U.S. AIR FORCE
RESOURCE
CONSERVATION AND
RECOVERY ACT
(RCRA)
CORRECTIVE ACTION
GUIDE
Interim Guidance Apr 1998
OPR: HQ USAF/ILEVQ
1
This page intentionally left blank.
2
AIR FORCE
RCRA CORRECTIVE ACTION GUIDE
CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose of this Guide
1.2 RCRA Corrective Action Background
1.3 Air Force RCRA Corrective Action Goals
2. PRINCIPLES GUIDING AN EFFECTIVE RCRA CORRECTIVE ACTION
PROGRAM
3. SUMMARY OF LEGAL AUTHORITIES
3.1 RCRA Corrective Action Authorities
3.2 Existing Regulations
3.3 Regulatory Developments
3.4 Resolving Disputes
4. CORRECTIVE ACTION PROCEDURES
4.1 Entering the Corrective Action Process
4.2 The Corrective Action Process
4.3 Remediation Waste
5. MANAGEMENT ISSUES
5.1 Manpower
5.2 Funding and Budgeting
5.3 Programming
5.4 Prioritization
5.5 POM Strategy
6. SPECIAL ISSUES
6.1 Corrective Action vs. Post-Closure Permits
6.2 RCRA/CERCLA/DERP Interaction
6.3 RCRA/NEPA Integration
6.4 Regional Environmental Offices and Counsels
6.5 Status of RCRA Corrective Action Authorization by State
7. AIR FORCE REFERENCES
8. EPA REFERENCES
3
ATTACHMENT:
Corrective Action Toolbox: 21 Sources of Guidance for RCRA Corrective Action (edited)
4
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose of this Guide. The purpose of this guide is to introduce you to the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)1 Corrective Action (CA) program. The RCRA-CA
program is a cleanup program designed to ensure the remediation of hazardous releases2
associated with RCRA-regulated facilities3. Funding eligibility for cleanup sites at a RCRAregulated facility may either fall under the Air Force Installation Restoration Program (IRP) or
under the Air Force Environmental Compliance Program (ECP), depending upon when the
contamination at the site occurred4. Management and execution of the RCRA-CA program
may fall under the restoration or compliance sections at the MAJCOM and/or installation
depending on local circumstances.
This guide discusses the Air Force’s goals, philosophy, and expectations with regard to cleanup
under RCRA-CA for ECP-funded corrective action sites. IRP-funded cleanup sites are governed
by policy and guidance from the Environmental Restoration Program5. This guide also discusses
the legal authorities governing the RCRA-CA process and EPA guidance interpreting such
authorities. Finally, it covers AF RCRA-CA procedures and management issues.
Any comments or recommendations for revisions to this guide should be directed to:
HQ USAF/ILEVQ, 1260 Air Force Pentagon, Washington DC 20330-1260.
1.2 RCRA-CA Background. The EPA6 enforces the RCRA-CA program principally through
the statutory authorities established by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984
(HSWA). The Agency proposed a rule (55 Federal Register (FR) 30798, July 27, 1990), that
would implement under HSWA a comprehensive regulatory framework for conducting the
corrective action program. The proposed rule is commonly known as “Subpart S Proposal” after
the location within 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 264 where the rule would be
codified. Only a small portion of this rule has since been promulgated, resulting in minimal
regulatory (i.e., legally binding) requirements at present. That portion which has not been
promulgated has the status of guidance. That is, it is very persuasive, but not binding, in and of
itself. Since EPA failed to finalize the Subpart S Proposal, it has since issued two additional
guidance documents to control and guide corrective action; the 1994 Corrective Action Plan
(CAP) and the Subpart S Initiative (ANPR 61 FR 79432, 1 May 96). Since most of the rule is
not promulgated and minimal regulatory requirements are defined, this guide provides an AF
strategy for implementing RCRA corrective actions.
1
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 is actually an amendment to the Solid Waste Disposal Act
(SWDA) of 1965. Since passage of the amendment, the entire SWDA has commonly been referred to as RCRA.
RCRA was amended in 1984 by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendment (HSWA).
2
Hazardous releases are releases of hazardous waste or hazardous constituents to any environmental medium.
3
RCRA-regulated facilities are facilities with a RCRA permit or interim status.
4
If any portion of contamination can be shown to have occurred prior to Jan 84, the site is eligible for Environmental
Restoration Account (ERA) funding. If this cannot be shown, ECP funding must be used.
5
AFI 32-7020, Air Force Instruction Environmental Restoration Program; Air Force Environmental Restoration
Management Guidance, June 1996.
6
Frequently in this guide, “EPA” refers to “the federal or a state authority delegated responsibility to oversee
corrective action.” The term “Agency” generally is used to refer to the federal EPA.
5
1.3 Air Force RCRA-CA Goals. The Air Force’s goals in the ECP-funded RCRA-CA process
are:
- To satisfy its legal responsibilities to restore CA sites IAW RCRA (and CERCLA as
applicable);
- To use risk-based cleanup measures as the standard;
- To conduct cost-effective cleanup under the corrective action program;
- To complete cleanup in a timely manner;
- To ensure the public has a meaningful opportunity to participate in corrective action
decision-making;
- To maintain consistency across different cleanup programs, and across state lines and EPA
regions, to the maximum extent possible;
- To achieve finality in the cleanup of sites.
6
2. PRINCIPLES GUIDING AN EFFECTIVE RCRA CORRECTIVE ACTION
PROGRAM
Here follow a set of principles to guide your thinking in how to approach RCRA corrective
actions. They are not mandatory. You must tailor their application to your particular
circumstances.
2.1 Reduce the number of solid waste management units (SWMUs). Each phase of the
RCRA corrective action process presents opportunities to eliminate SWMUs from further action.
Take advantage of each opportunity. SWMUs are listed on your Part B permit.
2.2. Be aggressive in conducting the RCRA Corrective Action Program.
2.2.1. Take the lead. Be proactive in working with your program; don’t simply react to
regulator wishes. Use your own judgment to arrive at the proposed remedy that makes the most
sense considering the goals of the program. Be assertive in using appropriate means to motivate
your regulators to address your documents and projects.
2.2.2. Do not be afraid to have professional differences of opinion with the regulators.
Provide a timely challenge to the inclusion of those terms and/or requirements in conflict with
the law, or those the regulator cannot justify including in the permit. The absence of differences
among professionals can be an indication that one side has abdicated it’s responsibilities. A
difference of opinion does not mean that the installation is doing things wrong. While we do
share with the regulators the same goal of environmental protection, we do not have the same
organizational mission or priorities. After exhausting informal dispute resolution options, having
an independent party (e.g. an administrative law judge) rule on the merits of each party’s
position, IAW the proper RCRA procedure, is a proper and acceptable way of resolving such
differences.
2.2.3. Follow the rules.7. A final RCRA corrective action permit is the most important
legal authority governing corrective action at a permitted facility. Under 40 CFR 270.4, a final
permit effectively supersedes the regulations. Know the meaning of every term and
requirement in your corrective action permit/order. Where the installation is performing
corrective action pursuant to a final order, that order is the most important legal authority
governing the corrective action. Permits and orders can be challenged administratively for a
short period following issuance, after which they become final. Guidance exists to help interpret
the regulations and statutes. Guidance should be considered, but it need not be followed blindly
7
Statutes are passed by a legislative body (e.g., Congress). Regulations are issued by administrative agencies (e.g.,
EPA) to implement the statutes. Regulations must be consistent with the statutes they are issued under and their
substantive scope can be no greater than is allowed by such statutes. Administrative procedure acts frequently
provide for legal means to challenge regulations before they become final. Administrative authorities also issue
guidance, which, unlike regulations, does not have the force of law. Administrative law judges and courts will,
however, normally defer to the judgment of regulatory authorities expressed in guidance when the regulatory
authorities can show that the guidance can be applied in a way that makes sense in the context of the specific
situation in question. Unlike regulations, however, guidance need not be applied where it would not make sense to
do so under the circumstances.
