Jump to main content.


Integrated Cleanup Initiative Implementation Plan

Highlights and Updates

Broader Application of Remedial Design and Remedial Action Pilot Project Lessons Learned (OSWER Directive 9200.2-129) (PDF) (14 pp, 749K)


Integrated Cleanup Initiative Quarterly Update - April 2012 (PDF) (5 pp, 387K, About PDF)


Integrated Cleanup Initiative Quarterly Update - September 2011 (PDF) (9 pp, 198K, About PDF)


Integrated Cleanup Initiative Quarterly Update - July 2011 (PDF) (9 pp, 204K, About PDF)


Integrated Cleanup Initiative Fact Sheet (PDF) (1 pg, 50K, About PDF)


ICI Contacts

The Integrated Cleanup Initiative (ICI) Implementation Plan identifies specific actions that EPA’s Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) and the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) will evaluate and, where appropriate, undertake in order to meet the goal and objectives of the Initiative. Additional and alternate actions may be identified at a later date.

The ICI’s goal is to better use EPA’s Assessment and Cleanup Authorities, in an integrated, transparent, and accountable fashion, to address a greater number of contaminated sites, accelerate cleanups where possible, and put those sites back into productive use while protecting human health and the environment.

You will need the free Adobe Reader to view some of the files on this page. See EPA’s PDF page to learn more.

Integrated Cleanup Initiative Implementation Plan (PDF) (28 pp, 220K)

Objective 1: starting cleanups

Objective 2: advancing cleanups

Objective 3: completing cleanups

Objective 4: Evaluate performance metrics and the effectiveness of the ICI activities

List of acronyms used on this page

Objective 1: starting cleanups

Action 1 - Advance the assessment needs of sites on the Federal Facilities Hazardous Waste Docket

There are over 500 federally-owned contaminated sites (Federal Facilities) in EPA's hazardous waste database for which the disposition is either unknown or unclear. Data shows that some of these sites have not had any actions recorded for an extended period of time-in some instances, up to fifteen years. A workgroup has been developed to review these sites and determine which have been assessed and which have not, and whether any of these sites may pose threats to human health and the environment.

Read the entire action (PDF) (28 pp, 220K)

Top of page

Action 2 - Strengthen the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act’s (CERCLA) site assessment and listing processes

In itself, the Superfund Program represents a national site assessment program. While the program assesses a large number of sites, about 4 percent will be placed on the National Priorities List (NPL) and many, including those that are "NPL caliber," are often best addressed under other cleanup programs. The Superfund site assessment process is a multi-phase approach: starting with pre-CERCLIS screening and concluding with a decision to list a site on the NPL, to seek cleanup under another program, or to consider the site as not needing a response action. EPA utilizes the Hazard Ranking System (HRS) as the principal mechanism for determining whether a site is NPL caliber. In addition, the Superfund Program is implemented with significant work sharing with State programs.

Federal Register notice published on January 31, 2011 (PDF) (4 pp, 104K)

Addition of Vapor Intrusion to the Hazard Ranking System

EPA conducted a baseline assessment of the Superfund Alternative Approach - see fact sheet. (PDF) (30 pp, 3.1MB)

Summary of pilot study to assess the potential for streamlining the quality assurance review of HRS documentation (PDF) (3 pp, 282K)

Identifying Best Practices and Innovative Methods for Assessing Sites - Close-Out Report (PDF) (6 pp, 352K)

Evaluation of the Current Backlog of Non-Federal Sites to Determine if Appropriately in Queue - Close-Out Report (PDF) (5 pp, 372K)

Pilot for Fall 2010 NPL Proposed Rule - Lessons Learned, State-Prepared HRS Documentation Records (PDF) (3 pp, 233K)

Read the entire action (PDF) (28 pp, 220K)

Top of page

Action 3 - Process for early identification of responsible parties to support changes in site assessment, NPL listing and early enforcement activities

