United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
OSWER 9200.1-18FS
EPA540-F-97-009
PB97-963216
May 1997
Consolidated Guide to
Consultation Procedures for
Superfund Response
Decisions
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response Quick Reference Fact Sheet
The goal of this fact sheet is to describe management review procedures employed by EPA to ensure that national
remedy selection policies and procedures are being implemented in a reasonable and appropriately consistent manner.
EPA believes that consistent application of national policy and guidance is an important means by which we ensure
the reasonableness, predictability, and cost-effectiveness of Superfund decisions. This document has been developed
as a result of the National Consistency directive (OSWER Directive 9200.0-21) and the Remedy Selection "Rules of
Thumb" Superfund Reform efforts announced by Administrator Carol Browner in October 1995.
This fact sheet provides a consolidated guide to EPA Headquarters and Regional consultation procedures for
response decisions management. This document was developed to clarify and consolidate the various consultation
procedures that have been established for both remedial and removal response selection decision making through
various OSWER Directives, memoranda, and recommendations of national policy workgroups.
NOTE: This fact sheet only highlights the review and/or consultation procedures that exist between EPA headquarters
and EPA Regional offices for Superfund response selection decision-making. Every response decision goes through
a rigorous technical and management review process within each Regional EPA office as well. The specific
management review procedures are unique to each Region, and have evolved over time to reflect the best technical and
program management expertise as well as the different organizational structures in each office.
^OCU^RE^EVIEW
In May 1996, the Office of Emergency and
Remedial Response (OERR) issued a directive
describing the goal of promoting "appropriately
consistent CERCLA program implementation . . . and
effective communication between Headquarters and the
Regions" with a focus on four technical and policy
areas. (Focus Areas for Headquarters OERR Support
for Regional Decision Making, OSWER Directive
9200.1-17, May 22, 1996).
The four focus areas include: risk management and
cost-effectiveness decision documentation; ground
water policy; lead (Pb) policy; and presumptive
remedies.
The consultation procedures outlined in the
memorandum involve the review of draft proposed
plans by staff in OERR's Accelerated Response
Centers. In some circumstances, OERR may request
the review of draft decision documents such as
Records of Decision (RODs), ROD amendments.
Explanations of Significant Differences (ESDs), or
Action Memoranda for non-time-critical removal
1
-------
actions. Consultations are still required for non-time-
critical removal actions costing over $5 million (see
SACK!Regional Decision Teams and Early Action and
Long-Term Action Under SACAI, OSWER Directive
9203.1-051, December 1992). Headquarters staff will
flag any inconsistencies with respect to focus area
policies and will work with Regional staff, on an
informal basis, to resolve these issues in a timely
manner. Issues of a national precedent-setting nature
may be discussed with management as well.
At the same time, this memorandum encourages
Regional staff to look upon Headquarters staff as a
resource that can provide assistance in working
through issues as early as possible during the
development of site response strategies and draft
proposed plans. The specific elements within each
focus area are summarized in Table 1 and discussed in
more detail in the May 1996 Focus Area
memorandum.
HEADQUARTERS
APPROVAL/CONCURRENCE ON
REMOVAL ACTIONS
The Superfund statute established certain limitations
on the use of removal actions. Some of the approval
authority for exceeding these statutory limitations has
been delegated to EPA Regional offices, and some
approval authority remains at Headquarters. Table 2
lists the specific elements of the Headquarters
approval/concurrence consultation process for removal
actions.
Cross-regional response decisions management
groups have also been formed to share critical site
information and improve remedy selection decision
making. (See Table 3). Sharing draft proposed plans,
decision documents, or other site-specific response
strategies with these review groups as early as possible
in the remedy selection process, will help facilitate a
quick and efficient review.
The National Remedy Review Board was formed to
promote cost-effectiveness and national consistency in
remedy selection at Superfund sites. The Board is
staffed with technical experts and senior managers
from each EPA Region and several EPA Headquarters
offices and focuses its reviews on high cost remedies.
(National Remedy Review Board Progress Report:
Fiscal Year 1996, OSWER Directive 9220.0-24,
January 1997; and National Remedy Review Board
Review Criteria for Federal Facility Superfund Sites,
OSWER Directive 9220.0-25, draft).
Lead is one of the most frequently encountered
chemicals at Superfund sites. Lead cleanups are also
some of the most costly cleanups. As a result, a Lead
Sites Management Workgroup has been formed by the
Superfund Waste Management Division Directors in
order to have management level involvement in key
lead site decisions across the nation. Criteria will be
developed in the near future and will provide proposed
action levels and/or risk management alternatives that
trigger a review by this group. (Per direction of
Superfund Haste Management Division Directors'
Lead Policy Forum on February 6, 1997.)
