UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
21 2005 OFFICEOF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
OSWER 9220.0-27
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: National Remedy Review Board Criteria Revision
FROM: Michael B. Cook,
Office of Superfund«RenieWatibnW\JI1'ercrihology Innovation
James E. Woolfora, Director
Feaeral Facilities Restoration and Reuse Office
TO: Superfund National Policy Managers, Regions 1-10
Purpose:
The purpose of this memorandum is to notify you of changes that are being made to the
National Remedy Review Board (NRRB) review threshold. Effective July 1, 2005, the NRRB
will review proposed cleanup plans for both National Priorities List (NPL) and non-NPL
Superfund sites where costs for the preferred action are estimated to exceed $25 million (revision
from the current $30 million). Additionally, we are eliminating the seldom invoked criterion
where the NRRB reviews proposed remedies that cost more than $10 million ($25 million for
Department of Energy sites), and are 50 percent more expensive than the least-costly, ARAR
compliant, protective alternative.
Other criteria regarding Department of Energy (DOE) sites where radiation is the primary
contaminant of concern ($75 million) and DOE non-time critical removal actions ($30 million)
remain the same. These new changes as well as those that remain the same are reflected in the
attached summary. This summary can be found on the internet at
www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/nrrb/.
Background:
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established the NRRB in October 1995.
The Board's goals are to help control remedy costs and promote both consistent and
cost-effective decisions at Superfund sites, including those at federal facilities. When the Board
was conceived as part of the 1995 Administrative Reforms, the criteria were adopted based on a
number of factors, including the workload. At that time, a goal to review approximately 10% of
the decisions was set which resulted in the criteria established above. It was expected that 12
to 16 reviews would be conducted in a year.
Over the last several years, the number of reviews has declined, thus falling below our
10% goal. Between the period of fiscal years 2002 through 2004, approximately 370 decision
-------
documents were signed, but only 15 sites were brought before the Board. This coupled with our
increasing demands on funding, suggested that the time has come to readjust our review criteria.
From its inception, we anticipated the need that the NRRB review criteria would be adjusted as
necessary to assure that it could balance the resources required to conduct robust evaluations and
the significant benefits that accrue from them. We anticipate that these changes to the review
criteria will simplify the process and contribute to an efficient administration of the Board's
resources.
Implementation:
Effective July 1, 2005, the NRRB will review all proposed Superfund cleanup decisions'
that are estimated to cost more than $25 million (except for DOE sites as stated above). Regional
NRRB members should work with their respective site managers to bring eligible sites through
the review process. Additionally, we encourage the Regions to consider coming to the NRRB as
resources allow, with other sites that may not meet the review threshold but may benefit from the
Board's expertise.
Although advisory in nature, we expect the Board's recommendations to be given careful
consideration by the Regions. Therefore, we request that the Region's response to the NRRB's
recommendations be submitted to the Chair of the NRRB prior to finalizing decision documents.
The Region's response will be reviewed by Headquarters. It is not anticipated that every NRRB
recommendation be adopted, but the Region should be able to technically justify their responses.
Satisfactory resolution of any outstanding issues for fund lead sites will be a prerequisite before
any remedial action funding recommendations are finalized.
Finally, there has been a change in the leadership of the NRRB. Bruce Means of the
Office of Superfund and Technology Innovation (OSRTI) has chaired the Board since its
inception with assistance from Rich Norris and was instrumental in crafting the Board's
procedures and policies. Under his leadership, he made the Board an effective tool in improving
our overall Superfund program. With our reorganization this year, Bruce has moved on to serve
as the Chief of OSRTI's Analytical Operations Branch and Rich has since become a Board
member. Jo Ann Griffith, who has been serving as acting chair for this past year and is currently
Chief of OSRTI's Science Policy Branch will continue on as the Chair. She is being assisted by
Emily Johnson and Leah Evison. They continue to work together to ensure a smooth transition.
In closing, the NRRB has significantly improved both the consistency and cost
effectiveness of our cleanup decisions over the past eight years. This reform's success is not just
the result of the hard work of those who staff the Board, but of the site managers and regional
management who develop our program's cleanup remedies. We appreciate these efforts and look
forward to your continued support in NRRB reviews as we move to adjust the review criteria.
If you have any further questions, please contact Ms. Jo Ann Griffith at (703) 603-8774.
She can also be reached at griffith.j oann@,epa. gov.
Attachment: National Remedy Review Board Criteria (effective July 1, 2005)
'This criterion covers both NPL and non-NPL (Superfund alternative sites) remedial
actions regardless of the management lead as well as non-time critical removal actions at sites
other than federal facilities.
-------
cc: Eric Steinhaus, EPA Region 8, Superfimd Lead Region Coordinator
NARPM Co-Chairs
OSRTI Managers
Debbie Dietrich, OEM
Matt Hale, OSW
Cliff Rothenstein, OUST
Linda Garczynski, OBCR
Susan Bromm, OSRE
Scott Sherman, OGC
Earl Salo, OGC
John Michaud, OGC
Joanna Gibson, OSRTI Documents Coordinator
-------
National Remedy Review Board
Review Criteria
(Effective Date: July 1, 2005; as found in OSWER Directive 9220.27)
The National Remedy Review Board (NRRB) will review all proposed interim and final
Superfund response decisions at both NPL and non-NPL (including "Superfund Alternative")
sites for which:
• The proposed remedial action costs more than $25 million; or
• The proposed non-time critical removal action (NTCRA) other than Federal Facilities is
estimated to cost more than $25 million; or
• These are the following post Proposed Plan Changes:
The Region selects a different alternative (after the release of the Proposed Plan
for public comment) that costs more than 20% from the original proposal and
these costs trigger review criteria. The Board will review the new proposal even
if the earlier proposed action had undergone Board review.
The Region develops a new alternative that was not evaluated in the Proposed
Plan and the costs of the new alternative would trigger a review, then the Region
will present the new alternative to the Board.
The Board may review (at regional discretion) sites where the proposed action's
original cost estimate increases more than 20% after issuance of the Proposed
Plan due to updated cost information or minor changes to the alternative and
those changes trigger review criteria.
Federal Facility Sites (other than the Department of Energy)
• Federal Facility sites (including Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program-
FUSRAP) follow the same review criteria above with the exception of NTCRAs. Federal
Facility NTCRAs do not undergo Board review unless requested by the Federal Facility.
Department of Energy Sites (DOE)
• The NRRB will review sites where the primary contaminant is radioactive waste and the
proposed remedial action costs more than $75 million; or
The NRRB will review NTCRAs at NPL sites that exceed $30 million for primarily
radioactive waste; (Per joint DOE/EPA Memorandum dated October 5,1998, which can
be found at www.epa.gov/superfund/programs/nrrbA.
Decisions at Base Realignment and Closure sites do not undergo Board review.
------- |