Document ID: EPA-HQ-SFUND-2002-0005-0040
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2003-04-28T04:00Z

Cleanup
Program
Assessment
Work
Group
NACEPT
Superfund
Subcommittee
March
11­
12,
2003
Phoenix,
AZ
CPA
Work
Group
Presentation
March
11­
12,
20032
CPA
Work
Group
Objective

Develop
options
and
recommendations
around
the
future
role
of
the
NPL
within
the
context
of
what
other
federal
and
non­

federal
cleanup
programs
currently
provide
 
or
could
provide
 
in
the
universe
of
NPL­
caliber
cleanup
actions
CPA
Work
Group
Presentation
March
11­
12,
20033
Key
Areas
Considered

Other
federal
cleanup
programs

State
cleanup
programs

Funding
issues
&
efficiencies
Federal
Programs
CPA
Work
Group
Presentation
March
11­
12,
20035
Federal
Programs

Looked
at
10
programs,
including
CERCLA
Removal
and
CERCLA
Remedial
for
comparison
purposes

Other
programs
include:

BrownfieldsHUD
BEDI

RCRA
Subtitle
CSMCRA

RCRA
Subtitle
DCWA

WRDA
and
other
Corps
CPA
Work
Group
Presentation
March
11­
12,
20036
Key
Elements
Considered

General
program
description

Types
of
sites
reachable

Cleanup
standards

Cost
issues,
including
average
cost
of
cleanup

Ability
to
fund:
cash
on
hand
to
pay
for
cleanup
and
ability
to
compel
PRPs
to
pay

Special
features,
pro
and
con
CPA
Work
Group
Presentation
March
11­
12,
20037
Key
Observations

Not
about
getting
rid
of
CERCLA
 
about
complementing
it

No
program
has
funding
to
pay
for
cleanup
of
"
a
lot"
of
additional
sites

Not
all
about
funding
 
programs
also
provide
mechanisms,
potential
synergies
and
efficiencies

Generally
divide
along
three
categories:

prevention,
funding,
categorical
(
i.
e.,
address
specific
type
of
site)
CPA
Work
Group
Presentation
March
11­
12,
20038
Recommendations
 
Federal
Programs
1.
Create
a
national
committee
to
coordinate
among
cleanup
programs
and
make
sure
all
appropriate
resources
are
brought
to
bear
at
NPL­
caliber
sites.

2.
Increase
community
involvement
across
all
cleanup
programs
CPA
Work
Group
Presentation
March
11­
12,
20039
1.
Coordinating
Committee

Purpose:
Direct
priority
sites
for
remediation
to
appropriate
federal
and/
or
state
cleanup
program

Members
to
include:
Federal
agencies
and
state/
tribal
officials

Possible
functions
and
approach:

Serve
as
entry
for
all
NPL­
caliber
sites

Determine
appropriate
cleanup
program
and
funding

Track
and
measure
performance

Provide
transparent
process
w/
public
input
CPA
Work
Group
Presentation
March
11­
12,
200310
2.
Community
Involvement

Improve
and
increase
across
all
programs

Analysis
of
other
federal
programs
demonstrated
need
to
provide
opportunity
for
public
input
and
comment
from
interested
parties

Could
consider
program
specific
improvements

Could
address
for
NPL­
caliber
sites
through
open,
transparent
process
of
proposed
Coordinating
Committee
CPA
Work
Group
Presentation
March
11­
12,
200311
Next
Steps
/
Discussion
Federal
Programs

Does
Subcommittee
support
carrying
these
observations
on
Federal
programs
forward
in
its
report
to
EPA?

What
are
views
on
the
coordinating
committee?

How
should
this
idea
be
carried
forward?

What
additional
analysis
or
evaluation
on
Federal
programs
are
needed
in
real
time
to
support
NACEPT
deliberations?

