Site
Types
Work
Group
NACEPT
Superfund
Subcommittee
March
10­
12,
2003
Phoenix,
AZ
Site
Types
Subgroups

Future
of
the
NPL

HRS
Issues

Funding
Priorities

"
Mega"
Sites
Categories
of
Issues
Considered

NPL
listing
­
deciding
which
sites
to
propose
for
NPL
listing.


Prioritizing
sites
on
the
NPL
 
what
factors
and
criteria
should
be
considered?


Mega
site
issues
 
how
should
these
sites
be
addressed?
NPL
Listing
Subgroup
Analysis
and
Recommendations
for
Subcommittee
Consideration
NPL
Listing
Subgroup
Objective

Consider
options
for
the
future
role
of
the
NPL
given
the
number
and
types
of
cleanup
sites
that
may
be
expected
in
the
future
 
What
types
of
sites
belong
on
the
NPL?

 
What
criteria
should
be
used
to
list
them
considering
the
universe
of
sites
that
need
attention?

 
Who
should
be
involved
in
the
listing
process?
NPL
Listing
Subgroup
Task

Develop
scenarios
to
present
to
full
subcommittee
regarding
the
nature
of
the
NPL
and
the
associated
screening
steps

Make
recommendations
on
items
of
consensus
(
e.
g.,
early
screening)
NPL
Subgroup
Considered

Early
screening

Scenarios
for
the
NPL

Other
issues

HRS
issues
Early
Screening

Improve
early
screening
 
Ensure
adequate
screening
for
other
applicable
cleanup
programs
 
Provide
opportunities
for
information
sharing
and
community
involvement
 
Identify
and
involve
PRPs

Maintain
EPA
HQ
review
of
HRS
packages
to
ensure
consistency
and
accuracy
Early
Screening
 
cont'd

Recommendations
don't
address
variations
among
states
and
regions,
particularly
differences
in
how
and
why
sites
are
identified
for
consideration
Scenarios
for
the
future
of
the
NPL

Scenario
1
 
The
NPL
is
a
list
of
all
sites
worthy
of
Superfund
status.

Period.


Scenario
2
 
The
NPL
is
a
list
of
sites
being
funded
for
cleanup
through
the
Superfund
program
at
that
moment
in
time.
Scenario
1
criteria

Site
scores
28.5
or
above
on
HRS

Site
has
governor's
concurrence

Site
proposed
for
NPL
by
state
and
region
Key
Implications(
Positive)


Provides
accurate
picture
of
cleanup
needs

May
help
prioritize
funding
for
cleanup

Demonstrates
need
for
funding
Key
Implications
(
Negative)


Size
of
the
NPL
would
probably
increase

Doesn't
address
variations
in
types
of
sites
proposed
for
listing
by
states/
regions

Sites
could
stay
on
NPL
for
years
w/
o
action

Entire
process
could
take
longer

Shifting
of
monies
in
process
could
impact
availability
of
funds
for
actual
cleanup
Key
Implications
(
Negative
 
cont'd)


Reduces
options
of
using
other
federal
cleanup
programs
for
sites
on
the
NPL

Reduces
opportunities
for
collaboration
and
leveraging
monies
Scenario
2
criteria

Site
scores
28.5
or
above
on
HRS

Site
has
governor's
concurrence

Site
proposed
for
NPL
by
state
and
region

Site
passes
screening
by
EPA
HQ
to
ensure
available
funding
for
cleanup
Key
Difference
Between
Scenarios

Under
scenario
2
­­
Initiate
EPA
HQ
level
screening
of
NPL­
candidate
sites
to
set
priorities
among
eligible
sites
and
limit
the
number
of
fund­
lead
sites
placed
on
the
NPL
to
only
the
highest
priority
sites
based
on
the
ability
to
pay
for
response
actions
at
those
sites.
Key
Implications(
Positive)


