To meet this goal, EPA
developed a policy that
promotes the single regulator
concept, defines roles, and
outlines the general principles
and guidelines that Federal and
State partners should assume in
overseeing cleanup responses.
The policy was developed by
EPA with the advice of an
interagency workgroup, that
included States' input.
Results
Some Regions have been
able to implement this
concept in advance of
issuance of the policy.
Regions 4, 8, and 10 have
made considerable
progress negotiating
agreements with Federal
agencies and States that
designate a single
regulator with lead
oversight responsibilities.
-------
Superfund Reforms
SUCCESS
Milestones
Region 4 plans to continue to work with the States to establish lead regulator
responsibility for all Department of Energy (DOE) and Department of Defense
(DOD) sites.
In July 1996, Region 8 finalized their Rocky Flats Cleanup Agreement with DOE
and Colorado, which adopted the lead regulator concept.
Since October 1994, Region 10 has had an agreement in place with the State of
Washington that divides the si?able Federal facility workload between EPA and
the State.
Regions 5 and 6 have been working with Ohio and Texas respectively to
implement similar agreements.
Re for m Evaluation
Upon: completion of the policy, Headquarters closed the
interagency workgroup (underway since fall 1995) which
included EPA Regions, Federal agencies, and State
representatives.
Contact
Helena King, FFRRO,
(202) 260-5033
Next Steps
The Agency will
distribute the signed
policy to EPA Regions
and States in FY98.
EPA will continue using
the single regulator
concept at sites.
BENEFITS
Establishes clearly
defined roles for
regulators at Federal
facilities which aids in
simplifying the cleanup
process as well as
providing for more
efficient staffing,
Reduces duplicative
efforts and inefficient
use of resources.
Piomotes cooperation
between, Headquarters,
Regions, and States.
3-8, Consider Response Actions Prior to NPL
Listing
This reform will provide greater flexibility to the current National Priorities Listing (NPL) policy
for evaluating the impact of completed removals on the Hazard Ranking System (HRS) score by
allowing post-Site Inspection ("post-Si") completed removals to be considered in HRS scoring.
Based on experiences from
applying the current NPL policy,
the Agency recognized that
some post-Si removal actions
can substantially address the
threat to human health and the
environment, and should be
considered up to the time of
NPL listing. Therefore, as a
means of encouraging early
response actions, especially by
private parties, when setting
priorities for the NPL, EPA can
now consider certain post-Si
removal completions (removals
completed before the site is
(continued see Response Actions}
36
-------
Annual Report F Y 1997
Response Actions continued...
proposed to the NPL) in
preparing HRS scoring packages.
This reform only applies where
the Region has documentation
that clearly demonstrates there
is no remaining release, or
potential for a release, that could
cause adverse environmental or
human health impacts.
Otherwise, the removed waste
should be counted in the HRS
waste quantity value calculation.
If the site's HRS score drops
below 28.5 as a result of these
changes, and if all cost recovery
activities have been addressed,
the Region may proceed with
archiving the site from the
Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and
Liability Information System
(CERCLIS).The extent to which
EPA applies this policy will
depend on the facts of each
case.
BENEFITS
Next Steps
Reflects the Agency's
priorities for listing only
those sites adversely
impacting human health
and the environment.
Reduces the Agency and
private sector legal/
transaction costs
associated with the listing
and subsequent process.
Continue to collect
information and monitor
implementation of reform,
The extent to which EPA
applies this policy will
depend on the facts of each
case.
Contact
Tim Gill, OERR,
(703) 603-8856
3-9
Delete Clean Parcels from the NPL
EPA will delete portions of sites from the NPL that have been cleaned up and are available for
productive use.
Listing a property on the NPL
may affect the value of that
property and the surrounding
-whether or not all of rhe
area-
property or adjacent property is
contaminated. As a component
of its Redevelopment Initiative,
EPA is developing a program that
provides the Regions with the
flexibility to clarify the areas of
{continued see Parcels/
Results
The partial deletion guidance was signed and sent to the
Regions on April 30, 1996 (OSWER Directive 9320.2-11). This
guidance does not outline partial deletion procedures because
they are the same as deletion procedures for total site deletion.
At the end of FY97, Regions 3, 4, 6 and 10 reported six sites
with partial deletions and three sites with published Notices of
Intent to Partially Delete.
37
-------
Super/and Reforms
BENEFITS
Parcels continued...
Maps and tracks partial
deletions at NPL sites to
better portray the
Agency's successes.
Facilitates redevelopment
of uncontaminated
portions of sites.
Next Steps
Issue additional notes of
intent to delete clean parcels
Pilot deletion of remediated
parcels at closing military
bases
sites determined to be
contaminated or uncontaminated.
This program facilitates the
transfer, development, or
redevelopment of
uncontaminated portions of sites.
Another product of this
initiative is an EPA guidance
document outlining the
procedures for issuing
assurances, followup
consultation, and coordination
concerning areas of sites that are
not contaminated. As part of
this initiative, EPA has developed
tools such as "Soil Screening
Guidance" to identify portions
of sites that do not warrant
Federal attention. In addition,
EPA is considering, on a pilot
basis, deletion of remediated
parcels of a closing military base
that is listed on the NPL so that
the parcels may be returned to
productive use. I
Contact
Terry Keidan, OERR,
(703) 603-8852
SUCCESS!
Commencement Bay Nearshore
Tideflats Tacoma, Washington
Cleanup progress in several areas of the site eliminated the threat to public
health or the environment and allowed EPA Region 10 to publish a Notice of
Intent to Delete in the August 28, 1996, Federal Register. The first partial site
deletion was completed on October 29, 1996, Several of the deleted parcels
have potential for commercial uses, (see diagram)
Areas Proposed for D« listing
38
-------
Annual Report FY 1997
3-10,a. Promote Risk-Based Priority Setting
at Federal Facility Sites
Headquarters is developing draft guidance for the Regions which will address the role of risk and
other factors (e.g., cost, community concerns, environmental justice, and cultural considerations)
in setting priorities at Federal facility sites.
Risk-based priority setting
guidance will address DOD and
DOE approaches in evaluating
risks at sites, and the appropriate
role of stakeholders in the
process of setting priorities.
Headquarters has received
extensive comments from EPA
staff, other Federal agencies, and
States on the draft priority
setting guidance. The guidance
has been rewritten based on
Next Steps
* EPA will issue final guidance
in the second quarter of FY98,
these comments and will be
redistributed to the Regions for
a final review and comment. A
final guidance is expected to be
issued by the second quarter of
FY98. Regions are
implementing the concept of
risk-based priority setting at
Federal facility sites.
Contacts
JimWoolford. FFRRO,
(202) 260-1606
Remi Langum, FFRRO
(202) 260-2457
BENEFITS
This guidance will
incorporate several
issues of interest to
various stakeholders. It
will address the role of
risk and other factors
{e.g., cost, community
concerns, environmental
justice, and cultural
considerations) in setting
priorities at Federal
facility sites.
3-10,b. Promote Risk-Based Priority for NPL
Sites
EPA has established a National Risk-Based Priority Panel to evaluate the risk at NPL sites with
respect to human health and the environment. These evaluations are used to establish funding
priorities.
In August 1995, EPA established
a National Risk-Based Priority
Panel of program experts
representing all 10 Regions and
Headquarters, to evaluate the
relative risk associated with
projects eligible for funding.
(continued see Risk)
Results
During FY97, the Panel evaluated over SO projects, and of
these, 35 projects totaling over $185 million were
funded in accordance with their recommendations.
Unfunded projects will carry over to FY98.
The panel has ranked Over $1 billion in cleanup projects
since its inception.
-------
Superfund Reforms
Risk continued,,.
The panel uses the following
criteria to evaluate projects:
« Risks to humans;
Ecological risks;
Stability of
contaminants;
Contaminant
characteristics; and
economic, social, and
program management
considerations. I
Next Steps
BENEFITS
Due to changing conditions at
certain sites, some projects
will carry over to FY98. In
such instances, critical
removal actions, or the
completion of enforcement
agreements also might
initiate new project actions.
The panel will reconvene in
early spring 1998.
Contact
John J, Smith, OERR,
(703) 603-8802
Process employs risk as
a primary criteria to
establish funding
priority.
Projects are funded (with
the exception of
emergencies and the
most critical removal
actions) in priority order
based on Pane!
evaluations.
Je f o r m E v a I u a 11 o n
The Panel met in October 1997 to rank new projects ready for funding in FY9.8, Once the"
FY98 operating plan is completed and. approved, funding for new projects will commence.
-------
Annual Report F Y 1997
ENFORCEMENT
3-11. Orphan Share Compensation
The Orphan Share Compensation Administrative Reform, announced in October 1995, is
intended to provide greater fairness, reduce litigation, (and promote faster cleanup of Superfund
sites). The reform accomplishes these goals by compensating parties who perform cleanups for
a portion of cleanup costs (the Agency allocates) to orphan shares. EPA continues to offer
orphan share compensation at every eligible site under the 1996 interim guidance.
Results
During FY97, the Agency offered more than $53 million in orphan share compensation at
20 sites across the United States. These figures reflect some new applications of the policy
consistent with the principles articulated in the orphan share policy. Offers of compensation
range from $38,524 to $ IS million, with an average of over $2.5 million per site. Twelve of
the offers were equal to 25 percent of estimated RD/RA or removal costs, three were equal to
past and future oversight costs, and five constituted the entire orphan share.
An orphan share is the financial
responsibility assigned to a
potentially liable party who is
insolvent or defunct, and
unaffiliated with other viable
liable PRPs. Providing
compensation for orphan shares
creates a major incentive for
responsible parties to agree to
perform cleanups and settle
claims without litigation, and
reduces transaction costs by
wholly or partly resolving the
question of who should bear
the burden of orphan shares.
The "Interim Guidance on
Orphan Share Compensation for
Settlors of Remedial Design/
Remedial Action and Non-Time
Critical Removals," issued in
June 1996, accomplishes these
goals in a manner that preserves
the limited resources of the
Trust Fund.
Under the June 1996 policy, the
Agency compensates parties
who agree to perform a
remedial action or non-time-
critical removal at a NPL site, for
some or all of the costs
specifically attributable to
insolvent or defunct PRPs.
Compensation can be up to 25
percent of the response costs or
total past and future oversight
costs, whichever is less, but
. cannot exceed the estimated
orphan share.
In September 1997, EPA and the
Department of Justice expanded
the orphan share reform. The
September 30, 1997, policy
statement entitled "Addendum
to the Interim CERCLA
Settlement Policy' Issued on
December 5, 1994" describes
factors for the government to
consider when deciding
whether and how much to
compromise a cost recovery
claim based on the existence of
a significant orphan share. In
addition, the addendum
provides that where there is a
significant orphan share in a
cost recovery case, the orphan
share may be considered as an
"inequity" or "aggravating
factor" within the meaning of
the "Interim CERCLA Settlement
Policy," and justifies EPA's
recovery of less than 100
percent of response costs. The
Agency will consider, on a case-
by-case basis, cost recovery
settlement offers which provide
a compromise 'based on an
orphan share.
{continued see Orphan!
41
-------
Superfund Reforms
Orphan continued*..
Because of this increased flexibility,
parties who wish to submit private
party allocations may do so in the
context of either work or cost
recovery settlement negotiations,
thereby obviating the need for the
Agency to maintain, as a separate
reform, the Adopting Private Party
Allocations Reform announced in
October 1995.
BENEFITS
By providing more than $100 million in orphan
share compensation in the last two fiscal years,
EPA greatly reduced the burden of requiring
financially viable and cooperative settlors to bear
the entire cost of orphan shares. In addition, this
compensation creates incentives for viable parties
to perform cleanups and reduces the time required
to complete settlement negotiations.
SUCCESS!
Operating Industries, Inc. Landfill (Oil),
Monterey Park, California
In FY97, EPA offered orphan share compensation in-the amount of $15 million
to 270 major potentially responsible parties associated with.the Operating
Industries, Inc. Landfill site. The offer is conditioned'uporj the parties'
commitment to conduct the remaining cleanup activities at the:site. The total
cost of cleanup activities at the site is estimated at $217 million. The
settlement offer would compensate settling parties'.for'the entire amount of.
the orphan share if a, settlement to perform work is'reached::
Interstate Lead Company Superfund Sjte
IILCO), ,>,fe
Leeds, Alabama *^
In FY97, EPA entered into a settlement with 20 financially viable generators for '
site cleanup valuacTat $59.4 million, and reimbursement of $1.8 million of $16.6
million in outstanding response costs. As part of the settlement, EPA
compromised'$14.8 million in outstanding response'costs, or 25 percent of the
estimated remedy cost. This compromise was basedJon EPA's offer in FY96f o
compensatersettnng'work parties in recognition of the orphan share. ~
42
-------
Annual Report FY 1997
Re f o r m Evaluation
The orphan share reform is a fundamental and permanent change in EPA's enforcement process.
The reform mitigates the effect of joint and several liability where responsible parties absorb costs
attributable to insolvent or defunct parties. While joint arid several liability continues to be an
integral part of the Superfund liability system, the reform rewards those parties who are willing to
settle with the United States,. '
Contact
Deniz Ergener, OSRE,
' . : - , (202)564-4233
3-12, Site
e e i a I Accounts
In October 1995, EPA announced its intention to encourage greater use of Special Accounts for
settlement funds to be used for future response actions at Superfund sites and to insure that
interest earned by Special Accounts can be credited to these accounts and be available for future
response actions at the site for which the Special Account was established.