7
and it should not be followed when its implementation does not make sense given site-specific
conditions. Informal direction given by regulators that conflicts with the law governing their
actions does not fall within the rules the Air Force must comply with. Also, demands by
regulators that require previous work efforts be duplicated or unnecessary
deliverables/documents be submitted must be challenged, as these will unnecessarily increase
project costs. Thus, simply satisfying the regulators does not guarantee compliance with the
rules, or that the Air Force’s interests will have been served.
2.3. Fully integrate the requirement of both RCRA and CERCLA in your Corrective
Action Program.
2.3.1 Remember that we are subject to regulatory control under RCRA and we have
independent legal authority and responsibility under CERCLA. Therefore, we are equally subject
to the requirements of both statutes. Even though the corrective action and the installation
restorations programs use different terminology, their processes and goals are nearly identical.
Thus, the products of each (e.g., analytical data, studies, EPA documents) can be used to satisfy
the requirements of the other. The costs of developing this type of information can be staggering
and it would be counterproductive to reproduce the data/deliverable. See Section 6.2 for a more
detailed discussion of RCRA/CERCLA interaction.
2.3.2 When possible, strive to include as many SWMUs that qualify for ERA funding
into to the IRP program. This requires that any portion of the release to have occurred prior to
Jan 84. This strategy ensures a quality and responsive remediation, and has the benefits of the
AF being the lead agent--less regulatory involvement. The funding for the IRP program, namely
ERA, is fenced in the year of execution, which protects it from cuts and allows better
programming.
2.3.3. The Air Force enjoys several advantages from CERCLA that include the
protection from lawsuits (CERCLA 113(h)) and an exemption from obtaining on-site permits
(CERCLA 121(e)). These are more reasons why the IRP is emphasized as the best way to
accomplish corrective actions. To ensure we benefit from the protections of CERCLA, you must
maintain an awareness of the procedural parallels between cleanup under RCRA and cleanup
under other laws (in particular, the parallels illustrated in Figure 2, Comparison of RCRA
Corrective Action and CERCLA Remedial Action Processes. Continually question whether the
corrective action steps you are taking are also satisfying CERCLA’s Subparts E (Hazardous
Substance Response) and I (Administrative Record for Selection of Response Action) of
CERCLA’s National Contingency Plan .
2.4 Strive for consistency in the selection of cleanup standards. Cleanup standards should
differ on the basis of engineering considerations, not on the basis of which laws the cleanups are
being carried out under. Cleanup standards should not be a function of which regulator is lead
regulator for a particular program, or of which law drives the cleanup. Where it appears that a
cleanup standard selected would be different under RCRA than it would be under CERCLA,
question it. Remember that CERCLA uses RCRA standards as ARARs (Applicable or Relevant
and Appropriate Requirements).
8
2.4.1. Strive to achieve risk-based standards. Use the ASTM Standard Risk-Based
Corrective Action (RBCA) or the AF Relative Risk Model, where appropriate, Where other
standards required by state law do not make sense in light of site-specific circumstances, exhaust
administrative remedies and EPA negotiations allowing for variances, where appropriate. Ensure
that institutional controls are in place to restrict the land-use when risk-based decisions are made.
2.5. Keep the public involved.
2.5.1. Establish a mechanism to let the general public know what documents are
available for review and how they can view or obtain them.
2.5.2. Stimulate and maintain interest by producing documents that are
understandable by educated lay people.
2.5.3. As appropriate, keep the public informed, particularly with regard to controversial
decisions, and encourage their input. Regulators believe their mission is to protect the public
from environmental hazards. Public input can provide the regulators a means to stay in touch
with the public’s concerns and priorities.
2.6. RCRA Corrective Action is a multi-disciplinary effort lead by the installation
commander.
2.6.1. The installation environmental and legal offices should be involved in any permit
application, modification or removal requests and throughout the process.
2.6.2. The public affairs office should be the program’s liaison to the community.
2.6.3. Build your self inspection checklists from the requirements contained in your
permits.
2.7. Establish habits that document your decision-making process.
2.7.1. Do not neglect the formalities. Send letters, create memoranda for the record, and
use electronic mail to generate the written documents which memorialize your decision making
processes. Regulators can afford to grant verbal approvals and rely on the customary practices
you have established over time because they are not the ones required to maintain an
administrative record. You are. And, as you know from experience, a regulator may change
their mind or be replaced by another with a different opinion.
2.7.2. Documents should clearly state how they are satisfying the requirements of both
RCRA and CERCLA, as applicable.
9
This page intentionally left blank.
10
3. SUMMARY OF LEGAL AUTHORITIES
“One of the [Environmental Protection] Agency’s primary objectives
in development of the RCRA corrective action regulations is to
achieve substantive consistency with the policies and procedures of
the remedial action program under…CERCLA….”
55 Fed. Reg. 30852 (July 27, 1990).
3.1 RCRA Corrective Action Authorities
Prior to HSWA's enactment, EPA had limited authority to require remediation or corrective
action measures at facilities regulated under RCRA. Statutory authority was limited to Section
7003, which gives EPA authority to take action when contamination presents an imminent hazard
to human health or the environment. Regulatory authority was limited to 40 CFR Part 264,
Subpart F8. Subpart F only addressed releases of hazardous waste from regulated units9 into the
uppermost aquifer. Typically, these facilities were in the business of subsequently managing
hazardous wastes generated by another party (hazardous waste treatment, storage or disposal
facilities).
HSWA added statutory provisions to RCRA that gave EPA substantial statutory authority to
develop a broader corrective action program. These provisions include:
* Section 3004(u) - requires corrective action be addressed as a condition of a facility's10 Part B
permit
* Section 3004(v) - provides authority to require corrective action for releases migrating
beyond the facility boundary
* Section 3008(h) - provides authority to require corrective action at interim status facilities.
RCRA (HSWA) corrective action authority/jurisdiction includes:
- any facility with a RCRA permit or interim status11;
- where there has been a release of hazardous waste or a hazardous constituent;
- into any environmental media;
- from or at a SWMU
8
Subpart F consists of sections 264.90 to 264.101.
A “regulated unit” is a surface impoundment, waste pile, land treatment unit, or landfill that has received waste
after July 26, 1982. 40 C.F.R. § 264.90(a)(2).
10
“Facility means:
(1) All contiguous land, and structures, other appurtenances, and improvements on the land, used for treating,
storing, or disposing of hazardous waste. A facility may consist of several treatment, storage, or disposal
operational units (e.g., one or more landfills, surface impoundments, or combinations of them).
(2) For the purpose of implementing corrective action under Section 264.101, all contiguous property
under the control of the owner or operator seeking a permit under Subtitle C of RCRA. This definition
also applies to facilities implementing corrective action under RCRA Section 3008(h).”
(40 C.F.R. 260.10; bolding added to emphasize the point that geographically separate units are not necessarily
subject to corrective action simply because they are administratively attached to a base with a RCRA permit.)
11
Any federal facility with a RCRA permit or interim status is known as a RCRA facility/RCRA permitted
facility/RCRA TSDF and is subject to RCRA corrective action authority. If the federal facility does not have a
RCRA permit or interim status (has never filed a Part A Application), the RCRA corrective action program has no
jurisdiction or authority over such federal facility.
9
11
These corrective action authorities are implemented on a case-by-case basis in facility permits or
orders issued by EPA (Sections 264.101, 270.1(c), and 270.14(d)).12 EPA has not promulgated a
comprehensive regulatory program describing the corrective action process. Currently, the
corrective action process is defined by various policy and guidance documents (see Section 1.2).
The only corrective action regulations EPA has promulgated since HSWA are regulations
regarding the management of remediation wastes generated during corrective action (Sections
264.552 [Corrective Action Management Units (CAMU)] and 264.553 [Temporary Units (TU)]).