CROSS-REGIONAL TECHNICAL
REVIEW WORKGROUPS
Finally, cross-regional technical review workgroups
have also been formed to focus on technical issues
underlying risk assessment and response management
issues. (See Table 4).
In order to support site-specific lead risk
assessments and assist in the development of national
lead policy for Superfund, the Technical Review
Workgroup for lead was established. This group of
scientists and technical experts is familiar with the
development and refinement of the Integrated
Exposure Uptake Biokinetic Model for Lead in
Children (IEUBK) and provides advice on questions
relating to site-specific lead risk assessments. OERR
has asked Regional offices to identify any application
of the IEUBK model that is expected to be challenged
or will set a precedent in IEUBK model application so
that the Technical Review Workgroup can be informed
of the issues and provided an opportunity to comment
on the approach undertaken. (Revised Interim Soil
Lead Guidance for CERCLA Sites and RCRA
Corrective Action Facilities, OSWER Directive
9355.4-12, July 14, 1994; and Administrative Reforms
for Lead Risk Assessment, OSWER Directive 9200.4-
20, April 17, 1996).
For sites where EPA is developing dioxin soil
cleanup levels, OERR asks the Regions to consult with
Headquarters and the Superfund Dioxin Workgroup as
early as possible in the remedy selection process. This
consultation process is needed to ensure a consistent
transition in implementing the results of the Agency
Dioxin Reassessment. (Headquarters Consultation for
Dioxin Sites, OSWER Directive 9200.4-19, December
13, 1996).
CROSS-REGIONAL RESPONSE
DECISIONS MANAGEMENT GROUPS
2
-------
^POINT^O^CONTACT
OERR Focus Area Reviews: Contact staff in individual
OERR Regional Accelerated Response Centers.
Removal Program Concurrences: Contact staff in
individual OERR Regional Accelerated Response
Centers.
National Remedy Review Board: Regional Remedy
Review Board members or Bruce Means (OERR) at
703-603-8815.
Lead Sites Management Workgroup: Nick Ceto
(Region 10) at 206-553-1816 or Shahid Mahmud
(OERR) at 703-603-8789.
Lead Technical Review Workgroup: Pat Van Leeuwen
(Region 5) at 312-886-4904, Paul White (Office of
Research and Development) at 202-260-2589, or
Larry Zaragoza (OERR) at 703-603-8867.
Dioxin Review Workgroup: Marlene Berg (OERR) at
703-603-8701, Elmer Akin (Region 4) at 404-562-
8634, or Dwain Winters (Office of Prevention,
Pesticides, and Toxic Substances) at 202-260-8558.
EPA employees can obtain copies of OSWER directives cited in this guide by calling
the Superfund Document Center at (703) 603-9232 or sending an e-mail to:
"superfund.documentcenter@epamail.epa.gov"
3
-------
1
2
3
TABLE 1
0
E
OERR FOCUS AREA REVIEWS
R
E
A
A
G
R
Levels of Management Review
I
R
1. Regional Staff (S) and Management (M) (Region)
O
2. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response Staff (S) or Management (M) (OERR)
N
3. Assistant Administrator for the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (AA)
Submit draft proposed plans1 to OERR Regional Center Staff for reviews in the following focus
areas: (Focus Areas for Headquarters OERR Support for Regional Decision Making, OSWER
Directive 9200.1-17, May 22, 1996)
1) Risk management and cost-effectiveness decision documentation
S
S
• Clear presentation of risks that justify action, using reasonable land use and exposure
assumptions
• Description of how response action will address risks
• Description of other benefits of response action
• Determination that effectiveness of response justifies cost
2) Ground water policy
S
S
• Consistent implementation of presumptive response strategy for contaminated ground water
• Consistent implementation of technical impracticability guidance (Consistent Implementation
of the FY1993 Guidance on Technical Impracticability of Ground Water Restoration at
Superfund Sites, OSWER Directive 9200.4-14, January 1995)
3) Lead policy
s
s
• Consistent implementation of OSWER lead policy and coordination with cross-regional
technical and management review groups
4) Presumptive remedies
c
c
• Appropriate use of presumptive remedies whenever possible
o
o
1 Consultations are still required for non-time-critical removal actions costing over $5 million (see
SACMRegional Decision Teams and Early Action and Long-Term Action Under SACM,
OSWER Directive 9203.1-051, December 1992).
4
-------
TABLE 2
HQ APPROVAL/CONCURRENCE ON REMOVAL ACTIONS
Levels of Management Review
1. Regional Staff (S) and Management (M) (Region)
2. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response Staff (S) and Management (M) (OERR)
3. Assistant Administrator for the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (AA)
1
R
E
G
I
0
N
2
0
E
R
R
3
A
A
Removal Program Approval/Concurrence
The Superfund statute established certain limitations on the use of removal actions. Some of the
approval authority for exceeding these statutory limitations has been delegated to EPA Regional
offices, and some approval authority remains at Headquarters.