In October 1996, OMB
approved EPA's methodology for
calculating Special Account
interest. In late October 1996,
EPA sent a memorandum to the
Regions outlining die
agreement with OMB, providing
principal and interest balances
in Special Accounts, and
providing directions on how to
request these funds. In February
1997, EPA updated and
supplemented its 1996
guidance to the Regions.
Throughout 1997, EPA worked
to insure that its Regions
(program, counsel and finance
offices) understood how to
create and use Special Accounts.
EPA is working on financial
guidance to supplement the
general program guidance
issued in FY96 and FY97. EPA
is also developing guidance on
the disbursement of Special
Account funds to parties
conducting site response
actions.
SUCCESS
Cherokee County Superfund Site
Cherokee County, Kansas
Special Account funds in the amount of $2.25 million will be used to conduct
future work at the site, including groundwater and surface water remediation,
soil cleanup, and public water supplies.
Jasper County Superfund Site
Jasper County, Missouri
Special Account funds in the amount of $5.9 million will be used to conduct
future work at the site, which may include public water supplies and/or
individual water treatment units; surface water remediation; and engineering
controls.
Results
In FY97, the Regions
established 34 Special
Accounts, with a total
cumulative balance of $7S
million. At the conclusion of
the FY97, a total of 93 Special
Accounts had been established
by EPA. The total balance of
funds available in Special
Accounts is $405 million,
representing $353 million in
principal and $52 million in
interest (interest through
September 30, 1997).
Contact
Filomena Chau, OSRE,
(202) 564-4124
43
-------
Superfund Reforms
3-13. Uni
Administrative Orders (UAO) Reform
In FY97, EPA expanded and continued to implement its reform relating to equitable issuance of
CERCLA section 106 unilateral administrative orders {UAOs). This reform is designed to insure
that UAOs are issued to all appropriate parties following consideration of the adequacy of
evidence of the party's liability, their financial viability, and their contribution to the site. To
achieve this goal, the reform established several different documentation requirements,
including documentation of staff's reasons for proposing to exclude a party from an order and
documentation of the rationale for not issuing an order to a late-identified PRP. The
documentation requirement relating to excluded parties was phased in, applying initially
(In FY96) only to orders for RD/RA and, in FY97, extended to all UAOs, including UAOs for
removals and RI/FSs. ,
Approximately two-thirds of the
60 UAOs issued in FY97
excluded certain parties from
the order, A Headquarters team
reviewed the documentation
prepared by Regional staff to
justify the exclusion of these
parties. Although as of
January 1998 the HQ team's
review was not yet entirely
complete, the team's
preliminary conclusion is that
orders have been issued to all
appropriate parties, and that the
reasons cited for excluding
certain PRPs from UAOs were
generally consistent with
existing Agency policy. In most
cases, the excluded parties were
not financially viable or had
only contributed relatively
minor amounts of waste to the
site. For example, EPA Region 3
issued a UAO to two parties for
cleanup of the Spelter Smelter
Site in Spelter, West Virginia, and
excluded three other PRPs
because they were not
financially viable. Similarly, at
the Operating Industries, Inc.
Site in Monterey Park,
California, EPA Region 9
justified the exclusion of
numerous parties on the basis
that they had only
contributed de minimis
amounts of waste to the site.
In some cases, parties were
excluded because the
government did not yet have
sufficient evidence to
establish a particular party's
liability.
One of the reform's
documentation requirements
involves situations where
Regional staff propose not to
issue UAOs to late-identified
PRPs. While the Agency
continues to face difficulty in
readily tracking these
situations via CERCLIS, the
EPA Regions demonstrated
the spirit of this requirement
by issuing participate-and-
cooperate orders in at least
five cases during FY97,
Results
During FY97, 60 UAOs
were issued pursuant to
CERCLA section 106. For
roughly a third of these
orders, the UAO was issued
to all parties connected to
the site. For the rest, an
EPA HQ team has
independently reviewed the
relevant documents and
preliminarily concluded
that the reasons cited for
exclusion were generally
consistent with Agency
policy.
Contact
Mike Northridge, OSRE,
(202) 564-4263
SUCCESS!
Carolawn Site
Fort Lawn, South Carolina
in FY97, EPA Region IV issued a UAO to all 24 PRPs identified at the site.
American Allied Additives Site
Cleveland, Ohio
In FY97, EPA Region V issued a UAO to 14 parties and, one month later,
amended the order to include the only other two parties connected to the site.
44
-------
Annual Report FY 1997
Reform Evaluation
The Agency expects that insuring the equitable issuance of UAOs will ultimately increase the
likelihood of settlements and reduce private party litigation. To date, EPA has not undertaken any
significant effort to quantitatively measure the reform's impact on settlements or private party
litigation. However, there is some anecdotal evidence suggesting that stakeholders perceive ,;
positive impacts resulting from this reform, for example, some PRP representatives have .
reported that they have detected a positive change in Regional attitudes since the announcement
of this reform, indicating an increased willingness to issue UAOs to larger numbers of PRPs.
3-14, Revised De Micromis Guidance
For very small volume waste contributors at Superfund sites, i.e., de micromis contributors, the
cost of legal and other representation services may actually exceed a party's settlement share of
response costs. If private parties threaten suit against these very small contributors, EPA enters
into settlements providing contribution protection. This reform is intended to further
discourage third party contribution litigation against de micromis parties, and where necessary,
EPA will resolve de micromis parties' liability concerns quickly and fairly.
In June 1996, EPA revised its de
micromis guidance by doubling
the level previously identified
for de micromis protection. The
revised guidance recommends
cutoffs for eligibility at:
1) 0.002 percent (of total
volume) or 110 gallons/
200 pounds of materials
containing hazardous
substances, whichever is
greater; or
2) 0.2 percent of total
volume, where a
contributor sent only
municipal solid waste
(MSW).
If a de micromis party is
threatened with litigation by
private parties, EPA will settle
Cherokee Oil Resources Site
Charlotte, North Carolina
EPA entered Into de minimis settlements with over 200
small parties, and another round of de minimis settlements
Is planned for the site. In an agreement reached with the
major and de minimis contributors, they waived their rights
to pursue over 1,000 de micromis parties.
with that SUCCESS
party for $0
in a
settlement
agreement
that protects
such parties
from
further litigation.
Another vehicle for protecting
de micromis parties is through
the use of waivers in our
settlement agreements. This
method can be less resource
intensive than actually
developing de micromis
settlements for those parties that
are threatened with lawsuits. De
micromis waiver language was
developed in the 1995 RD/RA
model consent decree, which
states that settling parties waive
their contribution rights against
de micromis parties. The Office
of Site Remediation
Enforcement plans to develop a
directive to promote the use of
de micromis waivers in
settlement agreements to insure
that major parties do not pursue
these small parties.
45
-------
Superfund Reforms
SUCCESS
Raymark Industries
Stratford, Connecticut
The U.S. Government and the State of Connecticut
protected homeowners living nearthe Raymark facility, from
a "third party" lawsuit brought against them by the
company. Under the settlement, 58 homeowners whose
property was contaminated with hazardous waste from the
Raymark plant will each pay one dollar and will be shielded
from third party claims Raymark brought against them in an
attempt to recover the costs of cleaning up the
contamination from its plant.
Contact
Victoria van Roden, OSRE,
(202) 564-4268
3-16. Improving the Administration of PRP
Oversight
This reform seeks to maximize the effectiveness and efficiency of EPA oversight of potentially
responsible parties (PRPs) through the enhancement of EPA's working relationships with these
parties. EPA is focusing its effort toward PRPs whom the Agency considers to be capable and
cooperative pursuant to earlier guidance issued under this reform.
As the Superfund program has matured, parties have developed
considerable experience in conducting response activities at sites.
Some not only have used this experience to perform high quality
work, but also have cooperated with EPA throughout the cleanup
and enforcement processes. In recognition of this development,
and to promote further cooperation, EPA issued a directive on
July 31, 1996 (OSWER Directive 9200.4-15), on "Reducing
Federal Oversight at Superfund Sites with Cooperative and Capable
Parties." This Directive encourages Regions to seek opportunities to
reduce oversight at sites having cooperative and capable PRPs,
while ensuring that the protectiveness of the remedies is
maintained and the concerns of communities are addressed. The
guidance also provides criteria for the Regions to consider when
determining whether a PRP is cooperative and capable (and thus
eligible for reduced oversight) and provides examples of reduced
oversight. During FY97, a national EPA work group was initiated to
put the guidance into practice. The reform has been reoriented to
consider broader concerns with respect to administering PRP
oversight, namely improving working relationships with PRPs
through better communication of oversight expectations,
identifying opportunities to improve oversight efficiencies, and
improving billing practices. For FY97, EPA Regional Offices were
requested to identify NPL sites with capable and cooperative PRPs
and inform these PRPs of EPA's efforts to control or reduce the level
and associated costs of oversight at their sites.
Results
In FY96,100 Sites were
tentatively identified as being
eligible for the reform. As the
reform has progressed sites
originally identified were
deleted and others added. EPA
Regions sent letters to PRPs at
sites to inform them of Agency
efforts to control or reduce
oversight costs during FY97.
BENEFITS
Reduces project
completion time as well
as EPA and PRP costs
Fosters cooperation
among parties, facilitating
successful project
completion and
encouraging similar
interactions among
parties at other sites
46
-------
Annual Report FY 1997
Next Steps
For FY98, the focus of the
PRP oversight administrative
reform will be to implement
practices that achieve or
enhance effective and
efficient working
relationships with capable
and cooperative PRPs,
During FY98, Regions will
meet with participating PRPs
to provide information on
planned oversight activities,
discuss potential future
oversight costs, review
oversight activities of the
previous billing period, and
discuss timely payment for
oversight costs incurred, as
appropriate.
SUCCESS!
Clave Reber Site,
Sorrento, Louisiana
EPA Region 6 achieved a cost savings of $500,000 in 1996 by switching to the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for oversight instead of using a private
contractor.
Rusto'd/North Tasoma Site,
Washington
By reducing the number of split samples taken, frequency of site visits, and
comparative data analyses, EPA Region 10 saved nearly $700,000 in oversight
costs between 1994 and 1996.
Schuylkill Metals Corporation Site,
Plant City, Florida
By limiting field oversight, EPA Region 4 has incurred less than half of the
oversight costs originally anticipated in 1993, for a savings of over $80,000.
Pristine inc. Site,
Reading, Ohio
Since 1996, EPA Region 5 has saved roughly $250,000 a year through the
reduction of contractor support for oversight.
Stakeholder Comments
In May 1997, the national EPA workgroup hosted a
meeting with industry representatives to discuss
opportunities to control costs. EPA Regions 1, 2, 3,
and 5 have hosted similar meetings.
- Comments following the May 1997
National Meeting
"We [industry] like the idea of meeting
and discussing oversight expectations with ERA.
Receiving cost information and getting bills on time
also helps us plan and budget our oversight
expenses. We'd like to get a sense of the baseline
value of oversight costs against which to compare
oversight costs at our own sites."
- Rachel Deming, Remediation Counsel,
Ciba Specialty Chemicals Corporation
Reform
Evaluation
.EPA intends to conduct
site-specific evaluations to
'assess the impacts of the
reform at sites that
participate in -die reform
during FY9 8.
Contacts
AlanYoukeles, OERR,
(703) 603-8784
Chad Littleton, OSRE,
(202) 564-6064
47
-------
u p
e r f u n d Reforms
48
-------
Annual Report FY 1997
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
3-17, Pilot Remedy Selection by Selected States
and Tribes
The goal of this reform is to provide States and Tribes with an increased role in remedy selection
at NPL sites when possible.
Under this Pilot, ERA. and selected States or Tribes (hereafter, States)
enter into agreements through which participating States would
agree to conduct the remedy selection process, consistent with
applicable law and regulations, at certain NPL sites. Using remedy
selection pilots, participating States will supervise the remedy
selection process with minimal EPA oversight or involvement. This
would give the States or Tribes significantly more control than usual
over other NPL site cleanups.
Results
Pilots were solicited in June
1997. Regions 1,2,6, 7,
and 10 now have pilots
underway.
BENEFITS
This initiative will
provide experience
with empowering
States and Tribes to
select remedies and
will reduce the need
for EPA oversight in
remedy selection.
Concepts & Lessons Learned
The national workgroup has developed criteria
and a process to select new pilots, monitor and
assess the results.
Next Steps
* Encourage additional
Regions to start pilot
programs.
Reform Evaluation
Information collection will begin in the first
quarter of FY9$, to the extent possible, on
. past and ongoing pilots with the ultimate
goal of publishing "lessons learned", fox these :
pilots. Progress,and isstie.monitoring will
occur on a quarterly task. '' "_ - -
Contact
Sharon Frey, OERR,
(703) 603-8817
49
-------
Superfund Reform
3-18
ot Community Based Remedy Selection
This initiative is based on the theory that consensus-based approaches to remedy selection, and
collaborative partnerships involving community stakeholders, can lead to remedies that better
satisfy the community, while still meeting statutory and regulatory requirements. The output
from this initiative will be a compendium of useful experiences, approaches, and techniques for
fostering community participation.
This initiative is intended to
promote greater public
involvement in the Superfund
program, especially during
remedy selection. The effort
involves exploring the use of
more consensus-based
approaches that involve
community stakeholders. The
theory is that collaborative
partnerships can lead to
remedies that better satisfy the
community, while still meeting
statutory and regulatory
requirements. The output from
this initiative will be a
compendium of useful
experiences, approaches and
techniques for fostering
community participation.
One of the best ways to increase
citizen participation is through
establishing and nurturing
community advisory groups
(CAGs). A CAG is made up of
representatives of diverse
community interests. Its
purpose is to provide a public
forum to consider cleanup-
related issues and to work with
EPA to address community
needs and concerns with respect
to the response. Ideally, the CAG
and EPA will develop an
effective partnership that will
result in the community having
meaningful influence on site
cleanup decisions.