The statutory authorities for RCRA-CA as amended by HSWA follows, along with a brief
description of each authority's application.
IMMINENT AND SUBSTANTIAL ENDANGERMENT (Section 7003)
RCRA Section 7003 gives EPA enforcement authority to abate potential imminent and
substantial hazards caused by releases of solid or hazardous waste from any source. Specifically,
Section 7003 provides EPA with the authority to seek legal relief in the appropriate United States
District Court13 or issue administrative corrective action orders for releases from sites where the
handling, storage, treatment, transportation, or disposal of solid or hazardous waste may pose an
imminent and substantial endangerment to human health or the environment.
CONTINUING RELEASES AT PERMITTED FACILITIES (Section 3004(u))
RCRA Section 3004(u), added by HSWA, requires corrective action for all releases of hazardous
waste or constituents from any solid waste management unit (SWMU) at a facility seeking a
permit, regardless of when the waste was placed in the unit. A SWMU, as defined in the
proposed Subpart S rule, is any discernible unit at which solid wastes have been placed at any
time, irrespective of whether the unit was intended for the management of solid or hazardous
waste. This definition includes any area at a facility where solid wastes have been routinely and
systematically released. EPA interprets this authority to apply to any facility seeking a permit,
including operating permits, post-closure permits, and permits-by-rule, after November 8, 1984
(50 FR 28712 and 28715, July 15, 1985). The cleanup must address releases to air, groundwater,
surface water, and soil. Furthermore, facilities are required to maintain the permit until
corrective action is completed. Section 3004(u) also requires the EPA to include schedules of
compliance for completing corrective action in a facility's permit when issued.
12
See note 3. This statement is taken verbatim from the EPA hotline training module. It is but one of many
instances in which EPA is saying, in effect, that the parties concerned (i.e., regulated entities and regulatory
authorities) have the freedom to establish corrective action programs which make sense under the circumstances that
pertain to the site. Where individual regulators insist on applying guidelines rigidly, in a way that does not make
sense, it is up to the Air Force installation to challenge such regulators through administrative law channels (as by
appealing permits to an administrative law judge).
13
Under the Department of Justice’s “Unitary Executive Theory,” executive agencies do not sue each other in
judicial tribunals. Thus, it is much more likely that an Air Force installation would receive an administrative order
under section 7003 than that it would receive a summons to appear in US District Court. Federal agencies may,
however, be sued in court by State authorities administering corrective action.
12
BEYOND THE FACILITY BOUNDARY (Section 3004(v))
While the authority for cleanup under Section 3004(u) is broad, it only applies to contamination
on the contiguous property of a facility and does not address the migration of hazardous
constituents beyond the boundaries of the facility seeking the permit. To address these concerns,
Congress also amended RCRA with Section 3004(v). This section gives EPA the authority to
require a facility owner/operator to clean up releases that have migrated beyond the facility
boundary. Specifically, the owner/operator must institute corrective action wherever necessary to
protect human health and the environment unless the owner/operator demonstrates to the
satisfaction of the Regional Administrator that despite the owner/operator's best efforts, he or she
was unable to obtain the necessary permission from adjacent property holders to undertake such
actions (Section 264.101(c)).
INTERIM STATUS CORRECTIVE ACTION (Section 3008(h))
Under HSWA, Congress also gave EPA the authority to issue orders requiring cleanups at
facilities seeking a permit, or interim status facilities. This provision was added as Section
3008(h), which allows EPA to issue an administrative order or file a civil action whenever it
determines on the basis of any information that there is or has been a release of hazardous waste
into the environment from an interim status facility. This applies to facilities that are currently
operating under interim status (i.e., has filed a Part A Application for a permit), that formerly
operated under interim status, or that should have obtained interim status14. It also applies to any
release of hazardous waste or constituents from the facility. In addition to requiring cleanup,
EPA has the authority under Section 3008(h) to revoke or suspend interim status. Finally, as
with Section 3004(v), EPA may use Section 3008(h) to require corrective action beyond the
facility boundary.
3.2 EXISTING REGULATIONS
“Non-regulated solid waste management units are not subject to
40 CFR Parts 264 and 265; consequently, environmental risks at those
units are determined and addressed on a site-specific basis through the
corrective action process.” 61 Fed. Reg. 19438 (May 1, 1996).
Presently the RCRA corrective action program is implemented largely through its statutory
authorities and EPA guidance developed pursuant to those authorities. There are, however, some
codified requirements.
Part 264, Subpart F requires corrective action for releases to groundwater from regulated units
(e.g., landfills, surface impoundments) that received hazardous waste after July 26, 1982.
Under these regulations, corrective action is the third step of a three-phase program for detecting,
characterizing, and responding to releases to the uppermost aquifer from regulated units. In the
corrective action phase, the owner/operator is required to remove or treat in place all
contaminants present in concentrations above previously determined groundwater protection
14
Protective filers (i.e., facilities that were in existence on November 19, 1980, notified the Agency of their activities
according to Section 3010, and submitted their Part A application but never conducted a regulated activity requiring
a permit) are not considered by the Agency to be in interim status (50 FR 38948, Sept 25, 1985)
13
standards (Section 264.100). This type of corrective action applies only to regulated units
(Section 264.100) as opposed to all SWMUs (Section 264.101) and follows a slightly different
procedure.
Facilities are also required to institute corrective action for releases of hazardous waste or
constituents from SWMUs (Section 264.101). This section essentially reiterates the statutory
language of Section 3004(u). Part 270 requires anyone seeking a RCRA permit to identify, in
their permit application, any SWMUs found at their facility (Sections 270.1(c), 270.14(d)). EPA
also promulgated regulations mitigating the regulatory burden of handling remediation wastes
generated during the corrective action process (Sections 264.552, 264.553).
3.3 REGULATORY DEVELOPMENTS
HSWA expanded corrective action authorities for both permitted and interim status RCRA
facilities. The new corrective action authorities became effective on November 8, 1984, the date
of HSWA enactment. Implementing corrective action regulations are codified at Sections
264.101, 270.1(c), and 270.14(d). Since the initial HSWA codification rulemaking, EPA
proposed a more comprehensive, systematic approach to corrective action, which would be
codified as Part 264, Subpart S (55 FR 30798; July 27, 1990). This proposal addresses corrective
action for SWMUs at facilities subject to RCRA permitting.
The 1990 proposal received significant public comment. Although EPA finalized only those
sections of the proposal promulgating regulations for CAMUs and TUs (see Section 4.3 of this
module for more information), the bulk of this proposal was never finalized, but is still used as
guidance during corrective actions.
In an effort to reevaluate this proposal in light of experience in implementing the corrective
action program since 1986, the Agency published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (61
Fed. Reg. 19432; May 1, 1996) to introduce EPA's strategy for promulgation of corrective action
regulations, and to expand on the Agency's philosophy and priorities. The advance notice,
known as the Subpart I Initiative, opens a dialogue with the regulated community on ways to
make the corrective action process shorter and cost-effective for the regulated community and for
the Agency; to create more consistent, less compartmentalized cleanups; to establish protective
but "common sense" cleanup expectations; and to shift more responsibility for compliance to
states and the regulated community.
The notice also gives the regulated community direction and guidance on the current corrective
action policies, relating the status of the corrective action process to other rulemaking efforts
such as the post-closure permitting rule, state authorization revisions, and administrative
improvements and reforms under Superfund.
