1 Federal Facility Cleanup Reggie Cheatham, Director Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse Office NAS Best Practices Workshop January 9, 2014
2 Overview of Presentation Facts about Federal Facility Cleanup Practitioner View of CERCLA Role of Risk in the CERCLA process Federal Facilities and CERCLA FERDC as a Roadmap Sustainability in Superfund Remediation Groundwater Cleanup Conclusions
3 Federal Facility Cleanup Myth Fact CERCLA process is not flexible Cleanup goals are based on risks that are either unmanageable or cannot be achieved Federal Facility Agreement (FFA) milestones are not negotiable Groundwater cleanup can not be achieved CERCLA provides flexibility on revising cleanup levels based on a risk range of protectiveness, site-specific conditions, new science and technologies that can save time and money NCP is clear that the goal is to manage risk using risk assessment of current and potential risks FFA milestones are negotiable and have been modified at many sites over many years 90% of Superfund sites have selected groundwater remedy. RAOs have been achieved or concentration of contaminants reduced
4 Practitioner View of CERCLA 1. Identification and prioritization of hazardous waste sites in the United States. 2. Basic construct is that the polluter pays. 3. Repeated language in the statute focuses on the protection of human health and the environment. 4. Implementation of CERCLA through the NCP and EPA guidance are risk based decisions at the site level. 5. Requirements expect for full participation of the potential responsible parties, regulators and stakeholders.
5 Role of risk in the CERCLA process 1. Goal is to manage the risk to acceptable levels 2. Remediation goals shall establish acceptable exposure levels that are protective of human health and the environment (40 CFR National Contingency Plan) 3. Risk assessment estimates the current and possible future risks if no action is taken to cleanup the site 4. Risk managers incorporate risk assessment information with a variety of site factors to restore a site to beneficial use. 5. Risk management decisions are made and evaluated every five years.
6 Federal Facilities and CERCLA The CERCLA process evaluates and manages risks: Site Identification Docket Assessment HRS Scoring Risk based Decisions Five Year Reviews
7 FFERDC as a Roadmap Federal Facilities Environmental Restoration Dialogue Committee (FFERDC) April 1996 Established principles for conducting environmental cleanup at Federal Facility sites The prioritization process should be transparent; give regulators and stakeholders an opportunity for dialogue Risk plus approach to recognize factors such as environmental justice, potential future use of the site, reducing infrastructure cost, and the availability of new technologies
8 Sustainability in Superfund Remediation Social: Engaging communities in site cleanup decisions Turning contaminated sites into community assets Economic: Redevelopment in blighted areas (aligns with smart growth goals) Fostering employment opportunities in communities where sites are cleaned up Rising property values in communities Remediation in the U.S.: A $7billion/year economic engine Environmental: Protecting Human Health and the Environment Liberating contaminated sites for reuse (1 remediated acre redeveloped = 4 acres of green field development) Challenge: A smaller environmental footprint cleaning up sites
9 Ground Water Cleanup According to the National Ground Water Association approximately 44% of US residents depend on GW as a source for drinking water and over 13 million households have a private wells Protection of water, including ground water, is one of Administrator McCarthy s 7 Priorities Agency s history includes 1984 Ground Water Protection Strategy, 1989 NCP and 1991 Ground Water Report 1991 Agency Ground Water Report Summary: The overall goal of EPA s Ground Water Policy is to prevent adverse effects to human health and the environment and to protect the environmental integrity of the nation s ground water resources; in determining appropriate prevention and protection strategies, EPA will also consider the use, value, and vulnerability of the resource, as well as social and economic values.
10 Ground Water Cleanup Ground water remediation activities must be prioritized to limit the risk of adverse effects to human health first and then to restore currently used and reasonably expected sources of drinking water and ground water closely hydrologically connected to surface waters, whenever such restorations are practicable and attainable. Given the costs and technical limitations associated with ground water cleanup, a framework should be established that ensures the environmental and public health benefit of each dollar spent is maximized. Thus, in making remediation decisions, EPA must take a realistic approach to restoration based upon actual and reasonably expected uses of the resource as well as social and economic values.
11 Ground Water Cleanup WITH RESPECT TO FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL RESPONSIBILITIES The primary responsibility for coordinating and implementing ground water protection programs has always been and should continue to be vested with the States. An effective ground water protection program should link Federal, State, and local activities into a coherent and coordinated plan of action.
12 In Conclusion No quick fixes proposed can provide reliable protection to human health and the environment. EPA encourages revising cleanup decisions when good science or emerging technologies will save time and money, while also achieving an equivalent protection of human health and the environment. Without the assurance of equivalent protection, cheaper cleanups implemented only on cost saving wind up being more expensive to future generations. Shortening cleanups by writing-off America s ground water resources is an unacceptable solution for the Superfund program.