By finding PRPs as early in the cleanup process as possible, EPA can maximize the opportunities for PRP performance of work throughout the pipeline, including the removal and RI/FS stages, and preserve Trust Fund monies for sites where there are no responsible parties or where parties cannot or will not perform the cleanup. Current processes for initiating and completing PRP searches will be evaluated to identify potential opportunities for earlier and more thorough completions. Activities under Action 3 include:

PRP Search Benchmarking and Regional Practices Evaluation Final Report (PDF) (57 pp, 764K)

Read the entire action (PDF) (28 pp, 220K)

Top of page

Objective 2: advancing cleanups

Action 4 - Leverage Superfund removal and Brownfield authorities to advance cleanup and reuse

The Removal and Brownfields Programs present a great opportunity to leverage program resources to bring more sites from assessment to cleanup and reuse. Working across all regions, this effort will develop consistent approaches for linking and leveraging the Removal and Brownfields programs toward this goal.

Integrated Cleanup Initiative’s Best Practices for Leveraging Brownfields and Superfund Removal Authorities to Cleanup More Sites for Reuse (PDF) (12 pp, 96K)

Read the entire action (PDF) (28 pp, 220K)

Top of page

Action 5 - Opportunities to achieve Human Exposure Under Control at NPL Sites

EPA tracks the Superfund human exposure measure to communicate to the public progress being made towards protecting human health at Superfund National Priorities List (NPL) sites. The Human Exposure (HE) environmental indicator is designed to document long-term human health protection by measuring the incremental progress achieved in controlling unacceptable human exposures at Superfund NPL sites. Sites are assigned to the Under Control category when assessments for human exposures indicate there are no unacceptable human exposure pathways. When EPA does not have sufficient information to determine whether people are exposed at unsafe levels at a site, the site is characterized as Human Exposure Insufficient Data (HE ID). EPA will explore opportunities to facilitate bringing HE ID sites into the status of Under Control more quickly.

Status of Superfund Sites with a Human Exposure Determination of "Not Under Control," For Fiscal Year 2009 (PDF) (25 pp, 321K)

Read the entire action (PDF) (28 pp, 220K)

Top of page

Action 6 - Improve efficiency of administrative grant and contracting processes

The Superfund Program (e.g., remedial, removal, enforcement, and federal facilities) annually expends more than half a billion dollars to fund or oversee site work. Work at these sites is performed through Potentially Responsible Parties or federal facilities with EPA oversight, EPA-awarded contracts, interagency assisted acquisitions, and by States through cooperative agreements. The Program depends on a suite of tools, including contracts that are flexible enough to meet the Program’s needs while using responsible procurement practices. EPA will explore opportunities to improve efficiency within the Superfund contracting processes.

EPA is undertaking a comprehensive review of process changes to help speed the delivery of brownfields grant resources to cooperative agreement recipients. The scope of the potential changes will include the proposal review processes, the Headquarters selection decision process (including press releases), the Regional award process, and the post award processes for any modifications needed to the cooperative agreement scope of work or timeline.

Superfund Contracts 2010 Strategy Report (PDF) (25 pp, 151K)

Superfund Remedial Construction Delivery Analysis Report (PDF) (29 pp, 2MB)

Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation Remedial Acquisition Strategy (PDF) (27 pp, 753K)

Read the entire action (PDF) (28 pp, 220K)

Top of page

Action 7 - Streamline, as appropriate, Superfund remedial boards and panels

EPA established the cross regional National Remedy Review Board (NRRB) and the Contaminated Sediments Technical Advisory Group (CSTAG) to improve national consistency in Superfund remedy selection, improve remedy cost-effectiveness, confirm that decision-making at high cost sites is technically sound, and ensure that decisions are in accordance with current laws, regulations, and guidance.

Proposed operational changes for the CSTAG and NRRB (PDF) (2 pp, 44K)

CSTAG NRRB Operational changes Response to Comments (PDF) (3 pp, 219K)

Final CSTAG NRRB Operational Changes (PDF) (2 pp, 243K)

Read the entire action (PDF) (28 pp, 220K)

Top of page

Action 8 - Opportunities to improve the timeliness, transparency, and quality of remedy decision documents at Superfund sites

Remedy Decision Documents legally document the Agency’s remedy selection decision and remedial action plan for the site. These decision documents, among other things, provide the public with a summary of the basis and rationale for the selected remedy. This area is critical because remedy selection becomes the foundation for all future activities at sites. EPA will evaluate the Remedial Investigation /Feasibility Study /Cleanup Decision Making Processes that have evolved over the past 30 years to look for ways to improve efficiency and transparency.