$2 million statutorv limit exemptions:
• Emergency Exemption requests exceeding $6 million
• Consistency Exemption requests for non-NPL sites
• All other exemptions
M
M
M
12-month statutorv limit exemptions:
• All exemptions to the 12-month statutory limit
M
In addition, the process for obtaining Headquarters concurrence on nationally significant fund-lead
removal actions is described in Guidance on Non-NPL Removal Actions Involving Nationally
Significant or Precedent Selling Issues, OSWER Directive 9360.0-19. March 3, 1989. Subsequent
guidance has modified some of these consultation requirements (Response Actions at Sites with
Contamination Inside Buildings, OSWER Directive 9360.3-12, August 12, 1993).
1) Removal actions at sites within the United States or its territories involving contamination or
response actions that may affect other sovereign nations, including Indian Tribes.
M
2) Removal actions involving pesticide contamination arising from: a) improper storage of pesticide
products awaiting indemnification; b) lawful application of pesticides, including special local use
pesticides; or c) grain fumigation operations.
M
3) Removal actions at sites involving any form of dioxin when it is one of the principal
contaminants of concern.
M
4) Removal actions at sites involving releases from consumer products in consumer use (e.g., lead-
contaminated soil resulting from peeling lead-based paint on houses).
M
5) Removal actions involving asbestos when it is the principal contaminant of concern.
M
M
6) Removal actions involving substances or releases which may be subject to statutory exclusions or
limitations in CERCLA.
7) Response actions at sites with contamination inside buildings (e.g., indoor releases of mercury).
M
5
-------
TABLE 3
1
2
3
CROSS-REGIONAL
R
E
G
I
O
O
E
R
R
A
A
RESPONSE DECISIONS MANAGEMENT GROUPS
Levels of Management Review
1. Regional Staff (S) and Management (M) (Region)
2. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response Staff (S) and Management (M) (OERR)
3. Assistant Administrator for the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (AA)
N
1) National Remedy Review Board {National Remedy Review Board Progress Report: Fiscal Year
1996, OSWER Directive 9220.0-24, January 1997; and National Remedy Review Board Review
Criteria for Federal Facility Superfund Sites, OSWER Directive 9220.0-25, draft).
Response selection decisions for all sites (excetrt DOE Radioactive-waste and DOD BRAC sites):
• Proposed remedy cost estimate exceeds $30 million
M
M
• Proposed remedy cost estimate exceeds $10 million and is 50% greater in cost than that of the
least-costly, protective, ARAR-compliant alternative
M
M
Response selection decisions involving radioactive-waste at DOE sites:
• Proposed remedy cost estimate exceeds $75 million
M
M
• Proposed remedy cost estimate exceeds $25 million and is 50% greater in cost than that of the
least-costly, protective, ARAR-compliant alternative
M
M
2) Lead Sites Management Workgroup
(Per direction of Superfund Waste Management Division Directors' Lead Policy Forum on
February 6, 1997.)
• Proposed remedy involves national precedent setting issues
M
M
6
-------
TABLE 4
1
2
3
CROSS-REGIONAL TECHNICAL REVIEW GROUPS
R
E
G
I
O
N
o
E
R
R
A
A
Levels of Management Review
1. Regional Staff (S) and Management (M) (Region)
2. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response Staff (S) and Management (M) (OERR)
3. Assistant Administrator for the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (AA)
1) Technical Review Workgroup (TRW) for Lead Sites (Administrative Reforms for Lead Risk
Assessment, OSWER Directive 9200.4-20, April 17, 1996)
• Send all completed lead risk assessments which used the IEUBK model to the TRW. A review
will focus on consistency with guidance.
S
S
• Identify for the TRW all IEUBK risk assessments that are either in planning or underway.
S
S
• Identify for the TRW any application of the IEUBK that is expected to be challenged or will
set a precedent in IEUBK application.
S
s
• Send any draft Regional guidance relating to lead to Headquarters for review prior to release.
S
s
• Any IEUBK risk assessment with outputs that are outside the range of 400 ppm to 1200 ppm
should be submitted for review.
s
s
• Any adult lead risk assessment that would suggest a preliminary remediation goal (PRG)
output outside the range of 500 ppm to 2000 ppm should be submitted for review.
s
s
2) Technical Review Workgroup for Dioxin Sites (Headquarters Consultation for Dioxin Sites,
OSWER Directive 9200.4-19, December 13, 1996)
• Submit for review pertinent information for all sites where remediation goals are to be
developed for dioxin in soil, regardless of whether dioxin itself drives the decision-making
process.
s
s
7
------- |