What
additional
analysis
or
evaluation
might
be
carried
out
longer­
term?
State
Programs
CPA
Work
Group
Presentation
March
11­
12,
200313
State
Programs

Information
sources:

Environmental
Law
Institute
50­
state
study

Analysis
of
state
programs
prepared
by
Chris
Bryant,
funded
by
GE,
BP,
WMS

Analysis
of
state
programs
relative
to
TRI
data
prepared
by
Grant
Cope

Workgroup
member
papers
on
state
programs
and
issues
CPA
Work
Group
Presentation
March
11­
12,
200314
Key
Observations

State
cleanup
programs
are
an
important
piece
of
the
cleanup
puzzle

Effective
state
programs
depend
on
effective
Superfund
program
and
vice
versa
 
state
programs
won't
replace
the
NPL;
NPL
won't
replace
state
programs

Range
of
cleanup
approaches
across
the
states
and
a
range
of
capacities
in
state
programs
CPA
Work
Group
Presentation
March
11­
12,
200315
State
Program
Issues

Four
issues:

Capacity
to
pay
for
fund­
lead
cleanups

Capacity
to
oversee
PRP­
lead
cleanups

Potential
for
certain
combinations
of
conditions
to
result
in
more
sites
being
set
forward
for
consideration
for
the
NPL

State
innovations
/
good
practices
CPA
Work
Group
Presentation
March
11­
12,
200316
Next
Steps
/
Discussion
State
Programs

Does
Subcommittee
support
carrying
these
observations
on
state
programs
forward
in
its
report
to
EPA?

Should
there
be
further
inquiry
into
state
programs
innovations
/
good
practices?
If
yes,

what
should
be
the
timing
of
this
inquiry?

What
additional
analysis
or
evaluation
on
state
programs
are
needed
in
real­
time
to
support
Subcommittee
deliberations?
Longer­
term?
CPA
Work
Group
Presentation
March
11­
12,
200317
Re­
cap:
State
and
Federal
Programs

Cleanup
occurs
under
multiple
state
and
federal
programs
 
none
are
exactly
like
CERCLA

Cooperation,
coordination,
and
collaboration
are
important

There
may
be
innovative
approaches
and
"
best
practice"
elements
that
could
be
considered
Funding
&
Efficiencies
CPA
Work
Group
Presentation
March
11­
12,
200319
Funding
Site
Cleanups

Two
key
opportunities:

Coordination
/
Integration
/
Deferral:
Looking
for
cash
in
other
agencies
/
programs
and
the
states

Efficiency
Analysis
/
Benchmarking:
Looking
for
cash
for
cleanup
within
Superfund
CPA
Work
Group
Presentation
March
11­
12,
200320
Re­
cap:
Funding
Issues

Multiple
possible
sources
of
funding;
however,

few
have
"
cash"
for
cleanup
as
other
program
priorities
are
being
funded

Generally,
states
lack
resources
to
publicly
fund
"
average"
NPL
cleanup
(
i.
e.,
$
20
million)

Restrictions
and/
or
consequences
associated
with
some
other
programs
(
e.
g.,
not
available
for
NPL
sites,
affect
NRD
recovery
efforts)

Some
members
question
effectiveness
of
other
programs
for
site
cleanup;
others
find
such
programs
innovative
and
effective
CPA
Work
Group
Presentation
March
11­
12,
200321
Other
Ways
to
Increase
Funds

More
PRP­
lead
cleanups
 
to
the
extent
responsible
parties
are
able
but
unwilling
to
pay
their
fair
share

Fund
Superfund
at
previously
authorized
levels

$
1.5
billion
annually

President's
'
04
budget
requests
an
additional
$
150
million
for
Superfund
cleanups
CPA
Work
Group
Presentation
March
11­
12,
200322
What
Next?

Option
1:
Nothing.
Stop.