Next Steps
Continue to discuss regional
approaches to community
based remedy selection
throughout FY98.
Contact
Bruce Engelbert, OERR,
703-603-8711
BENEFITS
Helps increase
awareness among
Superfund response
personnel of their
responsibilities for
working with citizens
affected by the cleanup
and the importance of
including community
values and concerns in
response decision-
making.
SUCCESS!
Overall Success
Last year's report highlighted the success of public participation at the Lower
East Fork Poplar Creek site in Oak Ridga, Tennessee. Community support for
changes to the remedy resulted in estimated future cost reductions
(cleanup savings! of S160 million. Efforts to increase the community's
involvement in the cleanup process also have payed positive dividends at
sites in Jasper County, Missouri, and Leadvilfe, Colorado. Although in each
case the'circumstances were different, as were the methods used, the
outcomes were enhanced because the public felt included.
Oronogo-Duenweg Site,
Jasper County, Missouri
At the Oronogo-Duenweg site in Jasper County, the remedial project manager
developed a close rapport with the site's CAG, This led to the award of a
$200,000 grant to the community to develop an environmental master plan
which served as the basis for the institutional controls adopted as part of the
site remedy.
California Gulch Site,
Leadville, Colorado
At the California Gulch site in Leadville, Colorado, the community's outright
hostility to EPA and the cleanup was completely turned around after EPA
invested a considerable amount of time listening to the concerns being
expressed by citizens and then worked with them to come up with mutually
acceptable solutions.
50
-------
Annual Report FY 1997
3,19. Establish Superfund Ombudsman in Every Region
The goal of this initiative was to place an Ombudsman in each Region to serve as a point of
contact for the public and help resolve stakeholder concerns. It was undertaken by a joint
Headquarters/Regional workgroup.
Headquarters and the Regions
were equal partners in the
development of the mission
statement, position description,
process description, and
implementation and evaluation
plans for this reform. The
Regions have adapted the
generic products to meet their
needs, thus allowing for
Regional variation but retaining
national consistency. On June 4,
1996, EPA Administrator Carol
Browner announced that all 10
Regions had nominated
Ombudsmen by the prescribed
date of March 31, 1996.
The responsibilities of the
Superfund Regional
Ombudsman include resolving
concerns and providing
information and guidance. The
Superfund Regional
Ombudsman (RO) can also
assist staff members to set tie or
prevent problems with
stakeholders. While helping the
public, the RO can also identify
sites requiring cleanups, assist in
the Brownfields area, address
environmental justice (EJ)
issues, identify criminal cases
and find methods to improve
processes,
In FY97 the Region 2 RO
received 175 requests for
assistance with 83 of them
being received over the last four
months. This compares with
nine calls for the same period in
FY96. This was due to both the
increase in publicity of the
available services and to
customer satisfaction.
Ninety-five of the calls were
requests for general, program
and technical information.
Approximately 66 requests from
professional environmental and
media personnel were referred
to others for response. Where
possible, responses to the other
109 stakeholders requiring
individual attention were made
by the RO directly. There were
80 requests for general and site
specific assistance. Of these, 44
requests involved 26 NPL and
non-NPL sites.
Since most stakeholders cannot
distinguish between Superfund
and other programs, the RO
responded to all stakeholders*
public health and environmental
concerns. This resulted in an
increase in EPA s rating with our
stakeholders. To be more
responsive to stakeholders, the
RO responds directly where
possible. This not only provides
quick answers, but also assists
the Region's technical staff by
saving them time and not
Results
Regions have developed
new outreach tools,
toll-free numbers for use
by stakeholders and new
processes to facilitate
resolution of issues.
In Region 2, the volume of
calls increased dramatically
as a result of an aggressive
stakeholder advertising
campaign. The
Ombudsman has resolved
96 percent of the cases,
with 5 5 percent resolved
within 24 hours.
interrupting them. In FY97, the
RO responded directly to 109
(62 percent) of the cases. Many
calls from concerned citizens
involved health related problems
dealing .with their homes for
which they could not obtain
answers. Besides providing
answers to their problems, the
RO was usually able to alleviate
their concerns and fears.
Region 3 placed a priority on
developing the infrastructure
needed to support a Superfund
Ombudsman program. The
(continued see Ombudsman)
51
-------
Superfund Reforms
Ombudsman continued...
Region developed a mission
statement, principles of
operation, a position
description, performance
standards, and placed Ombudsman
information on the Hazardous
Waste Management Division's
homepage on the Internet,
The Region 3 Ombudsman
has averaged about two calls
per week; the calls can be
handled very quickly,
generally within 24 hours.
The Region 7 Ombudsman
handles approximately three
issues per month. Most issues
(more than 80 percent) are
minor, i.e., are resolved with
two or three simple actions.
Approximately 50 percent are
non-Superfund matters. The
Ombudsman contacts the
appropriate staff from across
the Region to respond with
the correct information in a
timely manner. While Region
7 has had few complaints
overall, the Ombudsman has
also counseled Superfund
branch chiefs and staff on
how to handle some of the
more difficult complaints.
During FY97, the Region 9
Ombudsman received 15
requests for assistance, three
of which are still pending at
the end of the fiscal year. Five
of these requests were for
general information, five
reported an environmental
problem (one of which
turned out to be a major
BENEFITS
Makes the Superfund
program more
responsive to the
community and
increases EPA's overall
rating with
stakeholders.
pesticide site requiring
emergency response), one was a
criminal case outside the
authority of the Ombudsman,
two were from individuals
dissatisfied with EPA actions,
and two were from individuals
not getting response from
anyone about their
environmental problem. In the
two cases where people were
dissatisfied with In Region 9s
response, the situations related
to the amount of money the
individuals were receiving as
compensation for a cleanup.
One case has been resolved
satisfactorily; the other is still
pending.
Next Steps
Conduct ongoing public
outreach and convene the
annual meeting.
Contacts
Kim Fletcher, OERR,
(703) 603-8922
Jack Winder, OSRE,
(202) 564-4292
SUCCESS!
Drake Chemjcal Site,
Lockhaven, Pennsylvania
The Ombudsman's support on this case has included gathering information on
alleged hazardous waste sites in the Lock Havan area, and meeting with the
Lock Haven Environmental Advisory Committee to offer assistance.
Rayionsr Pulp Mill,
Port Angeles, Washington
Stakeholders requested the assistance of the Regional Ombudsman to help
them address concerns associated with the closing of this pulp mill and
associated landfill sites which were used to dispose of mill wastes. Region 10
now has a site team In place, consisting of an OSC (who is providing limited
oversight of the mill demolition), two site assessment managers who are
responsible for the Preliminary Assessments (PA), and a community
involvement coordinator who is working closely with the state, local
authorities, citizens, environmental groups, and interested Congressional staff.
Commencement Bay/Nearshore Tideflats
Superfund Site
Tacoma, Washington; Hylebos Waterway
The Region 10 Ombudsman received a request from a PRP to look into the
decision-making process to insure adequate involvement of interested parties
outside of EPA. The Ombudsman worked with the site team (remedial project
manager and community involvement coordinator) to respond to the request,
which resulted in the addition of a significant public invoivement component to
the decision-making process. When citizens expressed concerns about site
cleanup levels and inquired about "appealing" the'decision, the Ombudsman
worked with the group to identify future opportunities for their involvement in
the cleanup, and provided information about CERCLA and their rights to
dispute such decisions.
52
-------
Annual Report FY 1997
^^^W^^^^^MM^^^^^^^«^^^B^^^^M^^H^^^^MM«^^^^^H^M!^^^
3-20. Improve Communication with Superfund
Stakeholders
EPA is using electronic tools, such as the Internet, multimedia computers, and other electronic
means, to increase communication among all Superfund stakeholders and improve access to
Superfund information.
The EPA National Superfund
website has been
comprehensively redesigned to
make it easier for the public to
access and find Superfund
program information - 13 top-
level buttons emphasize the
public outreach focus of this
website, with categories such as
"What is Superfund," "Site
Information," "Community
Tools," "Superfund for Kids,"
"Technical Resources," and
"Regional Programs". A key
new feature to be added in early
1998 is the on-line querying of
Superfund data.
All EPA Regional offices have
developed homepages which
include information on
Regional Superfund programs,
such as Superfund site lists, site-
specific information, and links
to state Superfund activities. Of
note during 1997, the Regional
Superfund Internet workgroup
coordinated the dissemination
of information on the National
and Regional Superfund
websites. For example, the
Regions have prime
responsibility for the Superfund
site fact sheets on the Internet
such as a comprehensive list of
National Priorities List (NPL)
site summary fact sheets in
Regions 2 and 4. Region 3 also
has included Superfund site-
specific information on its
website and is in the process of
posting site-remediation
photographs. The Region 5
Superfund website includes
comprehensive links to
Superfund success stories, NPL
sites, and Record of Decision
(ROD) information. It also
features an emergency hotline
and a "Kids and Superfund"
button. Regions 6,7, and 8 all
profile Superfund site status
summaries/fact sheets with
Region 6 also featuring
information on the Brownfields
program. Region 9 is piloting a
format to present a full range of
information and documentation
on its Superfund sites. Finally,
Region 10's site information
includes geographic
information system (GIS) maps
for some of its key sites and
an emphasis on providing
information in different formats
to meet varying customer
needs.
Next Steps
Continue to post and revise
Superfund information on
EPA Superfund homepage.
Results
Since October 1996, more
than 100,000 users
have accessed the
Superfund homepage.
Superfund information that
once cost 1785 under FOIA
is now available
immediately for little or no
cost on the Internet.
Stakeholder Comments
"The revamped site
provides an impressive
quantity of data and links
that ought to satisfy most
environmental law junkies'
craving for Superfund
knowledge. Although the
information available is
comprehensive enough to
make the site useful to
environmental profession-
als, it is presented in a way
that is understandable to
the layman."
- "EPA Refreshes
Superfund Website,"
Envirobiz, April 3,1997.
53
-------
Superfund Reforms
BENE FITS
Makes Superfund
information available to
the public on an
immediate low-cost
continuing basis.
Contacts
Carolyn OfFutt. OERR,
(703) 603-8797
Stakeholder Comments
"The most comprehensive website concerning
Superfund is the USEPA Superfund Homepage. The EPA
Superfund Homepage provides extensive information on
all aspects of Superfund in a format designed for envi-
ronmental professionals, local officials, and the general
public. Almost any Internet research for Superfund
information should begin with the EPA Superfund
Homepage."
- Paper titled, "Superfund Resources on the Internet,"
published for the HazWaste World/Superfund XVIII
conference in December 1997.
Reform Evaluation
The Superfund website (WWW.epa.gpv/superfund) was significantly revised in March 1997, to
facilitate access by-stakeholders to Superfund information,'This reform has dramatically increased
rhe amount and speed of Superfund program information available to the public and OEER's
ability to respond to inquiries from the public on Superfund issues. The'reform Itself is considered
complete, although the Superfund website is continually being improved and new material is
being added. OERR's focus 'during 1998 will be to "build oui" the Superfund website by offering
new and more varied types-of Superfund program information (for example, on-line querying of
Superfund site data).
-------
Annual Report FY 1997
ENFORCEMENT
2- 1
PRP Search Pilots
The primary goal of the PRP search pilots was to determine whether the time line proposed in
the Super-fund Reform Act (SRA) of 1994 (H.R. 4916,103rd Congress) can be accomplished
through completion of early PRP Searches, In addition, EPA piloted several techniques
developed to streamline and improve the PRP Search process.
In the Spring of 1995,15 candidate sites were identified where PRP searches had just begun or
were about to be initiated. To test the relevant provisions contained in SRA, each pilot site was
set up to conform as nearly as possible to a time frame that would lead to notification of
potential de minimis parties within 12 months after the search start and notification of all
other parties within 18 months after the search start. Additionally, each pilot tested one or
more streamlining techniques identified during a national PRP search conference.
Piloted streamlining techniques included; exploring the use of radio announcements,
newspaper advertising, and toll free telephone numbers to solicit information about PRPs from
the public; conducting early interviews of parties to obtain information and minimize the need
for multiple rounds of information requests; and establishing a publicly available repository for
PRP Search information, to assist PRPs in identifying other PRPs earlier in the enforcement
process.
PRP searches at the 15 piloted sites varied widely in their duration
and scope, resulting from variation in site size, the number of PRPs,
nature and extent of contamination, available documentation, and
level of state involvement.
None of the 13 sites that had potential de minimis parties notified
those parties within 12 months of the search start date. Five sites
made the 18 month deadline for notifying all other parties within
18 months of the.search start date. Today's Superfund enforcement
program must be supported by a PRP search program that
incorporates today's enforcement goals thorough investigation,
identification of all parties, and greater involvement of PRPs in the
PRP search. The results of the PRP search pilots, as well as previous
PRP search improvement efforts and evaluations, serve as a building
block for EPA's efforts currently underway to enhance PRP searches.
The national PRP Search Enhancement Team (Team) was formed
by Office of Site Remediation Enforcement (OSRE) in early 1997.
The Team has worked closely with regional PRP search staff to
identify, develop and prioritize a number of tasks designed to
support and promote an enhanced PRP search process.
BENEFITS
Several streamlining
techniques were found to
be beneficial and improved
PRP searches. At one site,
use of the new model
information request letter
was instrumental in
identifying 150 additional
parties early in the search
process. At another site, an
early interview led to
valuable information about
other parties, and assisted
in a better understanding of
business practices
contributing to
contamination of that site.
