United States
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance
Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
April 2008
EPA-330R08001
United States
Enwlfort
Agency
Understanding the Superfund
Alternative Approach
Office of Site Remediation Enforcement
Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation
Introduction
Superfund sites are places where EPA has
determined that a hazardous substance, pollutant
or contaminant is located. These areas are
entered in EPA's official site inventory. There
are many pathways available to getting a
Superfund site cleaned up. Among the best
known pathways, for sites that need long-term
cleanup, is to list the site on the National
Priorities List (NPL). Sites on the NPL are
eligible for federal remedial (long-term) cleanup
funds.1
EPA may also clean up sites eligible for the NPL
using other Superfund and non-Superfund
authorities, or States may use their authorities to
clean up these sites. Which cleanup pathway is
chosen depends on many variables, such as the
complexity of the cleanup, the availability of
funds (private or public) for the cleanup, and the
nature (e.g., private, governmental, tribal),
number and experience of the parties involved at
the site.
One of EPA's non-NPL Superfund pathways is
referred to as the Superfund Alternative (SA)
approach. The SA approach uses the same
process and standards for investigation and
cleanup as sites on the NPL. Sites using the SA
approach are not eligible for federal remedial
cleanup funds. Cleanup funding for sites with
SA agreements is provided by the potentially
responsible parties (PRPs).
As long as a PRP enters into an SA agreement
with EPA and stays in compliance with that
agreement, there is no need for EPA to list the
site on the NPL. If a PRP fails to meet the
obligations of the agreement, EPA may
reconsider putting the site on the NPL.
Currently, sites using the SA approach are a
small percentage of all cleanup agreements.
Threshold Criteria
for Using the SA Approach
Eligibility for this approach is based on the
following three criteria:
1. Site contamination is significant enough that
the site would be eligible for listing on the
NPL (i.e., the site would have a Hazard
Ranking System (HRS) score of 28.5 or
greater;
2. A long-term response (i.e., a remedial
action) is anticipated at the site; and
3. There is at least one willing, capable party
(e.g., a company or person) that has
responsibility under Superfund, who will
negotiate and sign an agreement with EPA
to perform the investigation and cleanup.
Getting Started with the SA Approach
EPA has discretion to determine if the SA
approach is appropriate at a particular site. If a
site meets criteria 1 and 2 above, EPA may
approach a PRP, or a PRP may approach EPA,
to negotiate an SA agreement. The SA
agreement is equivalent to an agreement
negotiated at an NPL site. For example, the
same investigation and cleanup will be done as
if the site were listed on the NPL.
1 For more information on the NPL listing process,
seewww.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/index.htm.
-------
PRPs may choose not to negotiate an SA
agreement. In that case, the site would proceed
to cleanup using a different path (e.g., NPL
listing, State cleanup program).
State Role
EPA will consult with the state in which the site
is located on whether to attempt the SA
approach, settlement negotiations and remedy
selection. Throughout the process, the state will
have the same opportunities for involvement as
at an NPL site.
Cleanup Agreements
EPA will negotiate agreements with PRPs for
site investigation and site cleanup. The
agreement for investigation is usually in the
form of an Administrative Order on Consent
(AOC). The agreement for remedial action is
always in the form of a judicial Consent Decree
(CD).
Both the AOC and the CD should include
language specific to the SA approach that keeps
sites using the SA approach in an equivalent
position to sites listed on the NPL. EPA has
model language for SA provisions that address
NPL listing after partial cleanup, technical
assistance for communities, financial assurance
and natural resource damage claims. The
provisions needed depend on the work being
performed.
Investigation & Remedy Selection
Once the site studies are complete and the
hazards are identified, EPA will select a site
remedy the same way it selects a remedy for
sites listed on the NPL.
Community Participation
At sites listed on, or proposed to be listed on the
NPL, a qualified community group may apply
for a technical assistance grant (TAG) to hire an
independent technical advisor. In SA
agreements, EPA negotiates a technical
assistance provision for the PRP to provide
funds should a qualified community group apply
for such an advisor.
EPA's Role During and After Cleanup
EPA will oversee the investigation and cleanup
just as it would at a site listed on the NPL.
When the cleanup is completed, EPA will ensure
the remedy continues to work as intended by
monitoring the site and performing the same
reviews it conducts for sites listed on the NPL.
Potential Benefits of the SA Approach
The benefits of the SA approach will vary
depending on the site circumstances. A benefit
that accrues at most sites is the resource savings
of not formally proposing and listing a site on
the NPL. Other benefits may include a
community's good will at not having the site
listed on the NPL, a PRP's willingness to
negotiate a good-faith agreement, and the
opportunity to start cleanup work more quickly
than waiting for listing on the NPL. Overall, the
cleanup process is as protective as at NPL sites.
Further Information. If you have questions
regarding this fact sheet, please contact Nancy
Browne, Office of Site Remediation
Enforcement, at (202) 564-4219,
browne.nancy@epa.gov; or Robert Myers,
Office of Superfund Remediation and
Technology Innovation, (703) 603-8851,
myers. robert@epa.gov.
For more information on the SA approach,
including links to the guidance and a list of sites
that have SA approach agreements, please go to:
http://epa.gov/compliance/cleanup/superfund/saa
.html
Disclaimer This document is provided solely for
informational purposes. It does not provide legal
advice, have any legally binding effect, or expressly
or implicitly create, expand, or limit any legal rights,
obligations, responsibilities, expectations, or benefits
for any person. This document is not intended as a
substitute for reading the statute or the guidance
documents described above.
------- |