13 Comments? Feedback? Questions? Reggie Cheatham, Director Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse Office EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
This is Superfund A Community Guide to EPA s Superfund Program IF THERE IS A SUPERFUND SITE in your neighborhood, you are probably wondering, what will happen? and, what can I do? This brochure will give
CHAPTER VI OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL STATUTES In this chapter Overview... VI-1 Legislative Framework for Addressing Hazardous Waste Problems... VI-3 CERCLA: The Hazardous Waste Cleanup Program... VI-9 OVERVIEW
Model Toxics Control Act Regulation and Statute MTCA Cleanup Regulation Chapter 173-340 WAC Model Toxics Control Act Chapter 70.105D RCW Uniform Environmental Covenants Act Chapter 64.70 RCW Compiled by
State Mitigation Plan Review Guide Released March 2015 Effective March 2016 FP 302-094-2 This page is intentionally blank. Table of Contents List of Acronyms and Abbreviations... iii SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION...
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Response to Public on Plan EJ 2014 Strategy and Implementation Plans Public Received: Jul 2010 Apr 2011 Plan EJ 2014 is a roadmap to help the EPA integrate environmental
Too Good to Waste MAKING CONSERVATION A PRIORITY Contents 5 7 8 9 10 10 14 18 22 INTRODUCTION > Why Does Alberta Need a Waste Strategy Focused on Conservation? > Principles for Waste Management and Resource
North Branch Chicago River Watershed-Based Plan EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In Lake County, the Lake County Stormwater Management Commission (SMC) is responsible for managing Lake County s water resources. The North
Being Prepared for Climate Change A Workbook for Developing Risk-Based Adaptation Plans Cover photograph: Waquoit Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve. From: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/Department
How To Develop a Multi-Year Capital Plan Planning Saves Time and Money Defining a shared community vision or setting community goals are two ways that communities can begin the  process. by Mike Hattery
United States Environmental Protection Agency Superfund Office of Emergency and Remedial Response (5204G) EPA 540-R-01-007 OSWER No. 9355.7-03B-P June 2001 omprehensive Five-Year Review Guidance Office
EPA s Environmental Justice Collaborative Problem-Solving Model United States Environmental Protection Agency 2201A Washington, DC 20460 EPA-300-R-06-002 June 2008 www.epa.gov/compliance/environmentaljustice
council on environmental quality executive office of the president A Citizen s Guide to the NEPA Having Your Voice Heard december 2007 council on environmental quality executive office of the president
THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON August 11, 2009 M-09-28 MEMORANDUM FOR THE HEADS OF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES FROM: SUBJECT: Peter R. Orszag, Office of Management and Budget Melody Barnes, Domestic
xe VA Office of Inspector General OFFICE OF AUDITS AND EVALUATIONS Department of Veterans Affairs Follow-Up Audit of the Information Technology Project Management Accountability System January 22, 2015
IFC Performance Standards on Environmental and Social Sustainability Effective January 1, 2012 B IFC Performance Standards on Environmental and Social Sustainability Table of Contents Performance Standards:
United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Environmental Information Washington, DC 20460 EPA/240/B-06/001 February 2006 Guidance on Systematic Planning Using the Data Quality Objectives Process
LAND USE COMPATIBILITY AND AIRPORTS Preface PREFACE The development of land uses that are not compatible with airports and aircraft noise is a growing concern across the country. In addition to aircraft
Operational Excellence Management System An Overview of the OEMS Contents 2 4 6 8 14 16 17 Back Cover Operational Excellence Management System Leadership Accountability Management System Process OE Expectations
EPA/540/1-89/002 December 1989 Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund Volume I Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part A) Interim Final Office of Emergency and Remedial Response U.S. Environmental Protection
FEA Consolidated Reference Model Document Version 2.3 October 2007 Table of Contents 1 FEDERAL ENTERPRISE ARCHITECTURE PROGRAM... 4 2 REFERENCE MODEL OVERVIEW... 5 2.1 Performance Reference Model (PRM)...5
Montana Business Process to Link Planning Studies and NEPA/MEPA Reviews Planning Project Development final report Montana Business Process to Link Planning Studies and NEPA/MEPA Reviews prepared for Montana
Practice Guide Reliance by Internal Audit on Other Assurance Providers DECEMBER 2011 Table of Contents Executive Summary... 1 Introduction... 1 Principles for Relying on the Work of Internal or External
Towards a Framework for the Manag gement of Conta aminated Land Position Paper October 2009 WSP Environment & Energy www.wspenvironmental.co.za Contents Page 1 Introduction 1 1.1 Background 1 1.2 Guiding
DISCUSSION PAPER March 2011 RFF DP 11-13 Ecosystem Services: Quantification, Policy Applications, and Current Federal Capabilities Lynn Scarlett and James Boyd 1616 P St. NW Washington, DC 20036 202-328-5000
Sustainable Energy for All: The Business Opportunity A comprehensive analysis of priority actions across 19 industry sectors Contents Foreword Introduction Sustainable Energy for All: Its Value to Global
Improving Children s Health and Well-being by Integrating Children s Programs Presented to: First Focus Nemours The California Endowment Voices for America s Children Presented by: National Opinion Research