14
3.4 RESOLVING DISPUTES
As mentioned in Section 2.1.2, do not be afraid to have professional differences of opinion with
the regulators. Here are some points to consider on dispute resolution:
1) Prioritize your issues and thoroughly research your positions
2) Use your partnering processes and methods to resolve issues
3) Have local JA/CEV/EM draft an opinion to forward to EPA (coordinate with Regional
Counsel and MAJCOM)
4) Informally discuss with permit writers at EPA (outside of partnering)
5) Draft formal comment for official record
6) Consult with wing advisory board and encourage them to comment
7) Appeal to the Environmental Appeals Board/draft a formal brief for submission
(JACE involvement required)
8) Receive response from EPA
9) Negotiate for as long as you want
10) Go to hearing
Use an escalating process, but you need not use every step described above. Some steps can be
taken simultaneously. Attachment 1 is a handout developed by EPA Region 4 called "CA
TOOLBOX: 21 Sources of Guidance for RCRA HSWA Corrective Action (edited)" which
contains 21 references to various preambles, proposed rules, guidance documents, etc. that are
useful in making arguments to regulators organized by subject.
15
This page intentionally left blank
16
4. CORRECTIVE ACTION PROCEDURES
4.1 ENTERING THE CORRECTIVE ACTION PROCESS
One of the keys to understanding the RCRA corrective action program is knowing how a facility
becomes subject to the corrective action process. A facility is not simply thrust into the program
every time a spill of hazardous waste occurs. There are primarily four ways a facility becomes
subject to corrective action. The first and most common uses RCRA Section 3004(u) and
involves the identification of SWMUs during the process whereby a facility obtains a permit to
treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste. Second, a facility owner/operator may volunteer to
perform corrective action.15 Third, EPA may issue an enforcement order, pursuant to Sections
7003 or 3008(h), requiring a facility to implement corrective action. The final trigger arises from
groundwater monitoring. If a facility owner/operator detects statistically significant evidence of
increased contamination over certain concentration limits established in the permit, he or she
must institute a corrective action program (Sections 264.91(a)(2) and (a)(3)).
4.2 THE CORRECTIVE ACTION PROCESS
“EPA emphasizes that it expects facility owners/ operators to
develop and recommend remedies…, including proposed
media cleanup levels, points of compliance and compliance
time frames….” 61 Fed. Reg. 19448 (May 1, 1996)
The purpose of the corrective action process is to provide for controlled cleanup of
contamination within the structure of the RCRA program. The corrective action process is used
to evaluate the nature and extent of contamination, identify the physical and geographic
characteristics of the facility, and identify, develop, and implement appropriate corrective
measures. This process is designed to be flexible; consequently, the Agency will use only those
portions of the process that are appropriate. However, some State EPAs tend to use all portions
of the process (as spelled out in the 1994 CAP), even though they may not be applicable to a site
and its site-specific conditions.
The corrective action process generally comprises the activities in Figure 1. Each serves to
further focus the investigation, progressing from identifying potential concerns to investigating
an actual problem and, finally, selecting a specific remedy. These activities are not dictated by
the regulations but are used by EPA in guidance documents relevant to corrective action. These
activities are:
1 RCRA Permit Application Submission and Issuance - events that subject a facility to RCRA
authority and identifies the SWMUs
2 RCRA Facility Assessment (RFA) - identifies probable or actual releases from SWMUs
3 Release Assessment - limited assessment to determine if contaminants are present and, if so,
to what extent
4 Air Force Prioritization - prioritizes the RFA and interim measures of a site relative to other
sites
15
Note that Air Force facilities do not normally volunteer to perform corrective action under RCRA. Federal
facilities perform restoration under DERP and CERCLA and do not normally fall under RCRA as well unless they
fall under the corrective action program for some other reason.
17
5 Interim/Stabilization Measures (IM) - implements measures to achieve high-priority, shortterm remediation needs or dictates that no further actions (NFA) are required
6 RCRA Facility Investigation (RFI) - compiles information to fully characterize the release
7 Corrective Measures Study (CMS) - identifies appropriate measures to address the release
8 Statement of Basis - describes the remedy selection and explains the cleanup level chosen to
the public
9 Corrective Measures Implementation (CMI) - designs and implements the remedy.
RCRA CA STEPS
PERFORMED BY
RCRA Permit /IS
RCRA
Facilit y Assessment
(RFA)
EPA
Int erim/st abilizat ion measures evaluat ion*
Owner/Operat or
(EPA Performs
Oversight)
RCRA
Release Assessment
(RA)
AF Priorit izat ion
RCRA
Facilit y Invest igat ion
(RFI)
Owner/Operat or
(EPA Performs
Oversight)
Correct ive Measures
St udy
(CMS)
Owner/Operat or
(EPA Performs Oversight and
Select s Alt ernat ive)
St at ement of Basis
Correct ive Measure
Implementat ion
(CMI)
Owner/Operat or
(EPA Performs Oversight )
* St abilizat ion evaluat ions may occur aft er an RFA, an RA or an RFI, and int erim/st abilizat ion measures may be
t aken t hroughout t he correct ive act ion process.
Figure 1
RCRA CORRECTIVE ACTION PROCESS
18
STEP 1: RCRA PERMIT APPLICATION SUBMISSION AND ISSUANCE
Any federal facility with a RCRA permit or interim status is known as a RCRA facility/RCRA
permitted facility/RCRA TSDF and is subject to RCRA corrective action authority. If the federal
facility does not have a RCRA permit or interim status (has never filed a Part A Application), the
RCRA corrective action program has no jurisdiction or authority over such federal facility. Thus,
application/issuance of a RCRA Part A/B permit to treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste is
the first step in the RCRA corrective action process.
STEP 2: RCRA FACILITY ASSESSMENT
The next activity in the corrective action process is the RCRA facility assessment (RFA). The
objective of the RFA is to identify potential and actual releases from SWMUs and make
preliminary determinations about releases, the need for corrective action, and interim measures.
The RFA is funded and conducted by the regulatory agency16 and occurs prior to permit
issuance (Section 270.14(b)). If the facility is in interim status and is not seeking a permit, the
RFA would take place before the facility closes. The RFA begins with a file review of
information about the facility. The regulatory agency, or a contractor for the EPA, may then
conduct a visual site inspection to confirm available information on SWMUs and to note any
visual evidence of releases. The RFA is analogous to a Preliminary Assessment under
CERCLA.
STEP 3: RELEASE ASSESSMENT
When SWMUs identified during the RFA are questionable, the permittee may conduct a limited
Release Assessment (RA) to determine if contaminants are present and, if so, to what extent.
The purpose of this step is to eliminate SWMUs from the permit or gain a No Further Action
(NFA) status for the SWMU, particularly if the SWMU was erroneously identified during the
RFA. Also, if only a minimal amount of contaminants are present, the RA can initiate an interim
action to achieve stabilization or NFA. This step can significantly reduce project costs by
unnecessarily entering the RFI/CMS/CMI steps. The use of a limited RA, in conjunction with
existing site data (from IRP activities or other sources) and existing EPA relationships, can
successfully eliminate a great percentage of SWMUs from the RCRA corrective action process,
thereby saving the Air Force millions of dollars.
STEP 4: AIR FORCE PRIORITIZATION SYSTEM
It is Air Force policy to address the worst environmental threats first. Therefore, after initially
assessing a site (RA), the site's relative environmental importance should be ranked. This
ranking can be used to focus your efforts and allocate resources. There are several techniques
16
The EPA normally contracts these “SWMU hunts”. These will often be the same contractor bidding on the
RFI/CMS/CMI work later. Be mindful of the potential conflict of interest and closely scrutinize each SWMU
identified during the RFA.
19
available to assist in this effort17. Environmental factors to consider in the prioritization include
types and volumes of wastes present, contaminant release pathways, and the potential for human
and ecosystem exposure to contaminants. More guidance to follow here after we look closer at
the ASTM-RBCA and the AF Relative Risk Model.
STEP 5: INTERIM/STABILIZATION MEASURES
Contaminated sites occasionally present serious and immediate hazards which EPA must address
quickly during the corrective action process. This process is called stabilization. The actions
used to achieve the goal of stabilization are called interim measures or interim/stabilization
measures. Interim/stabilization measures are short-term actions taken to respond to immediate
threats to human health or prevent damage or contaminant migration to the environment.