Option
2:
In­
depth
analysis
of
other
program
funding
and
potential
utility
of
other
program
(
as
is
or
modified)
for
NPL­
caliber
cleanups

Option
3:
Benchmarking
/
Efficiencies
Analysis

Look
to
redirect
more
Superfund
dollars
from
non­

site­
specific
activities
to
sites

Cost
/
benefit
analysis
of
particular
remedy
action
not
suggested
or
implied
as
part
of
this
presentation

Focus:
achieving
program
goals
for
less
(
e.
g.,
more
efficiently)
CPA
Work
Group
Presentation
March
11­
12,
200323
Next
Steps
/
Discussion
Funding
&
Efficiencies

Does
Subcommittee
support
moving
forward
with
further
analysis
and
evaluation
around
options
2
or
3?

What
additional
analysis
or
evaluation
on
funding
and
efficiencies
are
needed
in
real
time
to
support
NACEPT
deliberations?

What
additional
analysis
or
evaluation
might
be
carried
out
longer­
term?
Additional
Information
Slides
from
packet
CPA
Work
Group
Presentation
March
11­
12,
200325
Dividing
up
Federal
Programs
Three
categories:

1.
Prevention
programs
 
keep
sites
from
needing
cleanup
and
conduct
cleanup
without
needing
to
resort
to
the
NPL
2.
Some
funding
programs
 
provide
small
amounts
of
funding
for
non­
NPL
sites
3.
Categorical
programs
 
able
to
address
specific
category
of
sites
(
e.
g.,
mining,

sediments),
more
potential
but
more
complicated
CPA
Work
Group
Presentation
March
11­
12,
200326
Prevention
Programs

Two,
implemented
by
authorized
states:

RCRA
Subtitle
C
(
hazardous
waste)

RCRA
Subtitle
D
(
municipal
solid
waste)

Focus
on
making
the
prevention
work
better:

Expand
to
cover
wastes
/
activities
currently
exempt
(
e.
g.,
mining,
cement
kiln,
fossil
fuel
combustions
waste
/
industrial
D
wastes,
recycling
facilities)

Increase
enforcement
of
financial
assurance
obligations
and/
or
expand
requirements

Also
have
cleanup
authorities
CPA
Work
Group
Presentation
March
11­
12,
200327
Programs
with
Some
Cash

Two
evaluated,
neither
can
be
used
at
sites
on
the
NPL

Brownfields

HUD
Programs

Money
provided
for
specific
focus:

Brownfields
provides
seed
money
for
cleanup
and
re­

development
of
smaller,
less
contaminated
sites

HUD
provides
grant
money
primarily
for
urban
re­

development,
leverages
federal
investment
at
local
level

Other
programs
may
also
have
cash
(
DOD
site
restoration)
CPA
Work
Group
Presentation
March
11­
12,
200328
Categorical
Programs

Three
looked
at:

Army
Corps
including
WRDA

Surface
Mining
Control
&
Reclamation
Act
or
SMCRA

Clean
Water
Act
Programs
CPA
Work
Group
Presentation
March
11­
12,
200329
WRDA
and
Army
Corps

Contaminated
sediments
through
navigation
and
dredging

Great
Lakes
Program
is
established
cleanup
program

Urban
Rivers
Initiative:
pilot
program
between
USACE
and
EPA
to
restore
degraded
urban
rivers,
including
CERCLA­
caliber
projects

Potential
benefits
include:

Leveraging
of
both
funds
and
human
resources

Provides
means
to
address
orphan
sites

Potential
barriers
include:

Funds
appropriated
on
site­
specific
basis;
need
local
sponsor

Complexity
of
projects
can
inhibit
cleanup
CPA
Work
Group
Presentation
March
11­
12,
200330
SMCRA

Active
and
abandoned
coal
mines;
some
ability
to
address
hard
rock
mines

Tax
on
coal
production
­­
not
fully
appropriated

Potential
benefits
include:

Has
money,
if
the
money
can
be
accessed,
and
may
get
more

Consolidation
of
mine
sites
under
one
program

Potential
barriers
include:

Questions
about
cleanup
standards
and
public
involvement

Currently
doesn't
have
ability
to
compel
past
owners/
operators
to
contribute
to
cleanup
CPA
Work
Group
Presentation
March
11­
12,
200331
Clean
Water
Act
Programs

Three
specific
features:

Clean
Water
State
Revolving
Loan
Fund

TMDL
Program

CWA
jurisdiction
over
sediment
cleanup

Potential
benefits
include:

Large
amount
of
funding
available
through
CWSRF

Provides
prevention
aspects
at
watershed­
level

Can
tie
penalty
money
to
cleanup
through
SEPS

Potential
barriers
include:

Does
not
share
CERCLA
liability
scheme

Permits
are
limited
in
what
can
be
addressed
CPA
Work
Group
Presentation
March
11­
12,
200332
Coordinating
Committee
(
cont'd)

Functions
and
possible
approach

Serve
as
"
front
door"
through
which
all
NPL­
caliber
sites
pass

Consider
range
of
authorities
to
determine
appropriate
cleanup
program

Provide
transparent
process/
public
input

Coordinate
multiple
programs/
funding
sources

Track
and
measure
performance
CPA
Work
Group
Presentation
March
11­
12,
200333
Paying
for
Cleanup

Does
not
have
to
be
NPL­
caliber
to
pay

Some
states
have
multiple
sources
of
funding

States
can
and
do
pay
for
cleanups
at
smaller
low­
risk
cleanups;
however,

State
programs
won't
provide
significant
source
of
funds
to
pay
for
big
cleanups
 
no
state
has
cash
to
pay
for
multiple
NPL­
caliber
orphan
sites

In
general,
in
2003,
2004
state
resources
are
decreasing

State
decisions
about
funding
may
be
influenced
by
local
concerns
CPA
Work
Group
Presentation
March
11­
12,
200334
Overseeing
Cleanups

States
overseeing
many
PRP­
lead
cleanups,
most
state­

overseen
cleanups
are
PRP­
lead

Laws
and
oversight
approaches
vary
greatly

Workgroup
did
not
see
its
role
as
evaluating:

scope
of
state
legal
authorities

quality,
efficiency
of
oversight

complexity
of
cleanups

cleanup
costs

(
And
did
not
evaluate)
CPA
Work
Group
Presentation
March
11­
12,
200335
Sending
More
Sites
Forward

Certain
situations
may
create
potential
to
send
more
sites
to
the
NPL
in
the
future,
including

Historically
list
lots
of
sites

Not
big
listers
but
that
may
have
sites
unaddressed

Not
using
prevention
or
enforcement
authorities
effectively

Lack
mature
or
effective
cleanup
program(
s)

Did
not
see
task
as
evaluating
whether
these
situations
are
occurring
now
or
likelihood
they
may
occur
in
the
future
(
and
did
not
evaluate)
CPA
Work
Group
Presentation
March
11­
12,
200336
Innovations
/
Good
Practices

States
develop
state­
specific
approaches
/
innovations

Some
of
these
have
the
potential
to
be
good
practices
and
may
be
transferable
or
otherwise
relevant
to
other
programs

Subcommittee
should
recommend
an
independent
study
to
identify
and
evaluate
state
innovations
and
potential
good
practices.

Evaluation
should
look
at:

Strengths
&
weaknesses
of
approaches

Potential
transferability
CPA
Work
Group
Presentation
March
11­
12,
200337
Examples
to
Consider

Long­
term
stewardship
and
institutional
control
databases

Elimination
of
the
petroleum
exclusion

Site
specific
community
involvement
plans

Triggering
site
assessment
or
cleanup
upon
property
transfer

Third­
party
certification
for
cleanup
oversight

Streamlined
approval
processes

Cross­
program
coordination
approaches
CPA
Work
Group
Presentation
March
11­
12,
200338
Examples
(
cont'd)