Also, the use of a publicly
available repository for PRP
search information was very
helpful in providing
valuable information to
PRPs and a local community
group, and led to
nomination of additional
parties earlier in the search
process.
-------
^^^^^^^""""""i Superfund Reforms ^^^^^i^^^Bum*mmm*mmmmm
Tlirough mid-199 8, the Team and regions will perform a number of tasks, including the following:
» Sponsor a national PRP Search Enhancement Conference
* Develop a national enforcement network to facilitate information sharing efforts
Develop fact sheets and checklists to assist regional search staff on subjects such as:
* Parameters for PRP Involvement in PRP Searches
Corporate Successor/Parent-Subsidiary Issues
Qn-Line Resources for PRP Searches
Information Request Letter Tracking and Followup
* Removal Search Activities
* Best practices
In addition to these tasks, OSRE will continue to incorporate PRP search enhancement concepts in all
relevant Superfund enforcement training programs and materials as well as continued development of
PRP search guidance materials,
Concepts & Lessons Learned
The SRA goals of notifying de minimix parties within 12 months and other PRPs within 18 months of
the search start are currently unrealistic for most Superfund sites. SRA time frames were too ambitious
for the piloted sites, and would most likely be too ambitious for a majority of Superfund sites. There is
a balance between speed and comprehensiveness in the PRP search process.
Although the causes of difficulty in adhering to the SRA time line were numerous and often site
specific, three factors were common to a number of sites:
(1) Many PRPs/ Complex Sites
(2) Troublesome Hazardous Substances (i.e., mixed radioactive waste)
(3) Uncooperative PRPs.
The five pilot sites where the 18 month goal was met generally had fewer PRPs and no significant
complications. Given ideal circumstances, it appears that some PRP searches can meet the SRA time
frames. However, it seems unlikely that PRP searches at larger, more complex sites can regularly be
completed this quickly.
Early interviews of people with knowledge of a site was the technique most commonly cited as being
effective, in increasing the speed and efficiency of PRP searches. Consideration should be given to
devoting more resources to interviews at an early date, particularly by making civil investigators
available early in the PRP search process.
Contact
Lisa Blum, OSRE,
(202) 564-4283
56
-------
Annual Report FY 1997
2-2. Expedited Settlement Pilots
EPA announced the expedited settlement reform in 1995 to reduce transaction costs for all
potentially responsible parties {PRPs) at Superfund sites through early settlements. The reform
was designed to encourage early (i.e., pre-ROD) de minimls settlements; encourage ability to pay
settlements with de inlnimis PRPs who demonstrate they cannot pay their full share of response
costs at the site; and give PRPs the opportunity to nominate other PRPs who they believe are
also responsible for site cleanup.
From the pilot's inception
through the end of FY97, EPA
achieved early de minimis
settlements at eight pilot sites,
ability to pay settlements at
three pilot sites, and solicited
nominations of additional PRPs
at five of the eight pilot sites
which had achieved an early
de minimis settlement.
The early de minimis settlements
were achieved at the following
Superfund sites: Solvents
Recovery; Tri-Gties Barrel Co.,
Inc.; Elizabeth town Landfill;
Taylor Road; Arcanum Iron &
Metal; Hansen Container;
Bennington Landfill; and
Tulalip Landfill. These
settlements were reached with
approximately 48 8 de minimis
parties, resulting in recovery of
approximately $14.8 million.
Three of these settlements were
achieved in FY97 with 22 de
minimis parties for
approximately $3.4 million.
From the pilot's inception, ATP
settlements were achieved
with a total of 22 parties: 20
at the Solvents Recovery Site;
one at the Tulalip Landfill site;
and one at the Arcanum Iron
& Metal Site.
Contact
Filomena Chau, OSRE,
(202) 564-4224
Concepts Gt Lessons Learned
* The key elements of efficiently reaching early de minimis settlements were complete information, the
type and quantity of waste, a good PRP search, and the existence of reliable cost estimates early in
the process.
* The ability to pay settlement goals have been difficult to meet for the following reasons:
1) at some sites, no PRPs are found who meet the ability to pay criteria;
2) small parties sometimes ignore EPA s requests for financial information to prove the party's
limited ability to pay the full setdement amount; and
3) PRPs sometimes submit incorrect information that requires additional research.
57
-------
Superfund Reforms
2-3
The
ocation Pilots
The Agency commenced the Allocation Pilots in IMay 1995, offering a fundamentally different
approach to allocating Superfund costs between parties. Under the pilot, a neutral is selected
by the parties (an "allocator") who conducts a non-binding out of court process resulting in an
allocation report (i.e., where each allocation party is assigned a share of responsibility). Parties
may then offer to settle with EPA based on their allocated share. Under the pilot, EPA is
responsible for 100 percent of the orphan share, which consists of the shares of allocation
parties which are insolvent or defunct. v^-c /
Status
EPA offered the pilot at twelve sites. At three sites, parties declined to enter the pilot because
they believed they could reach settlement outside of the allocation process or already had
performed a private allocation. At the nine remaining sites, the allocation pilots are at various
stages. For example, at two sites the allocator issued a report reflecting an agreement regarding
the shares of responsibility between the parties. At another site, the parties reached an
agreement on shares and the allocator was dismissed. At a fourth site, the majority of parties
settled (i.e., for the performance and funding of the response action), but the allocator recently
issued a report identifying shares for the parties which did not join the settlement. For most
of the remaining sites, the parties have selected an allocator and are in the midst of the
allocation process.
implementing the
Process
After two years of
implementing the pilots we
have gathered useful
information concerning the
allocator selection process and
need for a protocol document
between the parties
participating in the pilot.
Selecting the Allocator
In selecting an allocator,
parties have uniformly agreed to
use a convening process.
Through the use of a neutral (a
convener), the parties selected
an allocator by interviewing
several candidates and then
reaching a consensus agreement
on the best person for that site.
At all pilot sites the parties
agreed to choose solely from the
3 7 candidates qualified through
the Agency's procurement
process. Parties believed the
level of experience presented by
the candidates and the
information provided was
sufficient to choose an allocator.
Need for Protocol Document
In designing the pilots the
Agency believed that a basic
confidentiality agreement and
litigation tolling agreement (i.e.,
so no party would sue each
other during the allocation) was
sufficient to implement the
pilots. However, parties wanted
to negotiate procedures for the
number of interviews with
witnesses, timeframes for
submission of documents to the
allocator, and identify equitable
factors for the allocation. The
allocators wanted these issues to
be resolved amicably between
the parties. Negotiating a
protocol agreement has taken
between one to four months,
depending on the number of
issues to be addressed and the
number of parties at the site.
To save time die parties
negotiated the allocation
protocol during the time the
Agency is formally entering into
the contract with the selected
(continued see Protocol)
58
-------
Annual Report FY 1997
Protocol continued...
allocator. The neutral who
convened the selection process
has also assisted in developing
the protocol agreement.
Contact
Gary Worthman, OSRE,
(202) 564-4296
David Batson, OSRE,
(202) 564-5103
Reform Evaluation
Since the commencement of-
the pilots in 1995, EPA has been
gathering information from the
participants,- including PRPs, ,
allocators arid Regional staff, -
concerning time spent and
resources expended, general
impressions.of fairness" of-the
process,.and the overall-
implementability of the process.
1. Time - Where an allocation
report has been issued, the
average- time .spent to complete .
the'allocation process was'20
months.; This includes the ',
time spent'identifying
additional parties., selecting the
allocator, entering into the1
protocol document! and ,
performing information
gathering "by the allocator. ,'
It also includes time spent-
filing briefs, conducting oral
arguments, and issuing'the . '
draft and final allocation-report.
The time frame is expected to
increase for the total group of.
pilots to approximately
24 months because a number-
pf sites are taking significantly
. longer,than the 20 month,
period.
2. Resources - Parties who ,
participated in the pilot,
estimated they expended
' 548,000 per-party in'transaction
costs.- Approximately 75
percent indicated that the
transaction costs were lower
than traditional contribution
litigation costs. The average cost
to the Government (EPA and .the
Department of Justice) for ,,
conducting an allocation (for
this group of sites) was '
approximately $421,000 per
site: This includes both! ',,
intramural 'and extramural costs.
In-addition; the average cost for
the 'services of the' Allocator ,. '
were approximately $193,000, ,
per site. At one site, neutral
cosis were significantly higher
as'both allocators and mediators'
were us"ed.
3: General Observations-,
Private parties agreed to
.participate in the pilot because:
EPA was funding 100 percent of
, the orphan share; parties
believed the process would be
more cost efficient than current
Superfund litigation; and the
party could enter into a fair
share settlement.
At the. end of the process,
parties"views on the" pilot were
, mixed. Several parties thought
the share assigned to them in :.
-settlement was fair considering'
the level of iriformation
available, but others felt that
their share was not fair
believing that major
corporations with greater
resources were better able to -
influence the allocator and/or
.the Agency. While a-number of
corr> panics .believed the actual
costs expended were less than;
litigation.'several small
businesses felt the process was-
, not cost effective for' them -
commenting that transaction
costs associated with thJe
allocation process may-actuaHy
'beshigher since many felt they-
had to participate.in the process
to protect their interests.
Finally, there was general
agreement that flexibility in an
allocation process must exist in
meeting deadlines (e.g.," for
selecting the allocator,
information gathering and filing
briefs) to address site-specific
conditions.
-------
Super fund Reforms
Concepts Si. Lessons Learned
This past year EPA has learned several important lessons on the relationship of allocation to
settlement. In sum, EPA has learned that it is difficult to translate a shares agreement or allocation
report into a judicial settlement, and difficult to settle with less than all of the parties and continue
the allocation process. For example, some parties may be willing to perform the response action,
while other parties would like to pay a sum certain (i.e., a cashout agreement). Several parties
believed that providing an offer to settle for their "share" did not necessitate entering into a joint
agreement to perform work with the other parties at the site. At one site, the Agency negotiated
three Consent Decrees to address the various concerns. Such negotiations are resource intensive.
Another settlement issue involves problems with entering into an agreement regarding shares of
responsibility with less than all of the parties. A partial settlement raises concerns that the allocator
may assign the parties which remain in the allocation a smaller share than the share negotiated by the
settlers. In effect, the non-settlers could possibly benefit by staying in the allocation process. The
government position is difficult because parties who seek to settle early may offer to pay a significant
premium or to fully perform the work. In addition, parties negotiating a settlement may also be
forced to file briefs before the allocator in the event that settlement negotiations are not completed in
a timely manner.
SUCCESS
Tulalip Landfill Site,
Marysville, Washington
The U.S. recently lodged three Consent Decrees with the majority of the
allocation parties at this site. In this settlement, one group of parties will
perform the response action, and two separate groups of parties will provide
funding for the cleanup. A number of federal entities are also part of the
settlement. Allocation parties who are not part of the settlement remain in the
allocation process. While the allocator must consider the shares of all the
parties in the allocation, only those shares of tha parties which did not settle
were delineated in the allocation report. This limits the need for the settling
parties to continue to participate in the allocation process, thereby saving
transaction costs.
The settlement is also significant because the proceeds from a pre-al!ocation
de minimis settlement are being provided to the performing parties. Under the
pilot, de minimis settlers are excluded from the allocation process. Several
parties were originally concerned that excluding de minimis parties from the
allocation process might appear unfair. In effect, however, while the .
de minimis parties were excluded from the allocation process, the settlement
proceeds from the de minimis settlement reduced the actual amounts the
settling parties had to pay.
Hunterstown Road Site
Gettysburg, Pennsylvania
The generators and transporters requested the Agency adopt a private
allocation that these parties reached amongst each other, rather than the
allocator assigning shares to all parties.
The Agency agreed to adopt the private allocation so the allocator only
had to assign a group generator/transporter share, thereby saving
transaction costs.
AH parties then agreed on the group share, submitted it to the allocator
who promptly adopted it as part of the allocation report.
60
-------
Annual Report FY 1997
ECONOMIC REDEVELOPMENT
2-4.a. Brownfields Pilot Projects
Brownfields Assessment Demonstration Pilots are awarded by EPA under cooperative
agreements to States, cities, towns, counties, and Tribes. These pilots are funded up to $200,000
over a two-year period and are designed to support creative explorations and demonstrations of
brownf ields solutions. The Pilots are intended to provide EPA, States, Tribes, municipalities, and
communities with useful information and strategies as they continue to seek new methods to
promote a unified approach to site assessment, environmental cleanup, and redevelopment.
The "Brownfields Economic
Redevelopment Initiative" is a
comprehensive approach to
empowering States, local
governments, communities and
other stakeholders interested in
economic redevelopment to
work together in a timely
manner to prevent, assess, safely
cleanup and sustainably reuse
brownfields, EPA originally
addressed implementation of
the Brownfield's Initiative
through the Brownfields Action
Agenda. This first Action
Agenda was a collection of bold
strategies focused on four main
categories - 1) implementing
Brownfields Pilot programs in
cities, counties, towns and
Tribes across the country;
2) clarifying liability and other
issues of concern for lending
institutions, municipalities,
prospective purchasers,
developers, property owners
and others; 3) establishing
partnerships with other EPA
programs, Federal agencies,
States, and cities and
stakeholders; and 4) promoting
community involvement by
supporting job development
and training activities linked to
Brownfield assessment, cleanup
and redevelopment,
As the Brownfields Initiative has
matured, the need for
continuation and expansion of
the national brownfields
response has led to introduction
of the new Brownfields National
Partnership Action Agenda,
further linking environmental
protection with economic
redevelopment and community
revitalization. The Brownflelds
National Partnership Action
Agenda is a two-year plan
featuring commitments from
more than 25 organizations,
including more than 15 Federal
Agencies. The Agenda also
features a 10 Showcase
communities model for
demonstrating successful
collaboration on brownfields-
related activities.