Size
of
NPL
will
probably
decrease
over
time

Would
provide
tangible
list
of
national
cleanup
priorities
and
account
for
some
variation
in
state
and
regional
approaches
to
listing
decisions

Fewer
sites
would
likely
lead
to
shorter
time
on
the
NPL
Key
Implications(
Positive
 
cont'd)


Review
at
the
highest
level
(
EPA
HQ)
should
provide
opportunity
to
identify
other
potential
sources
of
funding

May
encourage
the
use
of
other
cleanup
programs
for
sites
left
off
the
NPL
Key
Implications(
Negative)


Indefinite
status
for
sites
not
selected
in
any
given
year
could
lead
to:

 
Uncertainty
over
when
and
if
cleanup
will
occur
 
Continued
exposure
to
unacceptable
risks
 
Reluctance
by
PRPs
to
work
with
state
voluntary
cleanup
programs
 
Adverse
effects
on
NRDA
processes
and
other
enforcement
actions
Key
Implications
(
Negative
 
cont'd)


Provides
a
false
sense
of
the
size
of
the
cleanup
universe

Does
nothing
to
relieve
funding
shortfalls
and
indeed
may
lead
to
decreased
appropriations

May
lead
to
sites
w/
o
clear
alternative
for
cleanup
Outstanding
Issues

Governor's
Concurrence
 
Does
this
prevent
the
listing
of
high­
risk
sites?

 
Does
EPA
policy
warrant
review
and
change?


Reduction
in
number
of
sites
created
 
Are
there
ways
to
aggressively
monitor
prospective
sites
and
sites
that
have
been
proposed,
but
not
listed?

 
Are
there
ways
to
strengthen
prevention
programs?

 
Can
financial
assurances
be
strengthened?
Summary
of
Key
Points

Group
consensus
on
ways
to
improve
early
screening

Policy
choices
for
Subcommittee
consideration
in
the
scenarios
include:

1.
Should
sites
on
the
NPL
compete
for
funding?
or
2.
Should
sites
compete
to
get
on
the
NPL?
NPL
Discussion

Early
screening

NPL
Scenarios

Other
issues
HAZARD
RANKING
SYSTEM
UPDATE
ISSUES
RAISED

Does
the
HRS
need
to
be
revised
to
address
sites
where
the
primary
risk
is
due
to
vapor
intrusion?


Does
the
HRS
need
to
be
revised
to
address
UXO
(
Unexploded
ordinance)?


Does
the
HRS
need
to
be
revised
to
enable
EPA
to
list
sites
that
are
not
located
near
major
population
areas?
Issues
cont.


Does
the
HRS
need
to
be
changed
to
enable
EPA
to
list
sites
that
pose
a
threat
to
exposed
individuals
with
traditional
lifestyles?


Does
the
HRS
need
to
be
changed,
or
the
28.5
level
raised,
because
the
current
system
does
not
screen
out
sites
that
do
not
pose
a
serious
threat
?
Vapor
Intrusion

EPA
believes
HRS
is
sufficiently
flexible
to
address
this
pathway.


No
site
has
been
proposed
to
date
based
solely
on
vapor
inhalation.


EPA
is
looking
at
NPL
sites
to
determine
whether
vapor
inhalation
is
a
prevalent
issue.

 
Results
expected
within
2
years
UXO

EPA
policy
is
that
UXO
is
primarily
a
safety
issue;
therefore,
it
would
generally
be
addressed
through
removals.


UXO
is
not
included
in
current
HRS.


Not
clear
whether
need
exists
to
list
based
solely
on
UXO
threat,
as
opposed
to
related
contamination.
Sparsely
Populated
Areas

Sites
with
as
few
as
4
exposed
receptors
can
be
listed
if
there
is
a
high
volume
of
waste.


If
aquatic
food
chain
exposure
exists,
there
is
no
minimum
receptors
required.