National Association of Regional Project Managers training program

Memorandum concerning Elevating Site-Specific Superfund Remedy Selection Issues (PDF) (4 pp, 2.6MB)

Read the entire action (PDF) (28 pp, 220K)

Top of page

Action 9 - Record of Decision (ROD) improvement for Federal Facilities (Accelerating and Improving Remedy Decisions)

Develop approaches to improve the quality, timeliness, transparency, and community involvement of Records of Decision documents at Federal Facilities. This action will involve developing a ROD Toolkit, a collection of examples of supplemental graphics, figures, and tables that can make a ROD more succinct and understandable. It will address the need to ensure transparency with regards to the ICs selected and the associated land use restrictions that are part of the selected remedy. The ROD Toolkit will be fully consistent with EPA’s A Guide to Preparing Superfund Proposed Plans, Records of Decision, and Other Remedy Selection Decision Documents (EPA, July 1999).

Federal Facilities progress under the ICI

Read the entire action (PDF) (28 pp, 220K)

Top of page

Action 10 - Opportunities to provide greater support in optimizing cleanup of Superfund sites

EPA is continuously seeking to improve the performance, protectiveness and cost efficiency of its Superfund remedies while also exploring opportunities to reduce the impacts of these remedies. Remedy optimization is a set of tools to help evaluate remedies and achieve these goals. It may include third-party site-wide evaluations conducted by expert teams, the use of mathematical tools (e.g., statistical models, decision support and optimization software) to determine optimal operating parameters or monitoring networks, or the consideration of emerging technologies and strategies. EPA has applied these tools to a limited extent over the past ten years, but this action seeks to broaden the application and advances in these tools to sites throughout the cleanup process.

Opportunities to provide greater support in optimizing cleanup of Superfund sites.

Read the entire action (PDF) (28 pp, 220K)

Top of page

Action 11 - Expedite response action by holding all parties accountable to negotiation timeframes and scheduled cleanup commitments

The Superfund enforcement program plays a critical role in helping to achieve timely cleanups by responsible parties. EPA recently issued a revised negotiations policy for remedial design/remedial action (RD/RA) which emphasizes promptly concluding negotiations with PRPs and more aggressively using our enforcement tools. As this policy is implemented, EPA will pursue additional opportunities to expedite the initiation and completion of negotiations with responsible parties in order to begin cleanups as soon as practicable.

The Superfund Enforcement program works to ensure responsible parties meet the cleanup commitments they have made under Superfund enforcement instruments (e.g., consent decrees, administrative orders on consent, unilateral administrative orders, federal facility agreements). EPA recently issued guidance on identifying and tracking substantial noncompliance (SNC) with enforcement instruments that require PRPs to perform work at Superfund sites. EPA also modified CERCLIS, the primary Superfund data system, to facilitate efficient tracking of substantial noncompliance. Building upon these efforts, EPA will explore opportunities to ensure timely and appropriate enforcement responses to bring parties into compliance to ensure cleanups are completed in a timely manner.

Options for Responding to Deficient Deliverables from PRPs (PDF) (7 pp< 386K)

Read the entire action (PDF) (28 pp, 220K)

Top of page

Action 12 - Earlier enforcement in the Pipeline at Removal and RI/FS Stages

The Superfund enforcement program helps get potentially responsible parties (PRPs) to perform removal actions at contaminated sites, which allows Trust Fund monies to be used at other removal sites and increases the number of removals performed overall. EPA will explore opportunities to increase and maximize the involvement of PRPs in removal activities at Superfund sites.