Evaluate the need and feasibility of interim/stabilization measures by conducting a stabilization
evaluation. Perform the stabilization evaluation after an RFA, an RA or an RFI. Interim or
stabilization measures may be taken at any time in the corrective action process and should be
consistent with the final remedy. When there is sufficient time to apply for a permit modification
prior to performing stabilization measures, such stabilization should not be performed as an
interim measure. Some sites pose relatively simple solutions without extensive contamination.
For these sites, interim actions may be performed to abate a threat or eliminate the site from
consideration all together—NFA. The comparable CERCLA step for ISM is the Removal
Action.
STEP 6: RCRA FACILITY INVESTIGATION
Another activity in the corrective action process is the RCRA facility investigation (RFI). The
RFI takes place when a release has been suspected during the RFA, confirmed in the RA, and
further investigation is necessary to fully characterize the nature, extent, and rate of migration of
contaminants to determine the appropriate response action. The investigation should focus on
the specific units, releases, and exposure pathways identified as problematic earlier in the process
to avoid unnecessary and unproductive investigations. Permittees may be required to submit a
plan for conducting an RFI, which will be overseen by the implementing agency and may include
a human health and ecological risk assessment. The RFI is analogous to a Site Inspection and
Remedial Investigation under CERCLA.
STEP 7: CORRECTIVE MEASURES STUDY
After the RFI is completed, and the regulatory agency determines (on the basis of the information
available) that cleanup is necessary, the owner/operator must conduct a corrective measures study
(CMS). A CMS may not be necessary if an IM is found appropriate or there are presumptive
remedies that apply (check with AFCEE). The purpose of the CMS is to identify and evaluate
cleanup alternatives for releases at the facility. The owner/operator must identify the
appropriate corrective measures to address the threats posed by the releases, including
measures to control the source of contamination and actions to abate problems caused by
17
This is one of the unresolved issues for the Tiger Team to work—which technique to use.
20
migration of contaminants from the source.18 The recommended measures are reviewed by
EPA or the state and EPA/state selects the best remedy given site-specific considerations. EPA
may request additional information or additional alternatives throughout this process. When a
remedy is selected, the facility's permit is modified to include the remedy and a schedule of
compliance. At that time the remedy is subject to public review and comment. Note that the
permit modification can occur at the instigation of the regulator (under section 270.41), or upon
the request of the permittee (under section 270.42). The CMS is analogous to a Feasibility Study
under CERCLA.
STEP 8: STATEMENT OF BASIS
In addition to the permit modification EPA/state should also publish a statement of basis. This
statement describes the basis for remedy selection and an explanation for the cleanup levels
chosen. The Statement of Basis is analogous to a Record of Decision (ROD) under CERCLA.
STEP 9: CORRECTIVE MEASURES IMPLEMENTATION (CMI)
Once the implementing agency has selected a remedy, the facility enters the corrective measures
implementation (CMI) phase of corrective action. During the CMI, the owner/operator of the
facility implements the chosen remedy. This phase includes design, construction, maintenance,
and monitoring of the chosen remedy, all of which are performed by the facility owner/operator
with Agency oversight. A remedy may be implemented through a phased approach. Phases
could consist of any logically connected set of actions performed sequentially over time or
concurrently at different parts of a site. For example, if groundwater contamination is currently
extending beyond the facility boundary it may be most important to address this problem first and
address the larger remediation areas after the plume is under control. CMI is analogous to
Remedial Design/Remedial Action (RD/RA) under CERCLA.
4.3 REMEDIATION WASTE
Cleaning up RCRA facilities under the corrective action program may involve the management
of large amounts of waste such as contaminated soils, water, debris, and sludges which contain a
listed waste or exhibit a characteristic of hazardous waste. Such "remediation wastes" (Section
260.10) that are managed for the purpose of implementing corrective action requirements are
generally subject to the same management standards as newly generated RCRA hazardous waste,
including TSDF standards and land disposal restrictions (LDR). These management standards are
sometimes counterproductive when applied to cleanups because they may unnecessarily slow the
corrective action process and increase the cost of corrective action without providing a
concurrent level of protection of human health and the environment. In order to mitigate the
impact of these management standards on the corrective action program, EPA promulgated
regulations that allow the use of alternative remediation waste unit standards that will ensure
cleanups are fully protective while eliminating some of the regulatory hurdles associated with
18
This language is taken verbatim from the EPA training module that served as the model for this guide. It is
reproduced in bold to emphasize that Air Force installations should not be passive participants in the corrective
action process. They should be taking the lead, not simply writing out checks.
21
waste management. EPA accomplished this by creating two new management units: temporary
units (TUs) and corrective action management units (CAMUs).
Temporary units are tanks or container storage areas that EPA designated to be used solely for
the treatment or storage of remediation wastes during corrective action. By designating a tank or
container storage area as a temporary unit, EPA may modify the design, operation, and closure
technical standards normally applicable for such units for up to one year, unless EPA grants an
extension. The TU must comply fully with all specific alternative unit standards set out in the
facility permit.
CAMUs are physical, geographic areas within a facility designated for managing remediation
wastes during corrective action (Section 260.10). By designating an area as a CAMU in a permit
or an order, EPA exempts that area from LDR and the land disposal unit minimum technology
requirements (MTR). A CAMU can only manage remediation wastes during the corrective
action process at the facility. Remediation wastes can originate only from within a facility, but
may include wastes managed in implementing corrective action beyond the facility boundary
pursuant to Sections 3004(v) or 3008(h). CAMUs may also be used for the purpose of
remediation under Section 7003.
22
5. MANAGEMENT ISSUES
5.1 MANPOWER. The Air Force Manpower Standard for the Environmental Flight (44EV)
gives a small variance for stateside installations for requirements to manage compliance
programs for permitted facilities. These variances are small and will most likely not generate
additional manpower authorizations for RCRA corrective action.
5.2 FUNDING. RCRA-CA projects are funded with environmental compliance funds. A new
element of expense investment code (EEIC) to properly track RCRA-CA expenses is being
established. Until then, funding should be categorized as “Other” under the appropriate
environmental compliance program elements. ERA funds may be used for RCRA-CA projects
or for recurring RCRA-CA operation and services requirements if the any part of the
contamination release can be proven to have occurred before Jan 1984. However, DSMOA
funds nor ECP funds can be used to pay the EPA to review documents submitted to it for
approval. The EPA, usually the State EPA must fund these with their operating expenses. This
is an issue to monitor, as States are considering proposing legislation to require permitees to pay
this fee.
5.3 PROGRAMMING. RCRA-CA projects will be programmed like other environmental
O&M projects and total requirements briefed at annual program management reviews (PMRs)
and POM reviews. For compliance funded RCRA-CA to be considered a Level 1 compliance
requirement, the RCRA-CA action must be a requirement in the RCRA permit or have a RCRA
consent/enforcement order, and must be out of compliance for the year of execution. While all
SWMUs are really out of compliance, timing of the EPA review must be considered in
determining the out of compliance date. The goal is to use the AFIRMS to track the
requirements and transfer the bottomline costs to A-106. This issue needs further review and
staffing.
5.4 PRIORITIZATION. Since the standard level definitions for compliance projects are not
appropriate for these projects, a different method must be used. This is one of the issues to
resolve after review of the ASTM Risk-Based Corrective Action model and the environmental
restoration relative risk site evaluation model.
5.5 POM STRATEGY. Compliance funded RCRA-CA projects/funds will compete with other
EC requirements in the POM. The POM strategy will be based on reasonable goals to complete
high, medium and low risk sites by agreed upon dates. Level 1 requirements and high relative
risk sites have first priority.
23
This page intentionally left blank.
24
6. SPECIAL ISSUES
The following topics briefly address interface issues, first within the RCRA regulatory scheme
and secondly between statutory programs, and assistance available to the field in RCRA-CA.