If
volume
of
waste
is
unknown,
approx.
22
receptors
would
be
needed
to
rank.
Traditional
Lifestyles

Primary
issue
is
not
ranking
system,
but
exposure
data
to
plug
into
model,
e.
g.,

 
chewing
reeds
for
basket
making
 
ceremonial
uses
of
plants
and
other
resources
 
sweat
lodges
with
contaminated
water
 
dependence
on
subsistence
food,
i.
e.,

hunter/
gatherer
 
other
cultural
values,
experiences
EPA
Initiative

EPA
has
explored
issues
with
tribal
organizations,
and
is
interested
in
pursuing
further.


Jason
and
Steve
Caldwell
are
exchanging
information
to
move
dialogue
along

Significant
resources
will
likely
be
required
to
research
unique
exposure
scenarios.
Model
too
sensitive?


Degree
of
threat
to
be
captured
by
NPL
is
a
policy
call.


HRS,
as
revised
in
1990­
1,
captures
approximately
the
same
level
of
risk
as
the
previous
model
did.


Revised
HRS
includes
sites
where
risks
are
due
to
soil
pathways,
e.
g.,
lead
in
soils.
Sensitivity
cont.....


Pre­
1990
HRS
resulted
in
8%
of
CERCLIS
sites
achieving
28.5.


Revised
model
results
in
10%,
but
includes
soils
sites.
Additional
Considerations

Some
of
the
issues
being
raised
now,
e.
g.,

vapor
intrusion,
tribal
exposures,
were
not
envisioned
in
HRS
rulemaking,
but
it
may
be
flexible
enough
to
accommodate
new
knowledge.


HRS
is
a
regulation.
Any
changes
would
need
to
be
re­
promulgated.


Last
revisions
cost
$
16
to
19
million.
Funding
Prioritization
Subgroup
Analysis
and
Recommendations
for
Subcommittee
Consideration
Funding
Prioritization
Subgroup
Objective
To
provide
advice
to
EPA
on
how
to
prioritize
one
site
over
another
for
Remedial
Action
(
RA)
funding
(
or
a
portion
of
a
site
over
other
portions
or
other
sites)
once
on
the
NPL.
Funding
Prioritization
Subgroup

Prioritization
strategy
and
set
of
criteria
for
funding
RA
decisions
around
Fund­
lead
sites
on
the
NPL.


Tables
summarize
proposed
criteria
to
be
discussed
by
the
full
Subcommittee.


Narrative
discusses
how
to
apply
criteria.


"
Laws
Memo"
used
as
the
starting
point
for
developing
recommendations
for
funding
priorities.
Funding
Prioritization
Qualifiers

No
conclusion
as
to
the
funding
issue
is
implied
or
suggested.


Resources
will
never
be
unlimited.


Regardless
of
funding
levels,
a
prioritization
process
will
be
necessary
for
appropriate
and
defensible
decisions.


Criteria­
based
prioritization
supports
transparent
decisions
that
are
understandable
to
impacted
and
interested
parties.


Sufficient
funds
is
an
important
factor
in
determining
the
overall
success
of
the
Superfund
program.
Background

NPL
represents
a
gross
form
of
prioritization
based
on
the
knowledge
available
to
the
EPA
at
the
time
it
makes
listing
decisions.


As
sites
move
through
the
Remedial
Investigation,
Feasibility
Study
and
Remedial
Design
stages,
more
information
becomes
available
on
which
to
make
decisions.
Background
Continued

In
FY
1995,
EPA
established
a
priority
setting
process
for
making
remedial
action
funding
decisions.
(
January
19,
1996
memo
"
Remedial
Action
Priority
Setting"
from
Assistant
Administrator
Elliott
Laws)


Resulted
in
the
change
from
a
regional
to
a
national
prioritization
system.


Applied
to
large
dollar
removals
and
new
start
remedial
action
projects
where
funding
was
requested
for
the
first
time.
Background
Continued

This
system
includes
ranking
scheme
with
criteria
and
weighting
factors
to
prioritize
projects.