Promoting Enforcement First for Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Studies at Superfund Sites (PDF) (11 pp, 410K)

Read the entire action (PDF) (28 pp, 220K)

Top of page

Action 13 - Effective use of enforcement authorities at RCRA corrective action facilities to ensure timely and protective cleanups

EPA and authorized States have set a goal of attaining final remedy construction at 95 percent of the 3,747 facilities on the RCRA Corrective Action 2020 baseline to clean up environmental contamination at RCRA hazardous waste treatment, storage and disposal facilities by the year 2020 (2020 Corrective Action Goal). To achieve this goal, EPA will look to increasing, and encouraging States to increase, enforcement capacity and develop, promote and communicate nationally consistent enforcement and compliance assurance principles, practices, and tools. In addition, EPA will work with States to evaluate cleanup progress and identify RCRA corrective action facilities where enforcement may be appropriate to help further the 2020 Corrective Action goal.

Transmittal of the National Enforcement Strategy for RCRA Corrective Action (PDF) (30 pp, 476K)

Best Practices to Enhance Coordination in the RCRA Program (PDF) (4 pp, 321K)

Read the entire action (PDF) (28 pp, 220K)

Top of page

Action 14 - Partner with states, territories and tribes to address the backlog of Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) sites

EPA is conducting an in-depth analysis of the leaking underground storage tank backlog in partnership with 14 States. The analysis will characterize the backlog of LUST releases within these 14 States to better understand the scope of cleanup work remaining in the tanks program. The analysis will be completed in the 4th Quarter of 2011 and will suggest opportunities for EPA and States to pursue state-specific and national strategies to address the backlog of LUST releases.

The National LUST Cleanup Backlog: A Study Of Opportunities

Read the entire action (PDF) (28 pp, 220K)

Top of page

Action 15 - Evaluate the impacts of brownfields assessment and cleanup grants

In an effort to better understand and demonstrate program benefits, OSWER is conducting a national evaluation of the socioeconomic impacts of brownfields assessment and cleanup grants to determine how the Brownfields Program benefits the people and communities who reside near contaminated or formerly contaminated land (e.g., by improving values of nearby properties, reducing vacancy rates, or attracting capital investment.) Through the use of an evaluation design, we will attempt to determine the extent to which Brownfields grants result in reuse and the improved socioeconomic conditions of surrounding areas.

Read the entire action (PDF) (28 pp, 220K)

Top of page

Objective 3: Completing cleanups

Action 16 -- Meet the RCRA Corrective Action 2020 Goals

EPA is working closely with its State partners to achieve the 2020 Corrective Action Goal, an aspirational goal to achieve remedy constructions and human health and groundwater environmental indicators for 95% of the 3,747 facilities believed to need corrective action. EPA has met its annual targets for these goals in part due to the corrective action reforms during the late 1990s and the training and program improvement implemented during the early 2000s. Close coordination within EPA and with the 43 States authorized for RCRA corrective action, as well as the utilization of available tools and resources (including the many State voluntary cleanup programs), was key in enabling EPA to meet its goals and will be key as EPA and its State partners continue to make progress toward attaining our 2020 Corrective Action Goal.  Action 13, using enforcement authorities where appropriate, is also an essential component of accelerating cleanup progress to attain our 2020 Corrective Action Goal.

Read the entire action (PDF) (28 pp, 220K)

Top of page

Action 17 - Accelerate and improve the management of Superfund remedial projects

A number of initiatives are underway to explore cost effective options for accelerating remedial action projects and for otherwise improving the way we manage Superfund remedial projects to completion. In some cases, site-specific pilots will demonstrate the effectiveness of region-specific best practices, while in others they are designed to evaluate the potential benefit of new approaches to site project management.