By the end of FY97, EPA had
announced the selection of 121
Brownflelds Pilots. These pilots
will be funded through
cooperative agreements are
subject to negotiation. Of the
121 Pilots, 64 are National
Pilots selected and funded
through Headquarters, and 57
Results
By the end of FY97, EPA
had announced the
selection of 121
Brownfields pilots.
are Regional Pilots selected and
funded through the 10 Regional
offices. EPA intends the pilots to
perform the following: provide
redevelopment models, direct
efforts toward the removal of
regulatory barriers; and facilitate
coordinated public and private
efforts at the Federal, State, and
local levels.
EPA awarded 24 grants to
eligible assessment pilot
recipients for the capitalization
of revolving loan funds for the
cleanup of brownfields sites.
Grants of this type will not be
awarded in FY98 unless
mandated by specific statutory
authority.
EPA has signed Memoranda of
Understanding (MOU) with
other Federal partners to
coordinate issues related to
(continued see Brownfields)
81
-------
Suparfund Reforms
Brownfields continued...
brownfields redevelopment and
to leverage additional
opportunities. In addition to
previously signed MOUs with
the Economic Development
Administration, and the
Departments of Housing and
Urban Development, Labor, and
Interior, EPA also has signed a
MOU with the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric
Administration.
EPA conducted a Brownfields
National Conference in Kansas
City, Missouri, in September
1997. A variety of guidance
documents and other initiatives
have been announced by the
Agency affecting the liability
aspects of the Brownfields
Action Agenda. In addition, EPA
archived almost 30,500 sites
from the Federal Superfund
Inventory CERCLIS.
Passage of the brownfields tax
incentive proposal in 1997 was
achieved as part of the budget
agreement, and permits
expensing of environmental
remediation costs.
Next Steps
* Continue coordinating support
for the efforts of the Federal
Interagency Working Group on
Brownfields
« Identify up to 100 assessment
pilots In FY98
SUCCESS
Baltimore, Maryland
Baltimore has sought to use the city's $200,000 grant to encourage economic
growth and redevelopment in urban areas while continuing to provide
appropriate and sufficient protection of the environment, especially the
Chesapeake Bay watershed area.
Birmingham, Alabama
The North Birmingham Industrial Redevelopment Project centers on a 900-acre
industrial area in which nearly forty percent of a formerly active property now
ties vacant In September 1995, the EPA awarded Birmingham a $200,000 grant
under its Brownfields initiative to stimulate development of a 150-acre
industrial park within the target area. Planners believe the area will see the
creation of over 2,000 jobs
Burlington, Vermont
Burlington plans to develop a comprehensive brownfields plan, redevelop the
city's brownftelds with a high degree of citizen participation and support, and
provide a redevelopment model that could be duplicated in small cities across
the country.
Dallas , Texas
The City of Dallas, with help from the EPA is returning Brownfield properties
into productive use for the community. With six sites in the cleanup and
redevelopment process, $44.5 million in private investment has been
leveraged, along with an $8.4 million public investment.
Emeryville, California
Since EPA's $200,000 grant, EPA and Emeryville have been working together to
rejuvenate the City and the surrounding area, targeting ten sites and more
than 180 acres for cleanup and redevelopment. The Brownfields Pilot
established strong working relationships among the City's regulatory agencies,
which facilitated a plan between the City and Catellus Development
Corporation to redevelop abandoned former railyardsite. Catellus constructed
200 units off mixed-income housing. Approximately',100 construction workers
have been hired to build these housing units.
Oregon Mills, Oregon
The City of Astoria, Oregon has worked in partnership with the Oregon
Department of Environmental Quality (DEOJ, ECOTRUST, and the community
to clean up the City's abandoned mill sites and transform them into thriving
waterfront properties, in September 1995, Rural Development Initiatives, Inc.,
received a $200,000 EPA Brownfields Pilot grant to help jump-start the City's
redevelopment efforts.
Initiate expansion of site assessments
Select 10 Brownfields Showcase Communities
Contact
Barbara Bassuener, OSWER,
(202) 260-9347
62
-------
Annual Report FY 1997
BENEFITS
Helps States, Tribes, and municipalities create redevelopment models, direct efforts toward
the removal of regulatory barriers, and facilitate coordinated public and private efforts at the
Federal, State, and local levels.
Facilitates the reuse of underutilized or abandoned properties.
Creates jobs and encourages community development in urban areas.
Fosters economic prosperity and an increased tax base.
2-4.b. Brownfields Community Outreach
A Brownfields coordinator position has been established in each region to oversee Brownfields
pilots and to initiate other Brownfields activities. EPA also has assigned seven staff members to
cities through inter-governmental personnel assignments (IPA| to assist in addressing the
Brownfields redevelopment challenges presented at the State and local levels.
The brownfields program is
centered on partnerships - with
other Federal, State, and local
agencies, and diverse
stakeholders. The Brownfields
National Partnership Action
Agenda is based on protecting
human health and the
environment, enhancing public
participation in local decision-
making, building safe and
sustainable communities
through public/private
partnerships, and recognizing
that environmental protection
can be the engine that drives
economic redevelopment,
EPA continues to be advised and
informed on environmental
justice issues relating to
Brownfields through the
National Environmental Justice
Advisory Council (NEJAC).The
NEJAC issued a final report,
"Environmental Justice, Urban
Revitalization, and Brownfields:
The Search for Authentic Signs
of Hope." The report analyzed
BENEFITS
Improves community
involvement in the
Brownfields Initiative.
Fosters job
development and
training.
the findings from the public
dialogues held in June and July
of 1995 on revitalization and
Brownfields, and made
recommendations.
Community-based
recommendations from the
report are helping to shape the
future course of the Brownfields
Initiative from pilot application
to determinations of future site
redevelopment.
In conjunction with the
Common Sense Initiative (CSI),
EPA has identified Brownfields
pilots in several cities that
provide opportunities to
concentrate on Brownfields
associated with particular
industrial sectors. For example,
several Brownfields pilots have
been identified for linkage with
the CSI "Iron and Steel Sector."
EPA is now working with the
sector to conduct an 18-month
evaluation of two Brownfields
pilots that will help to assess the
efficacy of the "Brownfields
Guiding Principles" developed
by the sector.
EPA is working with the
American Society for Testing
(continued see Community^
63
-------
Super fund Reforms
Community continued...
Materials (ASTM) to develop a
standard guide titled, "The
Process of Sustainable
Brownfields Redevelopment."
The purpose of these efforts is
to identify the interrelationships
between the financial,
regulatory, and community
involvement aspects of
Brownfields revitalization. BPA
and ASTM are working together
to involve environmental justice
and community representatives
in workshops to develop the
standard.
EPA is promoting and fostering
job development and training
through partnerships with
Brownfields pilot communities
and community colleges, EPA
also is working with the
Hazardous Materials Training
and Research Institute (HMTRI)
to expand environmental
training and curriculum
development. HMTRI has
hosted a continuing series of
workshops to assist community
colleges from Brownfields pilot
communities in developing
environmental job training
programs. The latest workshop
was held in San Francisco,
California, in June 1997. To
date, HMTRI has worked with
more than 60 community
colleges. Through a cooperative
agreement with EPA, Rio Hondo
College (Whittier, California),
has established an
environmental education and
training center to provide
comprehensive technical-level
training. In addition, EPA and
the National Institute of
Environmental Health Services
(NIEHS) are working to
coordinate minority worker
training grant recipients with
Brownfields pilot city activities.
EPA will continue outreach to
stakeholders on Brownfields
involvement. Technical
assistance to other Federal
agencies and non-governmental
organizations will be provided
through existing partnerships
and pilots.
Next Steps
Work with NIEHS to
coordinate minority workers
with pilot activities
Continue outreach to
stakeholders and offer
technical assistance
Contact
Barbara Bassuener, OSWER,
(202) 260-9347
c. Refining CERGUS
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability information System
{CERCLIS) is an automated inventory of site information for potential or confirmed hazardous
waste sites addressed under the Federal Superfund program. To refine CERCLIS and encourage
cleanup and redevelopment of contaminated or formerly contaminated sites, EPA has begun a
process of "archiving" sites that no longer need to be tracked.
Over 41,000 sites have been entered into CERCLIS; however, less
than five percent have made it onto the NPL. Until recently, sites
that had been fully remediated or that had never made the Snal
NPL were still listed in CERCLIS, and the perceived threat of
Superfund liability remained. To rectify this problem, EPA refined
the process for registering and maintaining site information in
CERCLIS by archiving such sites.
In response to growing concerns about the unintended stigma
associated with CERCLIS, EPA introduced the CERCLIS archiving
effort in early 1995 as part of the Agency's Brownfields Economic
(continued see CERCLIS}
__
Results
Of the 41,000 sites entered
into CERCLIS: 24,000
CERCLIS sites were archived
by February 1995; and
almost 30,500 sites were
archived from CERCLIS
through FY9 7.
-------
Annual Report FY 1997
CERCLIS continued,..
Redevelopment Initiative. The
Brownfields Initiative
encourages cities, states, and
private investors to clean up and
redevelop contaminated or
formerly contaminated sites.
Archive candidates include sites
where, following initial
investigation, no contamination
was found, or any
contamination was removed
quickly without requiring
placement on the NPL; sites that
have been completely cleaned
up and deleted from the NPL;
and sites where the
contamination was not serious
enough to warrant Federal
Superfund attention.
The archiving effort is a
continuous process and as more
sites are entered into CERCLIS
and/or screened out, the
CERCLIS and archive lists will
change.
SUCCESS
EPA is beginning to see results from its efforts at the Brownfields Pilot in
Buffalo, New York. After removing the Republic Steel site from CERCLIS,
ATOM Corporation, partnering with Village Farms of Buffalo, agreed to clean
up a portion of the site in 1997 for use as a 26-acre hydroponic tomato farm.
This new business will employ approximately 300 workers.
In June 1996, EPA provided guidance identifying types of sites
eligible for archiving. Sites remaining in the CERCLIS inventory
were evaluated, archiving decisions were made, when appropriate.
EPA has conducted outreach efforts to promote its site archiving
efforts. In July 1995, EPA sent 200 mayors lists of archived sites in
their cities. In April 1997, EPA developed a quick reference fact
sheet, "Archival of CERCLIS Sites," and posted it on EPA's
Brownfields Internet homepage An inventory of CERCLIS and
archived sites by State also is available on the Internet. H
Next Steps
BENEFITS
Removes the stigma
associated with CERCLIS
sites and facilitates their
redevelopment.
Continue to archive sites
from CERCLIS
Contact
Randy Hippen, OERR,
(703) 603-8829
2-4,d, Clarifying NPL Sites
EPA provides Regions with the flexibility to clarify uncontaminated areas within Superfund sites.
To accomplish this, EPA has developed guidance and tools to Identify, map, and track
uncontaminated portions of sites.
Listing a property on the NPL may affect the
value of that property and the surrounding
areawhether or not all of the property or
adjacent property is contaminated. In order to
facilitate the transfer, development or
redevelopment of property or portions of
property determined to be uncontaminated,
EPA, as a part of its economic redevelopment
initiative, developed a program to provide
Regions with the flexibility to clarify the areas
of sites determined to be contaminated or
uncontaminated.
(continued see NPL Sites)
Results
Workgroup recommended a policy change to
allow partial deletions.
1PA announced a policy change to allow partial
deletions based on geography or medium
(published in the Federal Register on
November 1, 1995 (60 FR 55466)).
EPA announced a Round 3 Superfund Reform
to encourage Regions to utilize partial
deletions.
65
-------
Superfund Reforms
NPL Sites continued...
BENEFITS
A workgroup was convened in May 199S to evaluate several
alternatives including: no partial deletion, partial deletion limited
to closing and realigning bases (BRACs), and partial deletion
available for all sites. The workgroup also considered geographic
and medium limitations on partial deletions.
Based upon the workgroup's recommendation, EPA determined
that the Regions should have flexibility to delete portions of any
site (i.e., military base or other Federal Facility, or a private site),
based on either geography or medium (e.g., groundwater).
Next Steps
This reform is complete. The Round 3, partial deletions
reform (i.e.. Delete Clean Parcels from the NPL -
Reform 9) is being implemented as a part of the
Superfund program.
Facilitates the transfer,
development or
redevelopment of
property or portions of
property determined to
be uncontaminated
Provides Regions with
the flexibility to clarify
the areas of sites
determined to be
contaminated or
uncontaminated
Contact
Terry Keidan, OERR,
(703) 603-8852
2-4,e. Removing Liability Barriers;
Prospective Purchaser Agreements (PPAs)
EPA identified options to encourage the cleanup and redevelopment of contaminated properties,
giving prospective purchasers, lenders, and property owners more assurances that acquisition of
such property will not also mean acquisition of liability. In May 1995, EPA revised its PPA
guidance (see "Guidance on Agreements with Prospective Purchasers of Contaminated
Property") to allow the Agency greater flexibility in entering into agreements with prospective
purchasers. These agreements provide a promise by the United States not to sue the
prospective purchaser for contamination existing at the time of purchase and provide
contribution protection. The revised guidance expands the universe of eligible sites, allowing
the use of such agreements when the agreement results in a substantial indirect benefit to the
community in terms of cleanup, creation of jobs, and redevelopment of blighted property. A
model PPA also was issued to streamline the process.
SUCCESS!