National
prioritization
panel
(
from
Regional
offices
and
Headquarters)
rank
projects
for
"
end­
of­
pipeline"

funding
decisions­­
i.
e.,
at
the
Remedial
Action
or
"
commence
construction"
stage.


Other
priority
setting
approaches
have
been
applied
at
other
stages
in
the
Superfund
pipeline.
Background
Continued

Currently,
a
number
of
large,
costly
and
complex
sites
are
concurrently
at
RA
stage

Difficult
choices
must
be
made
about
the
allocation
of
funds

Requires
a
new
look
at
how
priorities
are
set
Resources
Reviewed

January
19,
1996
Elliott
Laws
memo
on
Remedial
Action
Priority
Setting

2002
Elaine
Davies
memo
re:
criteria
to
establish
priority
categories
for
NPL
candidates

Response
Action
Priority
Form

Background
on
the
RCRA
Risk­
Based
Corrective
Action
process
and
the
Department
of
Defense
Relative
Risk
Site
Evaluation
process

Federal
Facilities
Environmental
Restoration
Dialogue
Committee
Report
on
funding
and
priority
setting
Setting
Priorities
for
Cleanup
In
reviewing
the
multiple
sources
on
setting
priorities,
there
was
a
lot
of
overlap.
The
same
type
of
concern
is
described
in
different
ways.
In
order
to
organize,
evaluate
and
compare,
categories
were
developed
for
a
range
of
issues.
Categories
of
Prioritization
Factors

Protection
of
human
health

Protection
of
the
environment

Certainty
and
timing
of
exposure

Extent,
severity
or
significance
of
exposure

Populations
with
special
needs

Program
effectiveness,
efficiency
and
performance,

and
perception

Contaminant
characteristics,
properties,
or
extent

Remedy
or
risk
management
actions
Prioritization
Criteria
Tables

Significant
repetition
exists

Future
drafts
will
reduce
redundancies
TABLES
Recommendations
for
Prioritizing
Funding
of
RA's

Evaluate
the
prioritization
factors
as
presented
in
the
tables
and
accompanying
narrative
for
use
in
setting
priorities.


"
current
health
risk/
exposure"(
CHRE)
should
be
the
most
important
factor
in
funding
decisions.
Recommendations
for
Prioritizing
Funding
of
RA's
Continued

For
large
and/
or
complex
sites,
evaluate
and
prioritize
separable
and
discrete
elements
individually.


Allow
for
funding
hot
spot
treatment
and/
or
source
removal
projects.


While
it
is
desirable
to
remediate
a
site
completely,
it
is
appropriate
to
defer
remediation
at
portions
of
site
that
don't
pose
CHRE
when
needs
exceed
available
resources
to
address
CHRE
at
other
sites.
RecommendationsRelated
to
Measuring
Performance

Eliminating
an
exposure
pathway
that
represents
CHRE
is
an
important
measurement
of
success
even
if
additional
remedial
action
may
be
needed.


EPA
should
track
and
cite
elimination
of
exposure
pathways.


EPA
should
delete
separable
and
discrete
elements
of
an
overall
site
at
which
such
actions
are
undertaken
and
successfully
concluded
consistent
with
the
NCP.


In
determining
CHRE
­
take
into
account
subsistence
lifestyles.
Additional
Considerations

Enforcement
integrity
is
an
important
and
valid
consideration
of
the
Superfund
program
and
should
be
a
factor
in
prioritizing
funding.


EPA
should
have
flexibility
to
fund
remedial
action
that
does
not
pose
a
CHRE
if
doing
so
is
essential
to
the
enforcement
integrity
of
the
Superfund
program.
Cross­
Cutting
Issues

EPA
should
determine,
prior
to
listing,
alternate
or
multi­
jurisdictional
programs
available
to
address
the
largest,
most
costly
and
most
complex
sites.