Action Plan for Managing Superfund Remedial Projects to Completion through the Integrated Cleanup Initiative (PDF) (39 pp, 868K)

Davis Liquid Waste Superfund Site Project Management Pilot - final report (PDF) (16 pp, 598K)

Ellenville Scrap Iron and Metal Superfund Site Project Management Pilot - Final Report (PDF) (107 pp, 9.6MB)

Flash Cleaners Superfund Site Project Management Pilot - Final Report (PDF) (23 pp, 1.2MB)

South Jersey Clothing Company & Garden State Cleaners Superfund Sites Project Management Pilot - Final Report (PDF) (32 pp, 4MB)

Use of Special Account Funds to Facilitate Work Settlements with Potentially Responsible Parties and to Expedite the Cleanup of Superfund Sites - memorandum (PDF) (3 pp, 600K)

Broader Application of Remedial Design and Remedial Action Pilot Project Lessons Learned (OSWER Directive 9200.2-129) (PDF) (14 pp, 749K)

Status of Pilots Projects - Progress Report No. 1 - September 2011 (PDF) (5 pp, 747K)

Status of Pilots Projects - Progress Report No. 2 - September 2012 (PDF) (7 pp, 766K)

OSRTI asked the regions for a list of their highest priorities for Superfund remedial site support. OSRTI’s response to regional feedback can be found here. (PDF) (10 pp, 1.8MB)

Action Plan for Managing Superfund Remedial Projects to Completion Progress Report, February 2012 (PDF) (12 pp, 429K)

Read the entire action (PDF) (28 pp, 220K)

Top of page

Action 18 - Revitalization, Institutional Controls, and Five Year Review activities

Institutional controls (ICs) are administrative or legal controls that help to minimize the potential for human exposure to contamination and/or protect the integrity of a response action by limiting land or resource use or by providing information to prevent unsafe exposure. One barrier EPA and others have faced in determining the effectiveness of ICs is the lack of reliable information on the site-specific status of ICs. ICs at construction completion NPL sites are being recorded in the institutional controls tracking component of the Superfund Enterprise Management System (SEMS to help ensure the long-term effectiveness of ICs. In addition, guidance is needed to provide information for planning, implementing, monitoring, and enforcing ICs.

Under CERCLA, a five-year review (FYR) may be required or appropriate when a remedial action leaves hazardous substances on a site at levels that do not allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. Each fiscal year, OSRTI prepares an annual Report to Congress documenting completion of FYRs at sites and their protectiveness determinations. OSRTI tracks the implementation of FYR recommendations that are necessary to make sites protective.

To improve management controls for five year reviews conducted at federal facilities, FFRRO and FFEO will develop a policy memorandum to the Regions that will outline procedures for tracking, monitoring and implementing five year review recommendations; resolving nonconcurrence of protectiveness statements; and clarify enforcement tools and strategies that are available for submission of late, or technically inadequate reports.

Program Priorities for Federal Facility Five Year Reviews (PDF) (10 pp, 2.4MB)

List of Follow-up Response Actions to Ensure Protectiveness at Sites Determined to be "Not Protective" in FY 2008 (Updated) and 2009 Five-Year Reviews (May 26, 2011). (PDF) (7 pp, 564K)

Transmittal of OSWER Directive "Recommended Evaluation of Institutional Controls: Supplement to the ’Comprehensive Five-Year Review Guidance’" (PDF) (28 pp, 2.2MB)

Improve Community Understanding of Five-Year Reviews - Silver Bow Creek/Butte Area Five-year Review Pilot Report (PDF) (4 pp, 233K)

Final PIME Guidance - Planning, Implementing, Maintaining, and Enforcing Institutional Controls at Contaminated Sites (PDF) (40 pp, 452K)

A Guide to Preparing Institutional Control Implementation and Assurance Plans at Contaminated Sites (PDF) (16 pp, 159K)

Fiscal Year 2011 Superfund Five-Year Review Report to Congress (PDF) (15 pp, 968K)

Read the entire action (PDF) (28 pp, 220K)

Top of page

Action 19 - Link cleanup and revitalization efforts for contaminated sites, including petroleum brownfields

OUST is working in conjunction with EPA’s Office of Brownfields and Land Revitalization (OBLR) and EPA’s Office of Sustainable Communities to deliver technical assistance and provide information to promote the revitalization of former gas stations and other petroleum-contaminated sites. Working in partnership with State and Regional tank programs, local planners and community groups, OUST will identify policy, technical and legal barriers to the reuse of petroleum brownfield sites, with an emphasis on corridor development. Communications and outreach assistance will be used to enhance resource coordination as well as assessment and corrective action planning to support community-inspired redevelopment and other Agency and State initiatives related to sustainability, sustainable communities, and area-wide planning.

