The ASTSWMO Sediments Focus Group developed this report for environmental authorities over both the CWA and Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) in a jurisdiction including State, federal, Territorial and/or tribal decision makers. This paper suggests a planning method to help identify possible sources of pollutants that could prevent a site from reaching remedial cleanup levels, remedial action objectives and/or from being recontaminated following the implementation of a successful remedial action.
The Removals Focus Group developed this report as an update to their 2010 report “Transition Issues Analysis”. One area that needed additional review was Post Removals Site Controls (PRSCs). Timely input from the State is needed throughout the removal decision making process. The document includes Institutional, Proprietary and Government Controls, as well as zoning, groundwater use restrictions, fish consumption advisories, and more.
In Benefits of Flexibility During Pre CERCLA Screening, this project relies upon feedback from States, EPA OSRTI data and case studies to examine the States’ use of Pre-CERCLA Screening Assessments and how they can be applied most effectively. This report focuses on the PCS process and the beneficial outcomes obtained by States through use of the PCS tool. This report furthers the work of the May 2014 research findings by focusing on States’ use of the PCS process. The goals of this report are to:
- Obtain additional information about States’ use of PCSs and whether additional flexibility in use of federal funds during the PCS process would be beneficial;
- Report on number of PCSs performed and their outcomes; and
- Provide recommendations about the PCS process with supportive, illustrative case studies.
On January 11, 2002, President Bush signed the Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act (Pub.L.No. 107-118, 115 stat. 2356, “the Brownfields Law”). The Brownfields Law amended the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund) by providing funds to assess and clean up brownfields; clarified CERCLA liability protections; and provided funds to enhance State and tribal response programs. Other related laws and regulations impact brownfields cleanup and reuse through financial incentives and regulatory requirements.
Since the Brownfields Law was signed in 2002, funding to States, Territories and Tribes, via the 128(a) Brownfield Grant, has been essential for States and Territories (States) to build and maintain successful State brownfield programs. The funding that States and Territories receive each year provides an incredible number of benefits to local units of government, corporations, and other organizations, who oversee the day-to-day cleanup and redevelopment of blighted, underutilized, and contaminated properties.
In this Analysis of Site Assessment Program Cooperative Agreements with States report, the Focus Group is following up on the findings of the Superfund Site Assessment Program: Benefits Beyond NLP Listing reports. The previous reports collected and reported the numbers of non-NPL outcomes on a national scale, however, their scope did not include investigating how these beneficial outcomes occur. The goals of this report include showing how States leverage CERCLA Site Assessment work products to achieve cleanup outcomes, both NPL and non-NPL. Additional goals included gathering and analyzing information on how States:
- Use their Site Assessment Cooperative Agreement funding;
- Employ efficiencies and best practices to improve the Site Assessment program; and
- Track non-NPL beneficial outcomes of sites evaluated with their Site Assessment Cooperative Agreement funding.
This Analysis paper reports on the Focus Group’s research methods and shows how States use Site Assessment work products to achieve both NPL and non-NPL cleanup outcomes, multiplying the benefits of the Site Assessment Program. The report also describes: trends in the Site Assessment Program; State’s recommendations for improving the Site Assessment Program; availability of State programs to address NPL-caliber sites; and tracking non-NPL outcomes.
The Checklist and Defintions below are meant to summarize the work accomplished during the reporting period that is not captured by ACRES and PALS. It is not meant to be a comprehensive compilation unless defined as such but rather a “snapshot taken” during that period. We realize that programs and needs vary from State to State (and territories) and therefore accomplishments will also vary so the Checklist not meant to be a “to do” list or goal to complete a task to obtain a number in every box but rather an improved manner to report accomplishments and to provide a means to easily summarize what is being done on a national level.
Introduction and Definitions of the 128(a) Successes Checklist (PDF)
128(a) Successes Checklist (Excel)
The ASTSWMO Sediments Focus Group has produced this document that discusses causes and issues related to recontamination. Discussion topics include new contamination of sediment sites from both known sources and newly identified sources, including contamination from new chemicals or those not addressed in previous assessments, and identification of pollutants most commonly found in areas where recontamination has occurred. Also included are case studies at sediment remediation sites where inadequate source control and/or recontamination have been documented after remedy efforts have commenced.
The purpose of the research was to gather information on issues relating to the transition of removal sites to and from the State and federal programs. The purpose was also to identify approaches, concerns, strengths and weaknesses related to these transitions.
Transition Issues Analysis Paper
Emergency Response Matrix
Removal Action Process Timeline Schematic
The Toolbox is designed to assist States by providing a reference guide for State environmental staff on community gardening on brownfield sites. States are encouraged to personalize the toolbox by adding their own State-specific and other regulatory information to increase the documents applicability and usefulness. The final Toolbox is presented in Microsoft Word so States are able to reformat the document for their own specific needs.
Community Gardening Toolbox
Appendix A: References
Appendix B: Site Model
Building upon previously funded EPA research conducted by the Environmental Law Institute, the ASTSWMO Long-Term Stewardship Focus Group chose to develop an institutional controls costing tool that represents a State perspective, especially for those States currently in the development or implementation stage of a State LTS program. Rather than focusing narrowly on site-specific IC costs, the Focus Group conducted a broad evaluation of all of the costs associated with LTS. From this analysis, the Focus Group has developed a spreadsheet tool to assist States in establishing or enhancing an existing ICs or LTS program and determining the costs associated with those activities.
State Conceptual Framework to Estimate Associated Cost
State IC Tool