Tiered
approach
for
selecting
cleanup
goals

Tiered
approaches
to
public
participation

Ground
water
management
zones

Conceptual
site
models

Pay
for
performance

Closed
landfill
program
(
Minnesota)

O
&
M
Monitoring
approaches
(
Wisconsin)
CPA
Work
Group
Presentation
March
11­
12,
200339
Re­
cap
(
cont'd)

Use
restrictions
/
consequences
on
other
monies
include:

Some
cannot
be
used
on
NPL
sites

Could
affect
NRD
recovery
efforts

Source
of
funding
could
cause
tax
"
burden"
shift

Other
programs
may
already
be
overburdened

Some
members
believe
use
of
other
programs
could
trigger
CERCLA
provisions
limiting
recovery
/
contribution
efforts
CPA
Work
Group
Presentation
March
11­
12,
200340
Option
1
 
Do
Nothing
CPA
Work
Group
Presentation
March
11­
12,
200341
Option
2
 
Look
At
Other
Programs

Further
in­
depth
analysis
of
funding
authorities,
expenditures
and
actual
reserves
in
other
programs

SMCRA

Ongoing
action
on
the
Hill
to
get
fully
appropriated,
if
potential
to
use
"
new
funds"
for
cleanup
of
sites
(
competing
priorities)

Concerns
about
cleanup
standards,
liability,
public
involvement

WRDA
&
Army
Corps

Potential
to
leverage
ongoing,
funded
dredging
activities

Potential
for
special
appropriates
for
specific
projects
 
can
be
large
sums,

but
need
local
sponsor
and
Congressional
sponsor

Clean
Water
Act

Can
bring
money
forward
in
two
ways
 
through
SEPs
to
settle
penalties
for
violations
of
CW
permits
and
through
special
appropriates
under
Section
115
(
seldom
used
to
date)
CPA
Work
Group
Presentation
March
11­
12,
200342
Option
2
 
Other
Programs
(
cont'd)

Analysis
of
"
barriers'
to
use
of
funds
on
NPL
sites
to
determineaction
/

options
for
barrier
removal

Related
tools
/
action
analysis

Additional
appropriations

Fully
funding
current
appropriations

Budget
stabilization
/
risk
capitalization
devices
(
insurance)

Assessment
of
"
cost"
to
access
the
other
programs
and
actual
benefits.

Would
require
greater
detailed
analysis
of
class
/
type
of
site
on
the
list
and
screening
for
other
program
qualifications
CPA
Work
Group
Presentation
March
11­
12,
200343
Option
3
 
Get
more
out
of
Superfund,
Efficiencies

Looking
to
redirect
more
Superfund
dollars
from
non­
site
specific
activities
to
sites.

Two
types
of
analyses:

Qualitative
/
Programmatic

Quantitative
CPA
Work
Group
Presentation
March
11­
12,
200344
Qualitative
/
Programmatic

Evaluate
use
of
"
Best
practices"
in
the
Superfund
program

Compare
Superfund
program
structure
to
those
practices
of
other
agencies
and
private
sectors

Need
to
determine
what
portions
of
the
programs
are
analogous
to
others
to
set
"
benchmark"

Suggested
items
for
review:

Project
management
structures
(
set
up;
periodic
review;
etc)

Use
of
requests
for
information
to
refine
solicitations

Use
of
guaranteed
fixed
price
contracting
vehicles
(
insurance
or
guarantees)

(
Review
of
ultimate
costs
of
each
remedy
option
is
suggested
by
a
member
as
a
subset
of
this
recommendation)
CPA
Work
Group
Presentation
March
11­
12,
200345
Quantitative

Use
expenditures
data
to
identify
opportunities
for
improvement

Attempt
to
identify
"
unit
price"
analogues

Compare
rate
of
remediation
by
cost
type
to
other
programs,
with
"
allowances"
for
additional
costs
inherent
in
community
outreach
and
other
CERCLA
unique
requirements

Comparisons
could
be
to
other
federal,
state
or
private
sector
programs

Would
require
lots
of
additional
cost
data
from
the
agencies
CPA
Work
Group
Presentation
March
11­
12,
200346
Quantitative
 
Where
Does
the
Money
Go
Now?