6.1 CORRECTIVE ACTION vs. POST-CLOSURE PERMITS
The corrective action process is often closely interrelated with the closure process. Frequently, a
closing unit has caused contamination of environmental media which necessitates corrective
action during the post-closure period. Usually this corrective action is addressed through a postclosure permit pursuant to Section 3004(u). EPA has proposed to remove the post-closure permit
when appropriate (59 FR 55778; November 8, 1994). The implementing agency would then
have the freedom to use the most legal appropriate authority to remediate the site (e.g., Section
3008(h), groundwater monitoring corrective action pursuant to Section 264.100, CERCLA, state
cleanup programs). Remember that permits can be a source of NOVs, fines, penalties, and
lawsuits. EPA has proposed a means to avoid those problems while still providing for protection
of human health and the environment. Installations are encouraged to address this issue with
their regulators when units are ready for closure.
6.2 RCRA/CERCLA/DERP INTERACTION
The statute19 establishing the Defense Environmental Restoration Program (DERP) provides that
the “Secretary of Defense shall carry out a program of environmental restoration at facilities
under the jurisdiction of the Secretary.” It also prescribes that “activities of the program…be
carried out subject to, and in a manner consistent with, Section 120 (relating to Federal facilities)
of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980
(CERCLA).” Thus, while a base may be performing corrective action under RCRA, it is still
subject to, and must comply with remediation requirements under DERP and CERCLA.20
One practical consequence of this is that CERCLA 121(e), which exempts on-site response
actions from any federal, state, or local permits which would otherwise be required, applies to
installations which are conducting corrective action under RCRA, so that, for instance, a water
permit is not required to discharge treated remediation wastewater on-site. Corrective action
permits themselves are outside the permit exclusion, but they should not include requirements
19
20
10 U.S.C. section 2701
CERCLA section 120(1)(2) expressly provides as follows:
All guidelines, rules, regulations, and criteria that are applicable to preliminary assessments carried out under this
chapter for facilities at which hazardous substances are located, applicable to evaluations of such facilities under the
National Contingency Plan, applicable to inclusion on the National Priorities List, or applicable to remedial actions
at such facilities shall also be applicable to facilities which are owned or operated by a department, agency, or
instrumentality of the United States in the same manner and to the extent as such guidelines, rules, regulations, and
criteria are applicable to other facilities. No department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States may
adopt or utilize any such guidelines, rules, regulations, or criteria that are inconsistent with the
guidelines, rules, regulations, and criteria established by the Administrator under this chapter. (Emphasis
added.)
25
which are inconsistent with CERCLA and DERP, and must acknowledge the installation’s
CERCLA/DERP authorities and responsibilities. Another practical consequence is that because
Air Force installations have affirmative requirements to perform restoration under DERP which
the private sector does not have to follow, there is no need or statutory basis for Air Force
installations to enter into RCRA corrective action “voluntarily,” where the intent or practical
effect of such action is to nullify the Air Force’s responsibilities and authorities under CERCLA.
Furthermore, public notice and participation requirements under CERCLA apply whether or not
RCRA regulatory authorities feel there are analogous requirements under RCRA which need to
be satisfied. The bottom line is that while the regulatory authorities oversee responsibility for
achieving compliance with RCRA requirements, Air Force installations remain tasked with
assuring that their actions also comply with CERCLA. Any questions about supposed
inconsistencies in the application of the CERCLA and RCRA at the same site should be referred
to HQ USAF/ILEV, through the MAJCOM.
The RCRA corrective action process and the CERCLA remedial action process are very similar
programs. They follow roughly parallel procedures in responding to releases of contaminants
(Figure 2). Sometimes the two programs overlap. For example, where a contaminated site is an
active RCRA-permitted facility, we may consider whether the use of RCRA or CERCLA
authorities (or both) is most appropriate to accomplish cleanup of the site. The investigation and
cleanup of solid waste management units (SWMUs) as required by sections 3004(u), 3004(v),
3008(h), and 9003(h) of RCRA and 40 CFR 258.58 (Solid Waste Landfill Corrective Actions)
may be eligible for ERA funding. However, determining ERA-eligibility shall be accomplished
by MAJCOMs on a site-by-site basis in accordance with the aforementioned and as summarized
in Table 1.
Estimated
Duration
of Tasks
RCRA
vs
CERCLA
3-6
Months
RCRA
Facility Assessment
(RFA)
Preliminary
Assessment/
Site Investigation
(PA/SI)
Identify releases needi
further investigation
12-24
Months
RCRA
Facility Investigation
(RFI)
Remedial
Investigation
(RI)
Characterize nature,
extent, and rate of
contaminant releases
6-9
Months
Corrective Measure
Study
(CMS)
Feasibility
Study
(FS)
More than
6
Months
Corrective Measure
Implementation
(CMI)
Remedial Design/
Remedial Action
(RD/RA)
Evaluate/select
remedy
Design and
implementation of
chosen remedy
Figure 2
COMPARISON OF RCRA CORRECTIVE ACTION
AND CERCLA REMEDIAL PROCESSES
26
Table 1
ERA PRIORITIES FOR RCRA AND CERCLA RESPONSE ACTIVITIES
Activity
ERA
Eligible
DERP
Priority
1A,2A,3A
x
x
x
x
x
CERCLA response activities associated with a release
occurring before Jan 84
❐ specified in FFAs/IAGs
❐ other legal agreements/orders
❐ no legal agreements/orders
CERCLA Response activities associated with a release
occurring after Jan 84
❐ specified in FFAs/IAGs
❐ other legal agreements/orders
❐ no legal agreements/orders
RCRA response activities associated with a release
occurring before Jan 84 1, 2, 3, 4
DERP
Priority
1B,2B,3B
ECP
Eligible
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
❐ specified in FFAs/IAGs
❐ RCRA permit, NOV, et al.
RCRA response activities associated with a release
occurring after Jan 84 1, 2
x
x
❐ specified in FFAs/IAGs
❐ RCRA permit, NOV, et al.
CERCLA or RCRA response activities associated with a
sustained release which began prior to Jan 84 and1, 2, 3, 4
x
x
x
CERCLA or RCRA response activities associated with an
ongoing operation which contributes to an active
contaminant source5
1 RCRA Corrective Actions, RCRA Sections 3004(u), 3004(v), 3008(h), 9003(h).
2 Limited to cleanups associated with RCRA TSD Facility Closure requirements identified in the
WIMS-ES as of 30 September 1990.
3 Excludes RCRA Facility Assessments (RFAs).
4 Includes releases from in-service USTs discovered through integrity testing IAW 40 CFR 280 conducted
before 22 December 1993, and otherwise satisfy ERA eligibility criteria.
5 ERA eligibility is contingent upon HQ USAF/ILEVR review of Project Narrative.
The RCRA-CA and CERCLA programs also have several differences. Here are some
comparisons of those differences:
RCRA-CA
EPA Lead Agent
Subject to Fines
O&M/ECP or ERA Funds
Funds Not Fenced
Must Be POMed
CERCLA
AF Lead Agent
Sovereign Immunity
ERA Funds
Funds Fenced
Congressionally Appropriated
27
6.3 RCRA/NEPA INTEGRATION. This issue needs further review. This paragraph is a
place holder and reminder of this required action.
6.4 REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICES AND COUNSELS
6.4.1 REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICES
The HQ AFCEE Regional Environmental Offices (REOs) are a resource available to the
MAJCOMs and installations for advice and assistance regarding RCRA permitting and
corrective action requirements. The REOs monitor legislative rule making activities, review and
comment on proposed regulations, including corrective action requirements, and apprise
MAJCOMs and installations of new requirements when promulgated. When requested, the
REOs review and/or advise and assist in negotiating RCRA permits/permit modifications and
interim status Corrective Action Orders or modifications of those orders. The REOs interface
with Federal, state and/or local regulatory agencies to articulate the Air Force position
concerning risk-based corrective action, and communicate Air Force policies regarding use of
relative risk prioritization and the relationship of the different funding mechanisms for cleanup
activities. The REOs coordinate with HQ USAF, MAJCOMs, and installations as necessary to
achieve and maintain uniform and consistent approaches to corrective action in accordance with
Air Force policy and guidance. Further, the REOs promote inter-agency and inter-service
communication and cooperation through partnering teams and environmental work groups.