Opportunities for Petroleum Brownfields (PDF) (56 pp, 1MB)

Read the entire action (PDF) (28 pp, 220K)

Top of page

Objective 4: Evaluate performance metrics and the effectiveness of the ICI activities

Action 20 - Performance Metrics

OSWER is reviewing our existing performance measures considering transparency, integration of our various authorities and managing to project completions. By presenting performance results in a clear and integrated fashion, we hope to promote greater analysis and an improved understanding of our program.

EPA established an initial FY2011 target of Remedial Action Project Completions in the FY 2011 EPA Congressional Justification (see FY 2011 EPA Planning and Budgeting website)

EPA developed tools to ensure consistent reporting in the Superfund Program Implementation Manual FY 11; Appendix B: Response Actions (PDF) (94 pp, 985K)

Close out procedures for NPL sites

FY2011-FY2015 Strategic Plan

Read the entire action (PDF) (28 pp, 220K)

Top of page

Action 21 - Measure the effectiveness of the ICI activities and report annually on ICI

EPA is using a variety of tools to improve transparency and integration of OSWER’s cleanups. EPA plans to measure progress implementing this plan as well as assessing the quality or effectiveness of the tools or approaches used in the plan.

Read the entire action (PDF) (28 pp, 220K)

Top of page

Action 22 - EPA/DoD Goal Harmonization Project

Inconsistencies in measuring and reporting program accomplishments within and across governmental organizations may result in: 1) potential misunderstandings by stakeholders regarding program progress and accomplishments, and 2) potential increase in costs and delays. EPA and DoD are committed to working together to harmonize the critical performance measures for assessing Federal Facility and Superfund site cleanup progress. The EPA/DoD Measures Harmonization Workgroup is providing a process for the two agencies to work collaboratively to determine a consistent, transparent approach to performance measures currently used to indicate progress across these cleanup programs.

Recommendations from DoD and EPA Goal Harmonization Worgroup (PDF) (19 pp, 983K)

Read the entire action (PDF) (28 pp, 220K)

Top of page

Action 23 - Improve communication with other federal agencies on measuring cleanup performance

EPA has a set of environmental cleanup metrics for Superfund cleanups. In the case where a different federal agency is responsible for the cleanup, that agency has its own cleanup metrics. Therefore, EPA takes the initiative to notify other federal agencies of their site cleanup progress and future planned accomplishments in a yearly letter. This correspondence updates them on recent FFRRO initiatives, but more importantly, provides the agencies with their planned site data on near-term Construction Complete, Sitewide Ready for Anticipated Use, Five-Year Review, and Environmental Indicator data.

2010 EPA Letters Regarding Remediation Metrics and GPRA Measures (PDF) (85 pp, 8MB)

2011 EPA Letters Regarding Remediation Metrics and GPRA Measures (PDF) (8 pp, 1MB)

Read the entire action (PDF) (28 pp, 220K)

Top of page

Action 24 - FFRRO Regional target performance and statistical data analysis

EPA is providing new internal tools and support in an effort to improve future planning of site cleanups in the Federal Response Program. EPA is leading an effort which analyzes a variety of measures and variables, such as current regional targeting practices and historical accomplishment performance, in order to increase the success rate of cleanup target predictions.

Analysis of EPA’s Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse Office (FFRRO) Regional Program Performance (PDF) (22 pp, 454K)

Read the entire action (PDF) (28 pp, 220K)

Top of page

Action 25 - Increase the consistency and reduce the cost of Quality Assurance Project Plans (QAPPs) in OSWER Programs

A QAPP presents the steps that should be taken to ensure that environmental data collected are of the correct type and quality required for a specific decision or use. It integrates technical and quality control aspects of a project throughout its life-cycle, including planning, implementation, assessment, and corrective actions. As discovered by GAO at Federal cleanups, QAPPs are widely inconsistent for similar types of projects. The timeline and cost associated with QAPP development and approval directly affects the desired cleanup goals - such as cost-effectiveness, efficiency, and reuse of property.