Superfund
appropriations
have
been
$
1.27B
a
year
for
the
past
few
years

Approximately
55%
goes
to
"
cleanup"

$
648M
to
Superfund
Regional
Response
activities
such
as:
removals,
sites
studies
and
remedy
design,

implementation
of
cleanup,
EPA
staff
time
and
travel,

and
lab
support

$
64M
to
site­
specific
enforcement
activities.
CPA
Work
Group
Presentation
March
11­
12,
200347
Where
Does
the
Money
Go
Now
(
cont'd)

The
remaining
$
560M
is
distributed
as
follows:

$
292M
to
regional
activities
not
charged
to
specific
sites

$
163M
to
Headquarters
related
"
response"
activities

$
76M
to
management
and
support
activities
NOT
in
OSWER

$
20M
to
enforcement
activities
not
charged
to
specific
sites

In
addition
to
the
$
1.27B

$
37M
goes
to
ORD
and

$
12M
goes
to
OIG
CPA
Work
Group
Presentation
March
11­
12,
200348
Quantitative
 
Getting
More
Cleanup
for
the
Money

Evaluate
the
$
560
million
 
can
more
funds
be
directed
to
physical
cleanup?

Three
key
questions:

How
much
of
all
Superfund
dollars
are
going
to
site­
specific
activities
(
vs.
non­
site
specific
activities?)

Are
there
efficiencies
to
be
gained
in
either
or
both
category
that
would
result
in
more
dollars
going
to
cleanup?

What
kinds
of
activities
are
being
conducted
by
"
other"
(
non­

OSWER)
offices
that
are
being
paid
for
with
Superfund
dollars?
CPA
Work
Group
Presentation
March
11­
12,
200349
Information
Needed
from
EPA

For
each
EPA
Office:

Total
number
of
staff
("
FTE
or
full­
time
equivalents)

Total
dollars
(
inc.
cost
of
staff)
separated
into:

Extramural
dollars
(
dollars
going
outside
of
EPA
to
contractors,

states
and
tribes)

Intramural
dollars
(
dollars
going
to
cover
staff
payroll
and
benefits,

rent,
etc.)

For
intramural
and
extramural
dollars
separate
into
dollars
going
to
site­
specific
activities
and
dollars
going
to
non­
site­
specific
activities
CPA
Work
Group
Presentation
March
11­
12,
200350
Information
Needed
(
cont'd)

For
site­
specific
activities
separate
into
dollars
going
to
physical
cleanup
and
dollars
going
to
study,
oversight,

monitoring
and
review

EPA
offices
include:

OSWER,
OA,
OAR,
OARM,
OIG,
OGC,
OPEI,
OW,
OCFO

All
regional
offices

EPA
Laboratories

EPA
Headquarters
Additional
Information
EPA
Acronyms
CPA
Work
Group
Presentation
March
11­
12,
200352
Acronyms
for
EPA
Offices

OA
 
Office
of
the
Administrator

OARM
 
Office
of
Administration
and
Resource
Management

OAR
 
Office
of
Air
and
Radiation

OCFO
 
Office
of
the
Chief
Financial
Officer

OECA
 
Office
of
Environment
and
Compliance
Assurance

OEI
 
Office
of
Environmental
Information

OGC
 
Office
of
General
Counsel

OIG
 
Office
of
the
Inspector
General

ORD
 
Office
of
Research
and
Development

OPEI
 
Office
of
Policy,
Economics
and
Innovation

OSWER
 
Office
of
Solid
Waste
and
Emergency
Response

OW
 
Office
of
Water