Additionally, the REOs and the AFLSA/JACE Regional Counsels maintain a close working
partnership to comprehensively address corrective action issues.
6.4.2 REGIONAL COUNSELS
The Regional Counsels assist both MAJCOMs and installations in the review of corrective action
permits, modifications, and other actions to ensure consistent application of law and Air Force
policy on a local and regional scale. Further, these offices serve as liaisons with other services
and Federal agencies to identify trends and problems in corrective action regulation. Judge
Advocates detailed to the Regions concentrate exclusively on environmental practice, offering
specialized on-line research and investigative services to the field. Because of their frequent
interaction with the regulatory community, they are in a unique position to represent the Air
Force during dispute resolution. Regional Counsels are detailed to facilitate and enhance
positive and productive work groups with regulators, as well as to negotiate formal agreements
when necessary. Through a coordinated effort with Air Staff, the MAJCOM and the installation,
Regional Counsels provide representation to the Air Force in litigation. This approach,
combined with the availability of technical support at each office, provides thorough analysis and
sound judgment in negotiated and litigated corrective action problems.
6.5 STATUS OF RCRA-CA AUTHORIZATION BY STATE. The EPA maintains the status
of RCRA-CA authorizations by state at the following world wide web site
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/state/maps/coract.pdf
28
7. AIR FORCE REFERENCES
AFI 32-7001. Environmental Budgeting, 9 May 94
AFI 32-7020: The Environmental Restoration Program
NFRAP Guide: A Resource for Making, Documenting, and Evaluating No Further Response
Action Planned Decisions (June 1995)
USAF Environmental Restoration Program Management Action Plan (MAP) Guidebook and
June 1995 update
8. EPA REFERENCES
8.1 Legally Binding References
- 40 CFR Part 264 Subpart F (§§ 264.90 - 264.101)
- 40 CFR Part 264 Subpart S (promulgated portions)—(§§ 264.552 & 264.553)
- 40 CFR § 270.4 (Effect of a permit)
- 40 CFR § 270.42 (Permit modification at the request of the permittee)
8.2 Guidance
- RCRA Corrective Action Plan (OSWER Dir 9902.3-2A, May 94)
- Subpart S Initiative – ANPR
- ASTM Risk Based Corrective Action (RBCA)
- Proposed--but not Promulgated--Portions of 40 CFR Part 264 Subpart S (55 Fed. Reg.
30798 [7/27/90])
- RCRA Public Participation Manual (EPA530-R-96-007)
29
ATTACHMENT 1
CA TOOLBOX: 21 Sources off Guidance for RCRA HSWA Corrective Action (edited)
Updated November 22, 1996
Comments are EPA Region 4 Interpretations
1. Proposed Subpart S (Vol. 55, No. 145, Friday, July 27, 1990). This remains the most official
guidance for RCRA Corrective Action, in general, besides the statute and 40 CFR 264.101. The
Advanced Notice of Public Rulemaking (ANPRM) for Corrective Action for Releases from
Solid Waste Management Units at Hazardous Waste Management Facilities; Proposed Rule, (FR
19432, May 1, 1996) introduces EPA’s latest strategy for finalizing Subpart S regulations. The
ANPRM discusses, “what works well in the corrective action process”, and gives the latest
proposals on RCRA HSWA flexibility and how corrective action may work in the future. For
quick reference, see Section III CA Implementation (p. 19440) and Section IV CA Program
Priorities (p.19455). [Available on the EPA HQ Web Site:
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/ca/sub122-1.txt and from the National Center for
Environmental Publications and Information (NCEPI), Document No. EPA OSWFR90012]
Advanced Notice of Public Rulemaking for Corrective Action for Releases from Solid Waste
Management Units at Hazardous Waste Management Facilities; Proposed Rule, (FR 19432,
May 1, 1996) [Available on the EPA HQ Web Site:
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/ca/subparts.htm and from NCEPI, Document No. EPA
530-Z-96003]
2. Final RCRA Corrective Action Plan (May 1994, EPA 520-R-94-004). This final document
is the basis for Appendices B (RFI) and C (CMS) of the model HSWA permit. This is mostly an
outline of approaches with less focus on technical or specific guidance. New developments in
the corrective action process are discussed, such as: streamlining, phased investigations, interim
measures to achieve stabilization, CAMUs/TUs, QAPP/DQOs and public involvement plans.
[This document is not listed with NCEPI, the National Technical Information System (NTIS), or
on any EPA Web site. Old copies may be available for use at EPA Libraries or other document
depositories, but it does not appear to be available for purchase or download.]
3. Interim Final RFI Guidance (May 1989, EPA 530/SW-89-031). This guidance is still the
basis for a lot of the fundamental concepts for investigations in RCRA. The Proposed Subpart S,
however, updates many of the “concepts” for approaching an investigation. See also the
ANPRM noted in #1 above. [Available from NCEPI]
4. Extent of Contamination And Scope Of Investigations (May1996). This Region 4 memo
attempts to answer the question - When is the investigation complete for RFIs and Confirmatory
Sampling? [Available on EPA Region IV Web Site:
http://www.epa.gov/region4/wastepgs/rcra/rpb.htm#RPBCA]
5. Risk Assessments in the HSWA Program (August 1996). This Region 4 memo attempts to
explain how the "risk assessment" concept fits into the RCRA corrective action process.