Uniform Federal Policy for QA Project Plans (PDF) (45 pp, 302K)

Read the entire action (PDF) (28 pp, 220K)

Top of page

Action 26 - Report reuse and revitalization benefits from land cleanup programs

To communicate in a more integrated fashion the progress and benefits of OSWER’s programs, OSWER will release an annual report on our progress. The 2010 report will integrate all of OSWER’s cleanup programs and report on the following three indicators or measures: 1) the universe of sites that OSWER is currently involved with; 2) the number of sites and acres at which there is no complete pathway for human exposure based on current site conditions (Protective for People); and 3) the number of sites and acres that are Ready for Anticipated Use. [Ready for Anticipated Use indicates that the site is a) protective for people; b) all cleanup goals have been achieved for media that may affect current or future use; and c) all institutional controls or other controls to help ensure long-term protection have been put in place.] The full scope of land in the U.S. that is currently contaminated and in need of assessment and cleanup is much larger than what is shown in the universe indicator. There are many other sites that are tracked only at the State or local level.

Hedonic Analysis of the Impact of LUST Sites on House Prices in Frederick, Baltimore, and Baltimore City Counties

Preliminary Stated-Preference Research on the Impact of LUST Sites on Property Values: Focus Group Results

Valuing the Benefits of Superfund Site Remediation: Three Approaches to Measuring Localized Externalities

OSWER FY 11 Accomplishment Report (PDF) (35 pp, 616K)

Handbook on the Benefits, Costs, and Impacts of Land Cleanup and Reuse

Does Cleanup of Hazardous Waste Sites Raise Housing Values? Evidence of Spatially Localized Benefits

Read the entire action (PDF) (28 pp, 220K)

Top of page

List of acronyms used on this page

ACRES: Assessment, Cleanup, and Redevelopment Exchange System
BRAC: Base Closure and Realignment Commission
CERCLA: Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
CERCLIS: Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System
CPA: Center for Program Analysis
CSTAG: Contaminated Sediments Technical Advisory Group
DOE: U.S. Department of Energy
DOJ: U.S. Department of Justice
DOD: U.S. Department of Defense
EPA: Environmental Protection Agency
FFEO: Federal Facilities Enforcement Office
FFRRO: Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse Office
FY: Fiscal Year
FYR: Five Year Review
GPRA: Government Performance and Results Act
HE ID: Human Exposure Insufficient Data
HQ: Headquarters
HRS: Hazard Ranking System
IC: Institutional Controls
ICI: Integrated Cleanup Initiative
ICTS: Institutional Controls Tracking System
IPCO: Innovation, Partnerships, and Communication Office
LUST: Leaking Underground Storage Tank
NASA: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NCEE: National Center for Environmental Economics
NPL: National Priorities List
NRRB: National Remedy Review Board
OA: Office of the Administrator
OAM: Office of Acquisition Management
OARM: Office of Administration and Resource Management
OBLR: Office of Brownfields and Land Revitalization
OECA: Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
OEM: Office of Emergency Management
OGC: Office of General Counsel
OGD: Office of Grants and Debarment
OPEI: Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation
OPM: Office of Program Management
ORCR: Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery
OSBP: Office of Small Business Programs
OSRE: Office of Site Remediation Enforcement
OSRTI: Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation
OSWER: Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
OUST: Office of Underground Storage Tanks
PCB: Polychlorinated biphenyl
PRP: Potentially Responsible Party
RA: Remedial Action
RCRA: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RCRAInfo: Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System
RD/RA: Remedial Design/Remedial Action
RI/FS: Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
ROD: Record of Decision
SAA: Superfund Alternative Approach
SNC: Substantial Noncompliance
SRMAC: Senior Regional Management Acquisition Council
USACE: United States Army Corps of Engineers
UST: Underground Storage Tanks

Top of page

OSWER Home | Customer Satisfaction Survey


Local Navigation


Jump to main content.