EPA
should
consider
the
impact
of
current
decisions
on
the
adequacy
of
its
downstream
resources.
Is
there
a
more
appropriate
method
of
funding
categories
of
remedial
actions
which
could
potentially
overwhelm
the
Superfund
program
in
the
future
under
any
funding
scenario.
Cross­
Cutting
Issues

EPA
should
Consider
(
temporary)
funding
directed
specifically
to
a
category
of
sites
that
pose
"
current
health
risk/
current
exposure"

and
a
heavy
financial
burden
(
e.
g.

contaminated
residential
areas)
to
assure
that
the
overall
program's
CHRE
scenarios
are
addressed.
Funding
Prioritization
Discussion

Criteria

Recommendations
for
how
and
when
to
apply
criteria

Cross­
Cutting
Issues
MEGA
SITES
SUBGROUP
Analysis
and
Recommendations
for
Subcommittee
Consideration
Background

CERCLA
program
is
challenged
by
the
competing
demands
exceeding
the
resources
available
to
address
those
sites.


In
recent
years,
the
appropriation
has
not
been
sufficient
to
fund
every
potential
cleanup
cost.
Large,
or
complex
sites
that
may
take
years
or
decades
to
clean
up
are
reaching
resource
intensive
stages
of
construction
implementation
concurrently.
Need
for
Alternative
Approach
 
to
classifying,
listing
and
addressing
these
sites.


The
future
financial
demands
on
the
program
at
both
the
Federal
and
State
level;


the
expectations
of
the
stakeholders;


Obligation
to
make
sure
that
none
of
the
proposed
NPL
sites
present
an
imminent
and
substantial
endangerment
to
people
or
the
environment,
Mega
Sites
Recommendation
Develop
a
structured
screening
process
for
sites
exhibiting
prerequisite
characteristics
prior
to
listing
on
the
NPL
(
and
perhaps
for
those
sites
recently
listed):


Inventory
and
assess
potential
organizations
and
authorities
that
could
contribute
to
cleanup
efforts;


Analyze
potentially
discrete
elements
of
a
site
that
could
be
considered
separately
either
for
listing
or
for
action
once
listed.
Purposes
of
Recommendation
To
balance
the
following
three
elements:


Comprehensive
site
clean­
up,
including
coordination
with
other
programs

Cost
control

Assurance
that
costs
would
not
bias
short­

term
remediation
decisions
Step
1
­
Evaluate
Prerequisite
Site
Characteristics
Characteristics
should
be
used
as
an
alternative
to
the
term
"
mega
sites"
to
identify
sites
for
this
approach
and
the
rigor
with
which
it
is
applied:

SIZE­
Arealextent
of
the
contamination
USE:­
Potential
special
uses
or
exceptional
value
of
the
natural
resource
that
may
require
exceptional
cleanup
costs
­
Imperilment
of
an
endangered
species
­
Subsistence
cultures
Prerequisite
Site
Characteristics
Continued
CONTAMINANTS:


Extent
of
actual/
current
human
health
risks

Multiple
sources
of
contamination

Types
and
complexity
of
contaminants

Discontinuous
distribution
of
contaminants
and
risks
Prerequisite
Site
Characteristics
Continued
PRP
Characteristics
­
Absence
of
PRP(
s)
or
sites
where
a
PRP
is
willing
to
invest
in
the
PRI
COST
Considerations:

Total
anticipated
cost
Potential
cost
of
exposure
control
(
moving
people,

etc.)
Disposal
costs
Time
period
for
cleanup
to
be
accomplished
Step
2
­
Inventory
Conduct
an
inventory
of
authorities
or
organizations
that
could
provide
support
or
leverage,
including:


State
and
federal
laws
and
programs

Governmental
organizations
at
local,
state,
and
federal
levels

Cross­
jurisdictional
organizations

Innovative
funding
for
components
of
a
cleanup
Step
3
 
Conduct
Preliminary
Site
Investigation

Site
inspection
(
SI)
program
conduct
a
preliminary
Remedial
Investigation
(
PRI)
of
the
site
conditions
and
relative
risks,

including
the
identification
of
the
likely
outer
boundaries
of
the
contamination.