Vineland Chemical Superfund Site,
Vjneland, New Jersey
EPA will receive $10,000 from the purchaser, as well as $309,912 of the
purchase price of the property from the site owners pursuant to a consent
decree. The purchaser. City of Vineland, represents that it has received two
federal redevelopment grants to assist it in redeveloping the property as an
industrial park, creating jobs in an economically depressed area.
Results
At the end of FY97,
68 prospective purchaser
agreements had been
reached.
66
-------
n n u a
e p o r
t F Y 1997
SUCCESS
General Gas Mantle Superfund Site,
Gloucester City, New Jersey
Purchaser plans to rehabilitate an abandoned 1.7 acre property which was previously contaminated with radioactive
substances from gas mantle manufacture. The purchase is partially financed by the federally funded Cooperative Business
Assistance Corporation. The purchaser is planning to expand Its business and provide jobs in a depressed area.
Middlerisld Ellis whisman Supenund Site
Palo Alto, California
A commercial development of high-tech research and office facilities in a campus-like setting is planned for this currently
vacant site. The prospective purchaser will pay $200,000 to EPA, enabling the Agency to continue sampling at a nearby
monitoring well for an additional two years.
San Gabriel Valley Superfund Site,
Baldwin Park, California*.--
Monsanto plans to purchase assets of a contact lens manufacturing company which has been a source of the
contaminated groundwater plume. The purchaser will continue operations, and pay $150,000 to fund response for a
portion of the Superfund site.
MRM Industries Site,
Sikeston, Missouri
The purchaser - North Ridge Homes, a manufacturer of prefabricated homes -agreed to reimburse EPA $20,000 for costs
incurred in a removal action. Sikeston, a city of 5,000 people, is very supportive of the agreement because of the 125 new
jobs that the project will bring to the community.
Prier Brass Site,
Kansas City, Missouri
The purchaser- CST Limited Liability Partnership - will provide deed restrictions on the property to maintain a protective
cover, maintain the foundation of a building on site so as to not disturb the lead-contaminated material beneath it, pay EPA
$50,000, and provide operation and maintenance activities. The company will use the property to house the headquarters
of their demolition and construction business, a use which local authorities believe will help maintain property values in an
area that is prone to attract salvage yards and unauthorized industrial dumping.
Contact
Helen Keplinger, OSRE,
(301) 229-5526
67
-------
Superfund Reforms
68
-------
Annual Report FY 1997
COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT AND OUTREACH
2-5.a. Community Advisory Groups (CAGsi
This initiative encourages Regions to establish Community Advisory Groups (CAGs) which
provide a public forum for community members to present and discuss their needs and concerns
about the decision-making process at sites affecting them,
A CAG is a committee, task
force, or board comprised of
citizens affected by a hazardous
waste site. CAGs are made up of
representatives with diverse
community interests and
provide a public forum for
community members to present
and discuss their needs and
concerns about the decision-
making process at sites affecting
them.
The CAG concept was
introduced in the first round of
reforms in the arena of
Expanding Meaningful Public
Involvement. Initially the CAG
program was part of the
Environmental Justice strategy
(Initiative 7) and was initiated
to insure that all communities
are part of the Superfund
process. Several pilot sites were
chosen to field test the CAG
concept. The CAG program also
appeared in the second round of
reforms under Community
Involvement and Outreach
(Initiative S), along with the
Technical Assistance Grants
program. This initiative
articulated the progression of
increased citizen involvement,
called for the creation of
guidance promoting and
supporting CAGs, and
\L
Results
Initially, EPA slated the program to have 10 pilot CAG sites;
however, the number of "pilot" sites grew to 16 between the
time the program started and when it was officially taken out
of the pilot stage. In July 1996 (at the National Community
Involvement Conference in Chicago), EPA took the program
out of the pilot stage and started accepting names of
additional CAGs.
By the end of FY96, the number of CAGs had grown to 23.
Ten additional CAGs were formed in FY97, bringing the
total to 33 CAGs.
encouraged the Regions to
establish CAGs or convert
existing community advisory
organizations into CAGs. EPA
issued "Guidance for
Community Advisory Groups at
Superfund Sites" (OSWER
Directive: 9230.0-2) in
December 1995, encouraging
the use of CAGs at Superfund
sites. The guidance has proven
to be an effective mechanism
for EPA's Regional offices to
facilitate the participation of
community members. Other
products include a fact sheet
titled, "Superfund Today Focus
on the Community Advisory
Group," issued in May 1996
(EPA 540-K-96-005), and
a 4-page summary of the CAG
guidance issued in August 1996,
titled "Community Advisory
Groups (CAGs) at Superfund
Sites" (OSWER Directive
9230.0-28AFS).
CAG Toolkits are the most recent
product created to support the
CAG program. The kits are
designed to help communities
establish CAGs, with each kit
containing a variety of
information for use in setting
up and maintaining a CAG. Two
versions of the Toolkit were
produced, one for EPA staff (in
particular, the Community
Involvement Coordinator) and
one for the CAG. The Toolkits
presently are being field tested
(continued see CAGs)
69
-------
Superfund Reforms
CACs continued...
at 18 sites, and the final product
should be available during the
summer of 1998.
EPA will continue to evaluate
existing CAGs and their impact
on community involvement,
and also will continue to
identify and develop new tools
to promote and assist CAGs. H
Reform
Evaluation
The effectiveness of die CAG
program was evaluated using a
case study approach. The case
studies examined activities at
specific sites and were developed
based on interviews with
community members involved
in CAGs, EPA personnel, and
State and local government
personnel involved in site
cleanup efforts. The five
hazardous waste sites chosen for
the case studies included: the
Brio Refining. Inc., Supeifund
Site in Harris County, Texas; the
Carolawn, Inc., Superfund.Site in
Chester County, South Carolina; -
the Colorado School of Mines
Research Institute-Site in Golden,
Colorado; the Qronogo-
Duenweg Mining Belt Site in
Jasper County, Missouri; and the
Southern Maryland Wood
Treating Superfund Site in
Hollywood, Maryland,
The case studies highlighted the,
following important lessons'for
communities considering
formation of CAGs:
BENEFITS
Creates mutual trust and demonstrates that EPA is a
partner in solving community environmental problems.
Enhances and accelerates the Superfund cleanup
decision-making process.
SUCCESS!
Southern Shipbuilding,
Slidell, Louisiana
After a CAG was formed, more than a dozen formal and informal meetings
with concerned citizens and elected officials were held to shape site studies
and remedy selection. A striking measure of this community involvement is
that an Incineration remedy in the middle of the City received majority
support from residents (and unanimous endorsement by the City Council),
Allied Paper, Inc.,
Portage Creek/Kalamazoo River, Michigan
The CAG at this site, consisting of State Officials and local citizens, facilitated
community involvement. The CAG meets bimonthly and has sent site
progress reports and fact sheets to more (hart 600 citizens in an effort to keep
them informed of ihe progress at the sita.
Brio Refining,
Harris County, Texas
A CAG was formed in 1994 to allow citizens and local officials to participate in
decisions affecting the cleanup of this site. The CAG meets regularly and
maintains a mailing list of 827 citizens. In 1995, the CAG prepared and
submitted an application for a new Technical Assistance Grant to increase
their understanding of the cleanup solutions being proposed for the site.
Colorado School of Mines Research Institute,
Golden, Colorado
EPA helped establish a CAG which allowed for the enhancement of the
Superfund cleanup decision-making process through direct community
involvement. This site was used as a case study in a document recently
completed by EPA,
1. CAGs should be formed as early as possible.
2. The community must take the initiative in CAG formation and
operation.
3. CAGs must he inclusive and independent
4. Access to good technical expertise is important.
5. The. CAG must recognize what is possible and work within those
limits.
6. CAG leaders must be "in it" for the long haul.
. 7. CAGs are more effective than public meetings,
8. The need for additional resources is a common concern.
9. CAGs can give the community more influence in site-related
decisions. . .
10. CAGs can speed up the process.
Based'on the positive results of the case study evaluation, EPA will
.continue to pursue CAGs where appropriate.
70
-------
Annual Report FY 1997
Stakeholder Comments
David Hall, Emergency Management Coordinator for
the City of Texarkana, was very supportive of CAGs at the
Local Government Relocation Forum held on April 18,1997.
He commented that CAGs were, "the best thing since home-
made bread."
According to Mr. Schrader, Brio Refining Inc., CAG Co-
Chair, the CAG has been successful because, "dedicated
people from the community have been willing to work hard,
over a long period of time to get our positions taken into
account."
Catherine O'Brien, Brio Refining Inc., CAG Member
from San Jacinto College stated that prior to the CAG, "the
community could talk to EPA in public meetings, but that
wasn't very productive. The PRPs could meet with EPA
anytime, because they worked on the site issues all day; the
community couldn't, because we have other jobs to do. The
CAG has leveled the playing field." She also said she be-
lieves the CAG concept is, "the best way to resolve issues at
Superfund sites, because everyone talks and listens to each
other."
Mr. White, Carolawn Inc., Community Advisory Board
Chairman stated, "Regardless of how the decision is made,
residents now feel they have had some input."
Next Steps
Continue to test CAG
Toolkits at various
sites
Evaluate CAGs and
develop new methods
to promote and assist
CAGs
Pilots
Completed July 1996.
Contact
Leslie Leahy, OERR,
(703) 603-9929
2 - 5 , h . Techniea I Assistance Grants (TAGs)
TAGs provide resources to eligible communities affected by Superfund sites to acquire
independent technical assistance to help them understand and comment on site-related
information.
Basic Provisions of the TAG Program:
Grants of up to $50,000 are available to community groups for
hiring technical advisors to help the community understand site-
related technical information. Additional funding may be available
For unusually large or complex sites.
The group must contribute 20 percent of the total project costs to
be supported by TAG funds. This requirement can be met with
cash, donated supplies, and volunteered services.
(continued see TAGsl
Results
More than 195 TAGs
have been awarded since
the program's inception in
1988.
71
-------
Superfund Reforms
TAGs continued^.. '
The group must prepare a plan
for using the funds.
EPA is encouraging the Regions
to consider means to increase
citizen involvement, such as
advance funding ofTAGs, the
authorization of training for
TAG recipients, and the
simplification of the TAG
application and administrative
processes.
The TAG regulation, which was
revised during FY95-96, and
which the Agency plans to
publish in FY98, contains
several simplifying provisions.
For example, elimination of the
three-year budget period will
allow groups to determine their
own budget period according to
site-specific needs.
Next Steps
SUCGESJ
Southern Shipbuilding Site
SlideII, Louisiana
A group named Slidell Working Against Major Pollution iSWAMP) was
awarded a TAG grant on December 15, 1995. SWAMP hired two technical
advisors on June 17,1996, to review sita documents prior to release of the
final proposed plan of action.
This approach created mutual trust and the concept that EPA was a partner in
solving community environmental problems, A striking measure of this
community involvement is that an incineration remedy in the middle of the
City received majority support from residents (and a unanimous endorsement
by the City Council),
BENEFITS
As stated above, preparations are underway to publish
the proposed revised rule by March 1998. This revised
rule will contain the following:
* Provisions for limited cash advances
Limited funds for training community members on site-
related issues,
* Removal of a 20 percent administrative cap, providing
EPA flexibility in negotiating grants with recipients
* An interpretation of congressional intent regarding the
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act's
(SARA) "one TAG per site language" such that the rule
allows multiple non-concurrent grant recipients.
Promote citizen involvement
by improving TAGs and
facilitating the process
Publish proposed and final
revisions to the TAG
regulation in FY98
Contact
Lois Gartner, OERR,
(703) 603-8889
72
-------
Annual Report FY 1997
2-6, Community involvement in the
Enforcement Process Pilots
In February 1995, EPA announced its commitment to pilot ways in which community
involvement in the enforcement process could be enhanced as part of the Super-fund Reforms
effort, EPA initiated pilot projects at 13 sites in 9 of its 10 Regions for cases in which PRPs
committed to conduct cleanup actions or investigations. Several approaches were
implemented, including inviting communities to review and comment on draft technical
workplans and actively disseminating information. EPA piloted these approaches to observe
what impact they have on Superfund cleanups and settlement negotiations. At some selected
sites, piloted activities are completed; at other sites, EPA continues to test various approaches.
Activities found to be effective are being utilized at a number of sites outside the pilot project.
Many of the piloted activities
involve providing opportunities
for communities to discuss and
review draft technical plans (i.e.,
draft work plans for
investigations of site
contamination and design and
conduct of cleanups) to be
implemented by PRPs. For sites
in the early stages of the cleanup
pipeline (i.e., investigations),
Regions intend to continue
enhanced community
involvement measures during
the kter stages of the cleanup
pipeline (i.e., remediation).
Other piloted activities in this
initiative include citizen
involvement in removal actions
implemented by PRPs;
developing consensus on future
land use; and citizens review of
treatability study documents
prepared by PRPs,
These piloted activities are
related to, but distinct from, the
steps that the Agency already
takes at each site to involve the
community whenever it selects
a response action or finalizes a
settlement agreement (i.e., the
opportunity for public review
and comment on proposed
cleanup plans or settlements). It
is also distinct from a separate
Superfund reform involving the
establishment of Community
Assistance Groups (CAGs) at
Superfund sites,
Stakeholder Comments
Community members
thought EPA had been
successful at making
site information
available to them,
providing them with
the opportunity to
comment on technical
documents, considering
their input, and
providing them with an
opportunity to
communicate with
PRPs.
By the end of the
process, the PRPs had
a better appreciation of
the views of other
stakeholders.
{From participants at
the Pine Street Barge
Canal, Vermont Pilot)
Lessons Learned
* Communities who
regularly attend technical
meetings are more
informed and, therefore,
better able to understand
the progress of response
activities at a Site;
Greater degree of
community involvement
may result in time and
resource savings in the
longrun;
Providing opportunities
to comment on technical
documents is an effective
way to enhance commu-
nity involvement; and
» It may be difficult to
reach consensus on future
land use, even when
mediation efforts are
implemented.