[Available on EPA Region IV Web Site:
http://www.epa.gov/region4/wastepgs/rcra/rpb.htm#RPBCA]
6. RCRA Permit Appeal Orders and Remands. HQ is currently organizing a complete
compendium of these. For now, the Region has several binders full of the decisions from 1989
to the present issued by the EPA Board of Appeals and the EPA Administrator (these are the
older decisions). Though occasionally cumbersome, these decisions remain good sources for
corrective action guidance. [Available on EPA HQ Web Site for the Environmental Appeals
Board: http://www.epa.gov/boarddec/eabrcr.htm]
7. EPA Soil Screening Guidance (User's Guide - April 1996 (EPA 540/R-96/0l8) & Fact Sheet
- June 1996 (Pub. 9355.4-l4FSA)). Originally intended for Superfund use, this tool can
standardize and accelerate the evaluation and cleanup of contaminated soils by developing riskbased numbers for screening out specific constituents at specific SWMUs. It considers
constituents leaching to groundwater and is essentially the “action level” concept applied to
Superfund “NPL sites with future residential land-use scenarios”. The SSL process includes
developing a conceptual site model and a S&P plan for surface soils. The current model HSWA
permit references this for soil action levels. [Available on EPA HQ Web Site:
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/oerr/soil/]
8. Risk-based Concentration Table (April 1996 and as updated). This Region 3 guidance is
also a practical application of the RCRA “action level” concept. One approach to using this and
the Draft Soil Screening Guidance is to reference the Proposed Subpart S as guidance and inform
permittees that these lists might provide a practical way to satisfy permit requirements in
accordance with the guidance. This table is updated quarterly. See also #5 above and #10 below
for specifics on the recommended use of this table. [Available on the EPA Region III Web Site:
http://www.epa.gov/reg3hwmd/riskmenu.htm?=Risk+Guidance]
9. Corrective Action Management Units and Temporary Units; Corrective Action Provisions;
Final Rule (February 16, 1993). These are concepts initially introduced in the Proposed Subpart
S to help facilities effectively perform corrective action given the restrictions of the Land
Disposal Regulations. Lawsuits have slowed the implementation of the CAMU Rule, and the
HWIR Contaminated Media Proposed Rule (Vol. 61, No. 83, April 29.1996) proposes to
withdraw the CAMU regulations. The purpose of the HWIR Contaminated Media Rule is
to “. . . develop more flexible management standards for media and wastes generated in the
course of site cleanups.” [Available from NCEPI] HWIR Contaminated Media Proposed Rule
(Vol. 61, No. 83, April 29, 1996) [Available from EPA 1996 Federal Register EPA-WASTE
Web Site: http://www.epa.gov/docs/fedrgstr/EPA-WASTE/1996/April/Day-29/pr-539.txt.html]
10. Supplemental Guidance to RAGS, Region 4 Bulletins on Human Health Risk Assessment
and Ecological Risk Assessment (November 1995). This guidance is intended mostly for
Superfund use as RCRA risk assessments are not specifically required by any formal program
guidance or regulation. It outlines Region 4 Superfund's approach to risk assessment and is a
good risk managers tool. RCRA's approach to risk assessments has never been formalized in
EPA HQ guidance. However, #5 above does recommend that HSWA risk assessments should
follow Superfund risk guidance, including this guidance (#10). [Available on EPA Region IV
Web Site: http://www.epa.gov/region4/wastepgs/oftecser/otsguid.htm]
11. Land Use in the CERCLA Remedy Selection Process (May 25, 1995, OSWER Directive
No. 9355.7-04). This HQ memo stresses that for Superfund, future land use decisions should be
more realistic so that clean up numbers are not too stringent and thus possibly technically
impractical. The directive states that, “remedial action objectives developed during the RFI/FS
should reflect the reasonably anticipated future land use.” It lists 19 sources and types of
information that might help in determining the “reasonably anticipated future land use.” This
means that, where appropriate, scenarios other than residential should be considered for
Superfund. The memo also implies that RCRA should do the same. The concept is similar to
that described in the Subpart S discussion on conditional remedies. [Available from the EPA
June 5, 1995 Federal Register EPA-WASTE Web Site: http://www.epa.gov/docs/fedrgstr/EPAWASTE/1995/June/Day-05/pr-240.html]
12. Guidance on RCRA Corrective Action Decision Documents: The
Statement of Bases Final Decision and Response to Comments (February 1991, EPA/540/G91/0ll). This is the latest for making the final corrective action decisions when modifying
permits. See also #1 above. [Available from NTIS]
13. Corrective Action Conference Calls. Scanning the latest couple of months summaries can
help you find the latest “trend” for anything that doesn't have final guidance. It can also lead to
an HQ contact. [Internal to EPA only]
14. Media Clean Up Standards/Conditional Remedy Paper (February 9, 1996). This regional
guidance clarifies how to set media clean up standards when selecting a conditional remedy.
[Available on EPA Region IV Web Site:
http://www.epa.gov/region4/wastepgs/rcra/condrem.pdf]
15. Management of Contaminated Media (December 28, 1992, Guidance Number TSC-92-02).
This regional memo discusses how to manage waste from an investigation and how to determine
if it is classified as hazardous or solid waste. [Available on EPA Region IV Web Site:
http://www.epa.gov/region4/wastepgs/rcra/contamme.pdf]
16. Technical Impracticability of Groundwater Remediation (October 4, 1994, OSWER
Directive 9234.2-025). This guidance clarifies how EPA will determine whether groundwater
restoration is technically impractical and what alternative measure or actions must be undertaken
to ensure the final remedy is protective of human health and the environment. This Technical
Impracticability decision can be part of the RFI, remedial action, or evaluation of remedy
performance. [Directive could not be located on any Web Site or for purchase from either NTIS
or NCEPI]
17. Presumptive Remedies. EPA has developed or is developing presumptive remedy
guidelines to streamline RFI site investigations and speed up the selection of cleanup actions and
help document a conditional remedy decision. Preferred technologies, sampling strategies,
preliminary remediation goals/risk-based concentrations limits and historical patterns of remedy
selection are discussed. Presumptive remedies are expected to be used at all appropriate sites.
Examples are as follows:
a. Fact Sheet: Policy and Procedures (Directive 9/93) [Available from NTIS];
b. Wood Treaters - soil, sediments and sludges (Directive 12/95; User's Guide 7/96)
[Available from NTIS];
c. Municipal Landfills (Directive 9/93) [Available from NTIS];
d. PCB Contaminated Sites (final) [Document could not be located on Web Sites or
from either NTIS or NCEPI];
e. Manufactured Gas Plants/Coal Gasification (draft 1/94) [Document could not be
located on Web Sites or from either NTIS or NCEPI];
f. Ex-Situ Treatment Technologies for Sites with Contaminated Groundwater (draft 7/95)
[Available on EPA HQ Web Site:
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/oerr/gwguide/gwfinal.pdf];
g. VOC Contaminated Soil - Site Characterization and Technology Selection (OSWER
Directive 9355.0-48FS, 09/93) [Available from NTIS];
h. Grain Fumigation Sites - Site Characterization and Remedy Selection for
Contaminated Groundwater (draft 6/94) [Document could not be located on Web
Sites or from either NTIS or NCEPI];
i. Metals Sites - soil and sediment (draft 8/96) [Document could not be located on Web
Sites or from either NTIS or NCEPI;
j. CERCLA Landfill Caps RI/FS Data Collection Guide (Directive 8/95) [Available
from NTIS].
18. Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Process for Designing And
Conducting Ecological Risk Assessments (Review Draft 09/26/94). USEPA Environmental
Response Team, Edison, NJ. An 8-Step process for ecological risk assessment. Based on recent
regional training, this is the guidance the experienced risk assessors recommend. [A summarized
version of this process document is present on the EPA Region IV Web site at:
http://www.epa.gov/region04/wastepgs/oftecser/otsguid.htm. Proposed Guidelines for
Ecological Risk Assessment EPA/630/R-95/002B, was published September 1996. The
guidelines are available from EPA HQ Web site at:
http://www.epa.gov/ordntrnt/ORD/WebPubs/ecorisk/index.html.]
19. RCRA Permit Policy Compendium. Originally compiled in late 1995, this is a reference for
the Regions and States of the HQ permitting policies and procedures. The most direct way to
access this is to search by a keyword an the computer. [Available for download at EPA HQ Web
Site: http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/permit/compend.htm]
20. Natural Attenuation (NA). Miscellaneous guidance, protocols and regional approaches
(draft 2/97) have been developed supporting natural attenuation. NA has been demonstrated at
groundwater sites contaminated with BTEX and chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons. Thus, NA is
being recognized as a “potentially viable corrective action alternative in certain site situations.”
NA decisions are never viewed as no action or do nothing alternatives. Typically, source
removal or containment and stabilization are required. Also, the facility should present a
comprehensive long-term monitoring program and contingency plans to demonstrate their
commitment to proving the effectiveness of natural attenuation as a remedial option. [EPA
Region IV Web Site: http://www.epa.gov/region4/wastepgs/oftecser/protoexp.pdf]
Directive 9200.4-17, Use of Monitored Natural Attenuation at Superfund, RCRA
Corrective Action, and Underground Storage Tank Sites (December 1, 1997) [Available on
EPA HQ Web Site: http://www.epa.gov/swerust1/directiv/d9200417.pdf]
21. EPA Rules of Thumb: Remedy Selection Process; Management Review Triggers; Remedy
Selection Summary Sheet. These drafts (11/96) are products of the Superfund Reform Effort are
receiving RCRA review and feedback. They correspond to three major policy areas in the
remedy selection/interim measures process: assessment and management of risk; treatment of
principal threat versus low-level threat wastes; and appropriate groundwater response actions.
The purpose of this initiative is to promote consistent, reasonable and cost-effective decisions.
[Available on EPA HQ Web Site:
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/oerr/techres/rulesthm/rulesthm.pdf]
Some of these documents and other policy memoranda are available from a EPA HQ Web site
entitled: Corrective Action for Hazardous Waste Professionals. The URL for this site is:
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/ca/index.htm