Go
beyond
the
level
of
the
present
SI
program
but
something
less
than
a
"
full"
RI.
Step
4
 
Identify
Site
Components
Based
on
results
of
PRI,
set
priorities
among
sites
and
site
elements
when
resources
are
insufficient
to
address
all
activity.
Options:


Site
area
split
into
defined
hot­
spots

Link
PRP'sto
specific
sub­
sites
rather
than
entire
region,
reducing
fund­
lead
area

Discrete
assessment
and
decision
making
made
more
possible

Coordinate
with
"
One­
Clean­
up
Program"
or
similar
initiatives
Additional
Recommendations
for
Consideration
by
Subcommittee

Categorical
Sites
­
Identify
existing
site
types
(
not
size
alone)
that
warrant
additional
scrutiny
and
recommendations
for
measures
(
e.
g.
financial
assurance
for
mine
sites).

Develop
policy
around
such
sites.


Enforcement
­
Continued
emphasis
on
enforcement
[
pursue
ALL
enforcement
avenues
(
Clean
Water
Act,
RCRA,
etc.)
and
ALL
PRPs,
not
a
selective
group.]
Implications
and
Considerations

Characterization
of
discrete
site
priorities
early
in
Superfund
process
would
help
to
foster
realistic
expectations
on
the
part
of
all
stakeholders
while
assuring
intent
to
address
risk
to
human
health
and
the
environment.


Additionally,
it
would
provide
a
preliminary
organizational
structure
and
transparency
for
managing
large
and/
or
complex
sites
according
to
manageable
site
elements
in
a
documented
process.
Implications
and
Considerations

Such
an
approach
would
require
that
alternative
mechanisms
for
addressing
the
rest
of
a
site
be
identified.


The
Subcommittee
should
explore
the
alternatives
further.
Implications
and
Considerations

Review
of
the
non­
CERCLA
may
result
in
alternatives
­
better
positioning
the
Agency
to
approach
PRP'swith
the
option
of
expedited
cleanups
of
hotspot
areas
through
removal
orders
(
with
input
from
state,
local
authorities,
and
local
community
input).


Establish
interim
allocation
of
responsibility
for
the
components
of
the
site
amongst
the
programs/

authorities.
Consider
listing
only
a
portion
of
the
site.
Implications
and
Considerations

It
may
be
desirable
to
delay
the
NPL
listing
decision
for
the
geographic
area
as
a
whole
pending
review
of
progress
in
risk
reduction
through
use
of
the
various
other
authorities
and
programs
that
are
being
applied.
Implications
and
Considerations

Inconsistencies
among
states
capacity
and
use
of
the
NPL.


Increasing
demands
on
states
as
a
result
of
long­

term
"
stewardship"
requirements.


The
bias
toward
"
permanent"
remedies
at
mega­

sites
due
to
limited
state
resources
­
may
drive
cleanup
priority
decisions.


Is
the
NPL
the
appropriate
vehicle
for
addressing
"
mega"
or
"
complex"
sites?
Proposed
Overarching
Comment
"
The
Superfund
program
is
designed
to
deal
with
the
worst
hazardous
waste
sites
in
the
United
States.

Currently
the
resources
appropriated
to
the
program
by
Congress
are
insufficient
to
perform
all
of
the
work
necessary
to
fully
implement
the
program.
With
this
phenomenon
as
a
backdrop,
the
NACEPT
Superfund
Subcommittee
has
developed
a
process
of
prioritizing
a
number
of
specific
phases
of
the
Superfund
process."
Language
proposed
by
Wilma
Subrafor
consideration
by
the
Subcommittee.