73
-------
Superfund Reforms
SUCCESS!
Asarco Tacoma Smelter,
Tacoma, Washington
At the Asarco Tacoma Smelter in Tacoma, Washington, the community was given the opportunity to review
and comment on the Site Community Relations Plan and draft cleanup work plans as well as provide input on
road closures and transportation impacts, future land use and institutional controls, EPA's Region 10 office
intends to continue enhanced community measures during the ongoing design of the cleanup and get
feedback from the community during the redevelopment of the site.
Eagle Mine Site
Minturn, Colorado
At the Eagle Mine site in Minturn, Colorado, the Eagle River Environmental and Business Alliance (the Alliance), a group
of community residents, was given the opportunity to review and comment on draft cleanup work plans prepared by the
parties performing the cleanup. Many of the comments received from the Alliance were used to guide and formulate
cleanup activities. In addition, the Alliance was very much involved in the review of the controversial series of risk
assessments conducted around a middle school adjacent to the site. Because of the Alliance's review and agreement
with EPA's risk conclusions, the controversy was resolved to the public's satisfaction. The Alliance continues to be
involved in the ongoing Eagle Mine project.
Contact
Denlz Ergener, OSRE,
(202) 564-4233
74
-------
Annual Report FY 1397
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
2-7,a. Training and Health Service Assistance to
Communities
EPA and the U.S. Public Health Service {PHS} established the Medical Assistance Plan (MAP5 to
respond to the health concerns of under-served citizens living near hazardous waste sites.
In the summer of 1994, EPA
requested assistance from the
Public Health Service (PHS) to
respond to health concerns of
communities near hazardous
waste sites. In response to this
request, the Superfund Medical
Assistance Work Group
(SMAWG) was established to
develop the Medical Assistance
Plan (MAP). The first phase of
MAP implementation will assess
the health care needs and
concerns of the community and
evaluate nearby primary care
capacities. The second phase,
according to the community's
need for assistance and the
availability of budget and
personnel services, will provide:
Physician training and
placement;
* Medical testing to assess
health affects related to
hazardous substance
exposure;
* Technical assistance to
local agencies and health
care providers;
Environmental health
education to health care
providers;
* Referral services to assist
individuals in locating
medical specialty clinics
or specialists; and
Medical followup for
individuals who demon-
strate documented
exposure to hazardous
substances or adverse
health conditions related
to possible exposures.
A third phase will include an
evaluation of the effectiveness of
the results. The Agency will test
the MAP program at various
Superfund sites.
Although EPA targeted four sites
for program testing during
FY95, project funding was
available at only one site, the Del
Amo/Montrose site inTorrence,
California, for which EPA
obligated $400,000. EPA
Region 9 as well as ATSDR have
been working closely with clinic
physicians to determine the
need for environmental
sampling to respond to clinic
results. Residents temporarily
relocated by EPA have been
permanently relocated by Del
Amo PRPs. EPA and PHS will
continue to seek funds sufficient
to finance additional pilot
projects in FY98,
Results
The Superfund Medical
Assistance Work Group
(SMAWG) has outlined
three phases of the Medical
Assistance Plan (MAP).
Four sites have been
targeted for program
testing, and EPA
designated $400,000
for MAP implementation
at the Del Amo/Montrose
site inTorrence, California.
Temporary relocation
efforts have begun at the site.
Next Steps
Continue to implement the
MAP program at the Del
Amo/Montrose Site
Secure funding to finance
FY98 pilot projects
75
-------
Superfund Reforms
BENEFITS
Improves delivery of
existing medical services
to communities with
potential exposures to
hazardous substances.
Builds environmental
heaith expertise in
communities through
physician training and
placement.
Contact
Michael Montgomery,
EPA Region 9,
(415) 744-2362
2-7.b, Superfund Jobs Training Initiative
( S u per JTI)
EPA has developed interagency partnerships to train and employ community residents living
near Superfund sites through classroom instruction and hands-on work experience.
While the purpose of the
Superfund Program is to clean
up the Nation s worst hazardous
waste sites, citizens face many
challenges from environmental
problems, and related social
stresses, in communities
affected by Superfund sites. The
Superfund Jobs Training
Initiative is a response to public '
demand for more economic
Contacts
David Ouderkirk, OERR,
(703) 603-9039
Beverly Negri, EPA Region 6
Superfund Community Relations
Team Leader,
(214) 665-8157
Yolanda Singer, OERR,
(703) 603-8835
benefit, at the local level, from
Superfund site cleanups. The
Superfund Program is taking a
"partnership" approach to find
the right resources and
providers to enable
communities to solve their own
problems; and enable the
Superfund Program to focus on
Superfund.
Results
Funded NIEHS s minority
worker trainng program in
FY97 and started pilots at
five Superfund sites
through EPA's Superfund
Jobs Training Initiative.
BENEFITS
Next Steps
* Continue to award grants
for health and safety
programs.
This initiative will help
increase opportunities for
job training and
employment in
neighborhoods affected
by Superfund sites,
particularly in socio-
economically
disadvantaged
communities.
-------
Annual Report FY 1997
SUCCESS!
Ml Taracorp Superfurtd Site,
Granite City, Illinois
EPA Region 5 Superfund staff and the National Institute of Environmental
Health Sciences (NfEHS) are working with an Environmental Justice (EJ>
community at this site. This SuperJTI effort has included sending flyers on
SuperJTI along with DePaul University's Minority Worker Training Program
application to approximately 1,600 homes, DePaul will begin an intensive
screening/interviewing process to select approximately 20 people by the end
of December, and start training in January, Similar to other Regions, training
wi!l include fife skids training followed by the 40-hour OSHA approved health
and safety course as well as lead and asbestos abatement courses.
RSR Smelter Site,
West Dallas, Texas
In West Dallas, EPA is working with the City of Dallas, New Start, the West
Dallas Neighborhood Development Corporation (WDNDC) and Laborers AGC
to provide 40-hour Hazardous Materials Workers training to community
residents, WDNDC and New Start are recruiting the students and working with
the City of Dallas to provide transportation to the training site.
Albuquerque, New Mexico
In Albuquerque, New Mexico, EPA is working with the United Brotherhood of
Carpenters (UBCi, NIEHS, and Dolores Hererra, of the AT&SF site, to offer the
SuperJTI classes there.
Agriculture Street Site,
New Orleans, Louisiana
Several SuparJTl training initiatives are ongoing. Xavier University provided
EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers with names of past graduates of the
Xavier Minority Workers Training Program. These certified students may be
considered for work in the first phase of construction work at the community
center.
Partnership in Chattanooga
Chattanooga, Tennessee
The Southeast Tennessee Private Industry Council (PIC), the Tennessee Valley
Authority (TVA), the Global Environmentaf Technology Foundation [GETFI, and
the National Association of Minority Contractors (NAMC) have agreed to
partner with ERA on jobs training in Chattanooga. EPA Region 4 and NAMC
will augment the PIC/TVA/GETF "Envirojobs" program with hazmat training
and collaboration on a Jobs fair. This SuperJTI effort for the Tennessee
Products site will serve the Alton Park/Piney Woods communities, through the
Community Advisory Group, by providing opportunities for jobs training and
enhanced access to community services. This is the first SuperJTI project that
does not rely upon NIEHS funding.
77
-------
Super fund Reforms
78
-------
Annual Report FY 1997
CONSISTENT PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION
2-8. Guidance for Remedy Selection
To improve consistency and take advantage of streamlining opportunities in site characterization
and remedy selection, EPA prepared the following documents: "Soil Screening Guidance";
"Land-Use Directive"; and several Presumptive Remedy Guidance documents.
SOIL SCREENING GUIDANCE EPA
issued final "Soil Screening
Guidance" (OSWER Directive
9355.4-17A) on May 17, 1996.
The soil screening levels
established in the guidance will
complement the ongoing
Superfund Accelerated Cleanup
Model (SACM) initiative and
also provide the framework for
other cleanup efforts, such as
RCRA corrective actions,
voluntary cleanup programs,
and State/Tribal cleanup
programs. Additionally, the
development of soil screening
levels will be useful in
streamlining baseline risk
assessment. The "Soil Screening
Guidance: User's Guide," "Fact
Sheet," and "Technical
Background Document" also
have been posted on the EPA/
Superfund Homepage on the
Internet.
LAND-USE DIRECTIVE On May
25, 1995, EPA issued a new
directive entitled, "Land Use in
the CERCLA Remedy Selection
Process" (OSWER Directive
9355.7-04). This memorandum
clarifies that land use should be
considered in risk assessment
and remedy selection. In
addition, it describes how the
assumptions about land use
should be made by involving
the community, considering the
context of the site, and
determining the site's potential
for reuse. One of the
memorandum's important
messages is that an assumption
of land use other than
residential (e.g., industrial) may
be appropriate in remedy
selection. The impact of this
memorandum will be to create
more remedies tailored to the
specific context of sites, improve
community involvement, and
more support for cleanup
decisions.
PRESUMPTIVE REMEDIES EPA
issued a general presumptive
remedy document, "Policy and
Procedures," in September
1993. The Agency published
the first Wood Treat er
presumptive remedy along with
presumptive remedies forVOCs
in soils and municipal landfills
in December 1995, EPA
completed the "Ground Water
Presumptive Response Strategy"
in October 1996, The Agency
completed a "User's Guide for
VOCs in Soil Presumptive
Remedy" (OSWER Directive
9355.0-48FS) in July 1996. A
final draft of a "User's Guide to
Results
The Agency has completed
a supplemental bulletin
which discusses the time
and estimated future cost
reductions demonstrated
by the municipal landfill
pilot sites. EPA estimates
time savings ranging
from 36 percent to 56
percent, and future cost
reductions up to 60
percent at the municipal
landfill pilots. In addition,
"Municipal Landfill on
Military Bases Presumptive
Remedy," (OSWER
Directive 9355.0-62FS)
developed by the Office of
Federal Facilities
Enforcement, appears to be
widely utilized.
Accompany the Wood Treaters
Presumptive Remedy" (OSWER
Directive 9200.5-162) was.
issued for review and comment
inAugust 1996. Although EPA s
primary focus is on the
development of new
presumptive remedies, it also
has begun to evaluate existing
presumptive remedies.
(continued see Remedies)
79
-------
Superfund R e f
arms
Remedies continued...
EPA published the
"Manufactured Gas Plant
Presumptive Response Strategy"
in February 1997, and the
presumptive remedy for PCB
sites in April 1997, EPA has
been engaged in a dialogue with
the Department of Agriculture
to produce a Grain Storage
presumptive remedy that would
bridge to the existing VOC and
Ground Water presumptive
remedies. The Agency
developed a Metals in Soils
presumptive remedy in
partnership with DOE in FY97.
Currently, EPA is developing a
presumptive remedies
supplemental bulletin for future
beneficial uses of municipal
landfills. The Agency also is
preparing a supplemental
bulletin for dual- or multi-phase
extraction (MPE) to assist site
Next Steps
SUCCESS!
Presumptive Remedy Process
Region 9
Region 9 reports they have nine sites that selected the remedy recommended
by the presumptive remedy guidance, or which are in the presumptive remedy
process.
The EPA Office of Inspector General (DIG) conducted an independent review of
the use of presumptive remedies entitled, "Review of Cleanup and Pilot
Project at South Indian Bend Wash Superfund Site in Tempe, Arizona," In the
summary of OIG's major findings, the report concluded: "Use of a
Presumptive Remedy increased consistency in decision-making by taking
advantage of lessons learned at similar sites, and allowed speedup of the
Feasibility Study process." The report acknowledged that the use of
"presumptive remedies is expected to create greater consistency, certainty
and quality of remedy decisions in the near term. Time and cost savings are
expected to increase over time "
managers using theVOCs
presumptive remedy.
Additionally, OERR is
developing a list to track the
universe of presumptive remedy
sites. This list will aid in
evaluating the time and future
cost reductions for presumptive
remedies. Future supplemental
bulletins that will document
time and future cost reductions,
as well as other benefits
Issue a supplemental bulletin for multi-phase extraction to assist
site managers using VOCs presumptive remedy
Develop additional bulletins to document time and future cost
reductions
Continue evaluating existing presumptive remedies
associated with the use of
presumptive remedies are
planned.
BENEFITS
EPA estimates that
recommendations from
these guidance
documents have been
implemented at an
increasing number of
sites, resulting in
significant cost and time
savings.
Contacts
Andrea Mclaughlin, OERR,
(703) 603-8793
R e f o r m Evaluation _ .
The presumptive remedies for municipal landfills and VOCs in soil were issued in September
1993,The presumptive remedy for woodtreater sites was issued in December 199S. OERR is
evaluating the degree to which, they are being implemented; the-'effectiveness'of the
presumptive remedy approach for these site categories, and any-benefits resulting from -
implementation of the presumptive remedies.-In order to make this evaluation, OERR is
developing data sets on sites where the presumptive remedy has been implemented and
candidate presumptive remedy sites in the pipeline. Also OERU is incorporating an RPM'
notification system for presumptive remedy sites into WASTELAN (CERCLIS 3). - "
80
-------
Annual Report FY 1997
2-9.a. Risk Sharing: Implementing Innovative
Technology
EPA will agree to share the risks associated with implementing innovative technologies for a
limited number of approved projects by "underwriting" the use of certain promising innovative
approaches.
In order to encourage PRPs to
try new approaches, EPA may
agree to reimburse up to 50
percent of the cost of selected
innovative remedies if the
remedy fails and subsequent
remedial action is required,
EPA has agreed to risk-sharing
at one site.
The Agency is in the process of
preparing guidance on
implementing the risk-sharing
initiative, which is expected by
February 1998. Also, given the
increased State role in
remediation, EPA is interested
in engaging State agencies in
this initiative.
BENEFITS
Promotes use of
innovative technologies
that may achieve faster,
less costly cleanups by
mitigating the risks
associated with
implementing these
projects.
Next Steps
Issue guidance on
implementing the risk-
sharing initiative
Explore ways to involve State
agencies in risk-sharing
agreements.
Results
EPA has entered a risk-
sharing agreement with a
PHP at one site. The Agency
has begun preparing
guidance that will direct
future risk-sharing
initiatives.
Contacts
Jim Cummings, TIO,
(703)603-7197
John Kingscott.TIO,
(703) 603-7189
SUCCESS!
Somersworth Sanitary Landfill Site,
Somersworth, New Hampshire
Under a risk-sharing agreement with a PRR EPA agreed to pay half the cost of the innovative technology, not to
exceed $3.5 million, if the technology does not fulfill expectations and additional remedial action is necessary. The
technology involved, an innovative "funnel and gate," helps to restore ground water by channeling the flow to a
permeable wall containing iron filings. Contaminants are removed as they pass through the gate. If successful,
this in situ technology may serve as an alternative to costly and protracted "pump and treat" approaches.
81
-------
Superfund Reforms
2-9,b. Risk Sharing: Identifying Obstacles to
Using Innovative Technology
EPA developed programs to share implementation risks associated with the use of innovative
technologies.
Following discussions with
some members of the Response
Action Contractor (RAC)
community, EPA learned that the
lack of indemnification for
prime contractors is hampering
the use of innovative
technology. Prime contractors
are unwilling to recommend
innovative technologies for fear
that they will be sued for
negligence in not recording
"tried and tested" technologies.
Without indemnification, there
is little incentive for the prime
contractors to select an
innovative technology.
Furthermore, a prime contractor
may not choose to test an
innovative technology if, again,
there is a fear of lawsuits if the
technology does not perform as
expected.
BENEFITS
Promotes the use of
innovative cleanup
technologies.
To address these concerns, EPA
is expanding indemnification
coverage to include both the
prime contractor and the
innovative technology
contractor when
indemnification is offered.
Thus, both the technology
vendor and the prime will be
provided protection from third
party negligence claims that
may result from a pollution
release. A statement on EPA's
offering of indemnification is
presented in an "Innovative
Technology Policy Directive"
Results
EPA IMS expanded
indeni/iification coverage to
include both the prime
contractor and the
innovative technology
contractor. The Agency's
1996 document,
"Innovative Technology
Policy Directive," provides a
clear statement of EPA's
indemnification policy.
(OSWER Directive 9380.0-25)
published by OSWER on
April 29, 1996. To date, this
protection has not been
requested by any vendors or
primes. Implementation of this
reform is considered complete. H
Contact
Barbara McDonough, OSWER,
(202) 260-6674
Next Steps
Implementation of this
reform is complete.
82
-------
Annual Report FY 1997
STATE AND TRIBAL EMPOWERMENT
2-10, Voluntary Cleanup Program
EPA seeks to support and promote effective State/Tribal voluntary cleanup programs, and, in
conjunction with the Brownfields Initiative, provide limited financial assistance to such
programs.
Approximately 3 5 States have
implemented voluntary cleanup
programs (VCP). Eeven States
(Missouri, Michigan, Minnesota,
Wisconsin, Indiana, Illinois,
Texas, Colorado, Delaware,
Rhode Island and Maryland)
signed Memoranda of
Agreement (MOAs) with their
respective Regions concerning
how EPA and the States will
work together to support
protective cleanups of voluntary
cleanup program sites and
sustainable redevelopment of
Brownfields sites.
On September 9, 1997, EPA
issued draft guidance on
developing Superfund Regional/
State Memoranda of Agreement
concerning State voluntary
cleanup programs. EPA
reviewed the 78 comments
submitted to the docket for this
draft guidance as well as other
communications and outreach
efforts with stakeholders. Based
on this review, it is clear that
tJhere is currently no consensus
among various stakeholders on
critical aspects of the guidance
or on the appropriate course of
action for EPA. It does not seem
likely that the Agency could
issue a final guidance in a timely
manner. Therefore, EPA has
withdrawn the proposed final
draft guidance it published in
the Federal Register. EPA/State
MOAs concerning State VCPs
continue to be a good way for
EPA to promote effective
programs and their success. For
negotiation of future MOAs,
Regions should look to the
November 14, 1996,
memorandum entitled "Interim
Approaches for Regional
Relations with State Voluntary
Cleanup Programs" as a
framework for these
negotiations. This will enable
Regions and States to negotiate
MOAs on a case-by-case basis
that can be customized to better
fit the State's voluntary cleanup
program and legislation.
Next Steps
» EPA anticipates signing up to
$15 million in cooperative
agreements during FY98
Contact
Ann McDonough, OSWER,
(202) 260-0145
Results
35 States have implemented
voluntary cleanup programs
(VCP) since the program's
inception. 11 States have
signed Memoranda of
Agreement (MOAs) with
their respective Regions. A
November 1996
memorandum, "Interim
Approaches for Regional
Relations with State Voluntary
Cleanup Programs," provides
a framework for MOA
negotiations.
BENEFITS
Promotes cooperation
between States/Tribes
and Regions.
Provides limited financial
assistance to State/Tribal
voluntary cleanup
programs.
Reform Evaluation -
Throxtgh core cooperative agreements, EPA distributed $10
million of FY97 funding to support State Voluntary Cleanup
Program infrastructure. BPA's FY98 budget is $15 million for
VCP infrastructure support. The November 14, 1996
memorandum completes this reform.
-------
Super fund Reforms
2-11. Integrated Federal/ State/Tribal Site
Management Program
EPA and States are working together to develop a pilot program under which States, Territories,
Commonwealths, and Federally recognized Tribes would oversee and compel PRP actions at
selected NPL-caliber sites.
On May 2, 1995, EPA issued
final guidance on the deferral
program. The deferral program
allows EPA to defer listing
considerations for NPL-caliber
sites while States and Tribes
initiate and oversee PRP
responses. The Agency
originally expected to evaluate
the pilots to determine how to
improve the guidance to
facilitate greater State
empowerment and more
effective cleanups.
In addition to implementing the
deferral program, EPA Regional
offices worked to increase State
participation through innovative
site characterization cooperative
agreements (CA) and new
funding for Tribes,
Contact
Marti Otto, OERR,
(703) 603-8853
Next Steps
BENEFITS
Facilitates State
empowerment and more
effective cleanups by
deferring sites from NPL
listing and handing
cleanup responsibilities
to State or Tribal
environmental agencies.
Results
EPA has signed deferral
agreements with 12
States, covering 30
Sites. 12 of these sites have
completed the remedy
selection phase. The Agency's
Regional offices have also
increased State participation
through characterization
cooperative agreements (CA)
and additional Tribal funding.
SUCCESS
Remedies
The FY95 and FY96 EPA appropriations reports required EPA
to obtain Governors' concurrence as a prerequisite to listing
sites on the NPL, and this had the effect of reducing the
importance and effectiveness of this reform. Also, the need
for the reform has been reduced as a result of the growing
importance of State voluntary cleanup programs. Still, as of
November 1997, EPA has signed deferral agreements,
covering 30 sites, with 12 states, and four of those
agreements have been signed over the past two years.
Remedies have been selected at 12 of the sites.
Reform Evaluation
Evaluate OIG review of State
deferrals and determine
appropriate followup actions.
In 1997, the Office of Inspector General (OIG), with support
from O1RR, initiated a review of Superfund deferral sites,
.including State deferrals, OERR will be-working with the OIG
to evaluate the results of the review and determine appropriate
followup'actions.
84
-------
Annual Report FY 1997
2-12, State/Tribal Superfund Block Funding
Super-fund Block Funding offers ways for States and Tribes to realize greater flexibility in their
use of Cooperative Agreement (CA) resources. EPA, working in conjunction with States and
Tribes, has developed recommendations to enhance State and Tribal involvement through
improved administration of assistance agreements.
In March 1995, EPA's Office of
Emergency and Remedial
Response (OERR) formed the
Superfund Block Funding
Workgroup to explore ways in
which States and Tribes could
realize greater flexibility in their
use of Cooperative Agreement
resources. EPA currently enters
into several types of site- and
non-site-specific cooperative
agreements with States to
conduct or assist Superfund
response actions. The
Workgroup has developed
recommendations to enhance
State involvement in Superfund
through improved
administration of assistance
agreements. The intent of this
initiative is to incorporate block
funding recommendations into
program operational
procedures. The Block Funding
Workgroup report is complete
and was distributed.
In order to insure the benefits
derived from the Block Funding
recommendations are realized,
OERR has developed a block
funding implementation plan
that includes the following
activities;
OERR is working with
the Office of the Comp-
troller to insure that
regions are allowed to
shift funds from existing
cooperative agreements
to block funding
cooperative agreements.
FY98 deobligation
guidance allows for this
procedure.
Class Deviations from
parts of 40 CFR Part 31
and 40 CFR Part 3 5 have
been submitted.
Monitoring, evaluating,
and refining implemen-
tation.
Documenting Agency-
wide and State govern-
ment savings in full-time
equivalents (FTE), as
well as, in increased
improvement
of program
implementation.
Next Steps
Issue final report
documenting obstacles in
awarding and utilization of
Superfund resources (12/97)
Evaluate ongoing pilots in
FY98
Results
EPA established a 50-
member workgroup on
block funding which
included input from 17
States and Tribes. Block
Funding Pilot projects
launched under the
recommendations
developed by the
workgroup are already
manifesting resource
savings to both levels of
government. For example,
the State of Illinois is
reporting an 85 percent
reduction in
preparation and
processing of
paperwork due to
regulatory deviations
received under their Block
Funding Pilot. Regulatory
deviations from portions
of40CFRPart31,
procured under the
auspices of the Block
Funding Reform, allowed
the State of Illinois to cut
at least three months out
of the remedial process for
one Superfund site and
insured that construction
would not be delayed into
(continued see Results)
85
-------
Superfund Reforms
Results, continued
the next construction
season. The following nine
States and three Tribes are
currently piloting the
Block Funding reform:
Colorado, Illinois, Hawaii,
Massachusetts, Minnesota,
Missouri, Nevada, Ohio,
Utah, the HoopaTribe, the
Tohono O'OdhamTribe,
and the Gila River Tribe.
BENEFITS
Allows States and Tribes
to direct CA funds
between sites and
activities to the extent
allowed by the Advice of
Allowance.
Insures that States have
the ability to transfer
funds from site and
activity, within the
approved tasks for the
cooperative agreement,
without prior EPA
approval.
Reduces specific
administrative budget
and reporting
requirements, where
appropriate, which can
produce resource saving
for both levels of
government.
SUCCESS
Block Grant
Illinois
!n January 1996, Illinois EPA and USEPA began work on the Block Grant
concept as a way to streamline the state role and its linkage to Federal
funding. Both agencies agreed that this pilot should cover as many sites as
possible while leaving fiscal safeguards in place, USEPA also was seeking
some relief in the number of CA amendments that it was processing.
By the end of 1996, Illinois EPA had completed status reports and budgets for
each site, the Cora Grant, and the Site Assessment Grant, which were
included as part of the Block Grant. Illinois EPA's application was fairly
straightforward and not as difficult as originally anticipated. USEPA-
Superfund seemed to have the more difficult job of convincing other
segments of USEPA to loosen control and oversight. They also were faced
with deobligation, reobligation, deviation requests and Headquarters
concerns. Nevertheless, the Block Grant was awarded in February 1997,
The Block Grant has resulted in far fewer CA amendments in 1997 as
compared to 1996. In that year, USEPA processed 7 Illinois EPA CA
applications. With only one quarter left in FY97, Illinois EPA had only
submitted one CA application. This is a dramatic 85 percent drop in the
preparation and processing of fiscal paperwork due to the Block Grant, This
has saved both USEPA and Illinois EPA a great deal of time, effort, and
resources which are better spent on cleanups.
The Block Grant also has allowed Illinois EPA to go from quarterly reporting to
bi-yearly reporting. While Illinois EPA continues to send quarterly financial
statements for cost recovery purposes, project status updates are now sent on
a bi-yearly basis. This has resulted in a 50 percent drop In the effort expended
in reporting.
The Block Grant allows Illinois EPA to transfer money from one project to
another based on need and changing program priorities. Illinois EPA is
required to report on each budget shift, but prior USEPA approval is not
needed and delays associated with CA application preparation and processing
are largely eliminated.
Illinois EPA has recently decided to use the Block Grant's flexibility to transfer
additional money into the Parsons Casket project. The Parsons Casket ROD
was completed by Illinois EPA in September 1996. USEPA decided at that
time to pursue a settlement with a former owner of the site. In October 1997,
USEPA announced a tentative cash-out settlement with the PRP. Instead of
waiting until the next fiscal year for available funds, this settlement allows
Illinois EPA to immediately begin design work on the remedy. The Block
Grant's use has cut at least three months out of the remedial process and has
insured that the remedy is constructed in the next construction season.
Without the Block Grant, design and contractor procurement would have
prevented construction in FY98.
Illinois EPA continues to believe that the Block Grant is a necessity for the
State role in a reauthorized Superfund Program.
Contacts
Ken Fisher, OERR,
(703) 603-8764
Kirby Biggs, OERR,
(703) 308-8506
86
------- |